No. 1998.
206
Crude Oil Characterization and PVT Studies on Prudhoe Bay
Heavy Oil/Tar Mat
Raj Srivastava and Arden Strycker, BDM Petroleum Technology, Bartlesville,
Oklahoma, USA; and Richard Charles, PENCOR Group of Companies, Broussard,
Louisiana, USA
Abstract
The Prudhoe Bay field, located at north coast of Alaska, is
characterized by a variable thickness heavy oil/tar (HOT)
zone lying just above the water-oil contact and below the light
oil column. Oil-in-place for the HOT zone is estimated at over
1.5 billion reservoir barrels. A joint industry study has been
undertaken with the goal of developing a suitable recovery
process for the HOT zone.
In order to develop an economically viable process, the
characterization of the oil and simulation of the candidate
recovery process are essential steps. However, the actual data
on rock and fluid properties for HOT are scarce. There is also
potential to use enriched gas injection for oil recovery from
the HOT zone. Since the overlain light oil column is undergo-
ing tertiary gas injection, a source of enriched hydrocarbon
gas is available for the purpose. To assess the suitability of
gas injection process, PVT data on oil-injection gas systems
are required. This paper discusses oil characterization and
PVT data generated using bottom hole samples of live oil and
surface samples collected from the reservoir. The results of
PVT studies conducted with the live oil and an enriched injec-
tion gas are also presented.
The studies conducted on the various oil samples obtained
from the Prudhoe Bay HOT zone indicated that the viscosity of
the live oil at the reservoir temperature and pressure condi-
tions was surprisingly low and was comparable to oil found in
the light oil column. The asphaltene content was high as
expected. Since the hydrocarbons in the zone were thought to
have been relatively immobile based on previous logs, the
research focus is being shifted to the fluid analysis of
extracted core plug samples.
Introduction
The Prudhoe Bay oil field is located about 250 miles (402 km)
north of the Arctic circle on the north coast of Alaska. The
field was discovered in 1968 and is known to be the largest oil
field in North America.1 Over 95% of the field reserves are
found in the Ivishak Sandstone Formation of the Sadlerochit
Group.2 For this reason it is also referred to as the Sadlerochit
Reservoir or Sadlerochit Sandstone or the Main area. Other
1
intervals include Sag River Formation and Shublik formation
or Eileen area.1 The Sadlerochit formation is a fluvial-deltaic
sequence of sediments consisting of sandstones, conglomer-
ates and shales with an average thickness of 550 ft.3,4,5
At discovery, the reservoir had a large gas cap in contact
with the oil zone covering approximately two thirds of the col-
umn. The gas-oil contact in the Main area was found to occur
at a subsea depth of about 8,578 ft. The oil-water contact was
found irregular and slightly titled ranging between 8,990 and
9,050 ft. The Main area contained over 22 billion stock tank
barrels of oil and 40 trillion standard cubic foot of gas origi-
nally in place.1
The oil zone is considered to consist of a light-oil column
(LOC) overlying a relatively low API gravity crude oil zone.
This zone is termed the heavy-oil/tar (HOT) zone. The maxi-
mum oil thickness in the Main area was 465 ft versus 205 ft in
the West End. The maximum thickness of LOC in the field
exceeded 400 ft. The reservoir original pressure was approxi-
mately 4,400 psi at 8,800 ft.
HOT interval occurs throughout the Main area immediately
above the water contact. The thickness of the zone varies from
20–80 ft. HOT zone is pillow shaped with an irregular base
varying from 8,969–9,069 ft subsea. It is lacking in the west
end where oil-water contact is generally 50–60 ft shallower
than the Main area. The accumulation is thickest where the oil
column is deepest. The thinner areas are generally found in
the southeastern one-third of the field. The zone is separated
from the LOC by shale complexes having limited vertical per-
meability. The shale areas exhibit low to moderate continuity.
HOT zone is estimated to contain 1.5 billion reservoir barrels
of hydrocarbons. It is considered to be largely immobile with
low oil saturation. It plays an important role in reservoir per-
formance by acting as a partial barrier to water influx.1
There is a very large associated aquifer at the bottom of the
oil rim. The rock quality in the aquifer is poorer than in the
hydrocarbon column. The formation water has an average
salinity of about 18,000 ppm NaCl.
Fluid Properties
Fluid properties are fairly well established for the light-oil col-
umn but are still uncertain in the HOT zone. Oil gravity in
LOC of the Main area varies from about 30° API at the gas-oil
contact to about 26°API immediately above the HOT zone. It
decreases rapidly below this value in the HOT interval to less
than 15° API.6 The oil viscosity in LOC ranges from 0.5–1.2
cP at the reservoir conditions and the solution gas-oil ratio
(GOR) varies from about 900–650 scf/stb (162–117 sm3/m3).
Initial reservoir pressure in the Main area ranges from 4,335
psi at the gas-oil contact to about 4,480 psi at the water-oil
contact. The reservoir temperature varies both arealy and lat-
erally and ranges from about 185–240°F.1 Table 1 summarizes
the fluid properties for the Prudhoe Bay reservoir HOT zone.
Objective
Since the discovery of the reservoir, LOC has been the target
of oil recovery. Waterflooding of the reservoir followed by
CO2 miscible flooding is being utilized for the enhanced oil
recovery. As the light oil production and resource declines,
alternate targets are being investigated to enhance production
and reserve. A cooperative work between BP Exploration, Inc.
(BPX) and BDM-Oklahoma was initiated to develop a recov-
ery process for the heavy oil resident above the oil-water con-
tact and beneath the LOC at Prudhoe Bay. Primary production
and waterflooding recovery factor for HOT has been estimated
to be quite low, about 2–3.5% of the original heavy oil in
place. Approximately 7.5 Bscfd of gas is currently being
coproduced, processed, and reinjected at Prudhoe Bay. Hence,
gas injection appears to be a suitable alternative. Several gas
injection processes will need to be evaluated for improving the
heavy oil recovery. Oil characterization and simulation of can-
didate recovery processes will form essential steps in develop-
ing a viable economic system to implement the heavy oil
recovery.
Heavy oil viscosity is expected to be the most important
parameter affecting the heavy oil recovery. Viscosity affects
the heavy oil mobility, injectivity, and well productivity. The
first goal of this project is to design and conduct laboratory
pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) experiments and to
develop an equation-of-state (EOS) model for predicting and
correlating the heavy oil phase behavior and PVT properties.
The second goal of this work is to validate the phase behavior
model by conducting laboratory coreflood experiments and
performing compositional simulations. The phase behavior
model will then be used in compositional simulations to eval-
uate various heavy oil recovery processes. An economically
viable candidate recovery method would be evaluated in a
field pilot test. This presentation focuses on the first goal.
2
Experimental
Phase behavior studies on the surface and bottom hole sam-
ples received from Prudhoe Bay reservoir HOT zone were
conducted in a PVT apparatus. Figure 1 depicts the set up. The
unit is equipped with a PVT cell connected to a capillary tube
viscometer and an on-line densitometer for measurements.
The experimental apparatus consists of a mercury-free vari-
able volume high pressure cell housed in an oven and con-
nected to a dual piston Temco pump. The PVT system is
currently rated to 10,000 psi maximum working pressure at
250°F. The apparatus allows visual observation of the content
and interface location through a glass viewing window located
at the fluid end with the help of a cathetometer. A linear trans-
ducer (LVDT) is attached to the front face of the piston for
accurate volume measurement. There are provisions to mea-
sure the cell temperature at two locations deep in the body. A
pressure transducer mounted on the cell measures the fluid
pressure. The cell can be rocked with the help of a motor
assembly for mixing the cell contents. An inlet port located at
the bottom of the cell can be used to sample the aqueous
phase. Another port located at the top can be used to sample
the vapor phase. The cell can be tilted to aid in sampling any
phase, if required.
The PVT cell was connected on-line to a Anton Paar model
DMA 512 densitometer and to a capillary tube viscometer for
measuring density and viscosity of the phases. To minimize
pressure effects during viscosity measurement, the capillary
coil was inserted in a 3/8” diameter stainless steel tube. The
interior of this tube was filled with a pressure medium and was
maintained at the pressure of measurement. These units were
located in the oven for measurement at the temperature and
various pressures of interest. Standard procedures were used
to calibrate these units, PVT cell and LVDT.
A unit required for a flash of the pressurized oil sample and
the measurement of gas-oil ratio (GOR) was also constructed.
This allowed separation of a pressurized fluid sample into
atmospheric gas and liquid phases for chromatographic analy-
sis. The purpose of the unit was to obtain as close as possible a
C6- gas phase and a C7+ liquid phase. This unit was modified
to accommodate the extremely foamy oil we encountered dur-
ing the first flash of the fluid from well F–17A which is from
Prudhoe Bay’s heavy oil zone.
Results
Stock Tank Samples from Wells
DS 9–31B and F–17A and DS9–31B
Simulated Reservoir Fluid
We received initially stock tank oil samples from Prudhoe Bay
wells DS 9–31B and F–17A at a depth interval within the
heavy oil zone. The samples contained from 4–48 wt% water.
Hence, they were centrifuged at 20,000 RPM to separate
water. Compositional analyses and physical property mea-
surements on these samples were completed. The composi-
tional analyses included a detailed hydrocarbon analysis
(PIANO) up to C9- and a simulated distillation (ASTM-D
5307) to a C40+. The two were tied together for a complete
analysis. Results for the original sample were adjusted for the
lighter end components lost in the centrifuge process.
The compositional distributions of the two samples are
compared in Figure 2, and the physical property measure-
ments are presented in Table 2. Except for the measured vis-
cosity at ambient conditions, the two samples were very
similar.
EOS Model and Viscosity Correlation
The surface samples were evaluated for use in generating a
reservoir fluid sample by laboratory recombination with a syn-
thesized separator gas. The purpose was to obtain preliminary
estimate of the PB heavy oil properties. The compositional
analysis was used to represent the DS9–31B oil in terms of the
EOS pseudocomponents in the Prudhoe Bay fluid character-
ization. The fluid characterization was originally developed
and extensively validated from the light oil data. British Petro-
leum Inc. (BPX) has extended the characterization for model-
ing of the heavy oil phase behavior by adding an asphaltene
pseudocomponent. The EOS characterization was applied to
predict the density and viscosity of the DS9–31B sample in
order to help evaluate surface samples, design laboratory PVT
experiments, and obtain preliminary estimates of the heavy oil
fluid properties. The shift parameter and the critical z-factor of
the asphaltene pseudocomponent were adjusted, respectively,
to match the crude oil density and viscosity measurements.
EOS predicted density of the oil at 68°F was found to be 0.921
g/cm3 against measured 0.926 g/cm3 and viscosity to be 101.8
cP against measured 98.5 cP. The agreement between the mea-
sured and predicted values was considered satisfactory and
was used to determine the composition of separator gas.
Composition of Separator Gas for
Recombination
Composition of separator gas to be recombined with the DS9-
31B sample was calculated as follows. An estimate of the
heavy oil composition at a depth of 8,990 ft subsea was avail-
able from a BPX study, which modeled compositional segre-
gation with depth in the Prudhoe Bay field. This model oil
composition was used to simulate the sampling process and
3
predict the composition of sampled stock tank oil. The pre-
dicted stock tank oil composition was used to adjust the mea-
sured DS9-31B oil composition for the missing CO2, N2, CH4,
and C2H6 components in the surface oil sample. The adjusted,
surface oil composition was subjected to a simulation of the
reversed sampling procedure to arrive at a reservoir fluid com-
position, using an assumed surface GOR value of 500 scf/bbl.
Table 3 presents the model calculated stock tank oil, the
adjusted surface oil, and the simulated reservoir fluid compo-
sitions for the DS9–31B oil. Finally, the separator gas compo-
sition to be used for recombination was determined by
subtracting the stock tank oil composition from the reservoir
fluid composition and is shown in Table 4.
Viscosity Predictions
The reservoir fluid composition was next subjected to a simu-
lated constant composition expansion experiment at a reser-
voir temperature of 224.4°F. The predicted viscosity with an
increase in pressure is plotted in Figure 3. The model calcu-
lated a viscosity of 12.2 cP for the DS9–31B oil at the calcu-
lated bubble point pressure of 3,160 psia. For an increase in
oil viscosity from 150–600 cP at surface condition, the pre-
dicted reservoir condition viscosity increased from 12.2–37.6
cP. This preliminary simulation study suggests that the
21°API, Prudhoe Bay heavy oil is 10– 40 times more viscous
than the light oil, which has a viscosity of about 1 cP at reser-
voir conditions.
Well F17–A Synthetic Reservoir Fluid
The surface stock tank oil sample from well F–17A was ini-
tially evaluated for use in generating a reservoir fluid sample
by laboratory recombination with a synthesized separator gas
and to compare the measured viscosity of the reservoir fluid
with that obtained using EOS model. The primary concern
was whether the water-oil emulsion could be broken and the
water successfully removed from the surface sample without
altering the hydrocarbon sample. Heat treatment at 150°F and
200 psig followed by centrifugation did not completely break
the water-oil emulsion. An alternate method of passing the
sample over anhydrous calcium sulfate desiccant was tested
and was found effective in removing water from the stock tank
oil sample.
A 600 cm3 sample of water-free stock tank oil was com-
bined with a synthetic gas to a GOR of 500 scf/bbl in the PVT
cell for reconstituting the synthetic reservoir fluid. The gas
composition required for this reservoir fluid needed to be sim-
ulated by EOS because solution gas from Prudhoe Bay is pro-
duced along with lift gas. It was calculated using the method
outlined for oil from well DS9–31B in the last section.
A small portion of the reservoir fluid was flashed to room
conditions and analyzed. The results are listed in Table 2 and
compared with the surface oil samples obtained earlier from
well F–17A. The repeatability for the pentane insoluble exper-
iment is estimated to be four percent. Considering that these
samples are uniquely distinct from each other, the match is
considered reasonable. The variance in viscosity could be the
result of differences in asphaltene content, water content, and
density of the two oils.
The room temperature bubblepoint of this synthetic sample
was measured at 3,312 psig at 74°F. Approximately 200 cm3
of the reservoir fluid was then charged to the PVT cell at 5,000
psig and the reservoir temperature of 224°F and the physical
properties were measured and are provided in Table 5. The
saturation pressure of the fluid was found to be 3,770 psig at
224°F. The density and viscosity of the synthetic reservoir
fluid was measured in the single phase region. These results
are depicted in Figures 4–5. The viscosity of this fluid at the
reservoir temperature was very low at 1.84 cP. This viscosity
is pretty close to the viscosity of reservoir fluid from the Prud-
hoe Bay LOC and does not represent it as a heavy oil. This
value is also considerably lower than that obtained for the
DS9–31B simulated reservoir fluid using EOS modeling. The
composition of the reservoir fluids is listed in Table 3. A com-
parison of the reservoir fluid compositions for the two oils
showed that the DS9–31B simulated reservoir fluid is richer in
lighter hydrocarbons than F17–A synthetic reservoir fluid.
However, the viscosity of the simulated fluid was higher than
the synthetic fluid. This may suggest that the EOS model was
possibly not able to predict the viscosity of the reservoir fluid
satisfactorily or composition segregation with depth provided
by BPX needed improvement.
Well F17-A Bottom Hole Samples
We also received two bottom hole samples from well F17–A.
These samples were available in sample cylinders rated to
1,800 psig. An initial quality check was performed on these
samples by measuring their room temperature bubblepoint
pressure. One of the samples had a bubble point exceeding
1,800 psig and could not be determined. The bubble point of
the other sample was determined to be 2,005 psig at room
temperature. This sample was selected for further analysis at
the reservoir temperature.
The saturation pressure of the bottom-hole sample at 224°F
was found to be approximately 2,600 psig. This value is over
30% lower than that of the synthetic reservoir fluid. This sug-
gested that this bottom hole sample was possibly undersatu-
rated and could be the result of the sampling process.
A flash of the bottomhole sample from well F–17A was
performed. The measured GOR of the sample was 507 scf per
barrel of residual oil at 60°F. Although this GOR was similar
to the GOR of the synthetic reservoir fluid sample, the mole
percent of the lighter components, particularly carbon diox-
ide, was much less in the bottomhole sample than in the syn-
thetic sample (Table 3). This variation in the light ends of the
hydrocarbon composition could account for the difference in
the saturation pressure observed. Table 3 compares the com-
position of the bottomhole sample with that of the synthetic
4
reservoir fluid from well F–17A. It appears that the bottom
hole sample contained more heavier fractions than the syn-
thetic fluid. For this reason, density and viscosity of the bot-
tom hole sample (which were not measured) will be expected
to be slightly higher than the synthetic fluid.
Well B–36 Bottom Hole and Surface
Samples
We also received a surface sample from Prudhoe Bay’s HOT
zone well B–36. The API gravity of the stock tank oil was
approximately 21.1°, however the water content was over
47%. Because of the high water content, viscosity and asphalt-
ene content of the surface sample was not determined (Table
2).
Two bottom hole samples from well B–36 were also
received for analysis. The room temperature bubblepoint of
both bottomhole samples was measured at 76°F. Fluid in cyl-
inder 1 had a saturation pressure of 2,084 psig and the fluid in
cylinder 2 had a saturation pressure of 2,138 psig. Bottomhole
reservoir fluid from cylinder 2 having a higher saturation pres-
sure was used in subsequent analyses. A separator flash was
performed on this bottomhole sample from well B–36. The
stock tank fluid recovered from the separator flash was used to
determine the water content, asphaltene content, viscosity,
API gravity, and SARA analysis. Table 6 lists the results of
the separator flash and Table 7 provides the SARA analysis
results.
The two sample cylinders were maintained in a vertical
position for a period of one week. A check for free water pro-
duced 75 cc of water from cylinder 1 and approximately 17 cc
of water from cylinder 2. The cylinders were then placed
inside an oven and heat treated for an additional week. No
additional water was found.
Initial test involved the measurement of the bubblepoint
pressure of the fluids at room temperature of 76°F. This indi-
cated that the samples remained essentially unchanged since
sampling as the measured values were in good agreement
(2,084 psig from cylinder 1 and 2,138 psig from cylinder 2).
Before we attempted to measure the phase behavior properties
of these bottomhole samples from Prudhoe Bay’s HOT, we
needed to restore the fluids, as much as possible, to native
state. The cylinders were pressurized to the maximum cylin-
der rating of 5,000 psig and agitated for a period of two
weeks. This process disperses the asphaltenes, as much as
possible, back to their original state.
Once the restoration process was complete, several small
portions of hydrocarbon sample from cylinder 2 were dis-
placed for compositional analysis, SARA analysis, and for a
separator flash test. The oil had an API gravity of 22.5° and an
asphaltene content of 10 wt%. A small portion of the reservoir
fluid from cylinder number 2 was then charged to a high pres-
sure, PVT cell which was at room temperature. The sample
was then thermally expanded to the reservoir temperature of
207°F and the system equilibrated. A pressure-volume rela-
tions experiment was performed on this sample and the satura-
tion pressure was determined to be 2,748 psig at 207°F. The
density, viscosity, and formation volume factor of the fluid
were measured. These measured physical properties of the
reservoir fluid are listed in Table 4 and compared with the F–
17A reservoir fluid.
Solubility-Swelling Tests with F–17A
Bottom Hole Samples
Since miscible injectant gas available at the reservoir site
could be a possible recovery candidate, a solubility-swelling
experiment using this gas was performed on the bottomhole
sample from well F–17A. Particular attention was paid to the
appearance of precipitated asphaltenes. The composition of
the miscible injectant gas can be found in Table 8. Using the
measured miscible injectant gas composition supplied by
BPX, a sufficient quantity of gas was synthesized for this
experiment. In order to perform phase behavior experiments
using this miscible injectant gas, the compressibility- or Z–
factor of this gas mixture at reservoir temperature needed to
be determined.
The miscible injectant gas was transferred from the original
manufacturers cylinder into a high pressure storage cylinder
and maintained at laboratory temperature and 5,000 psig. It is
interesting to note that at these conditions the injectant gas
exists as a liquid. A small portion of the miscible injectant was
charged into the PVT cell and heated to the reservoir tempera-
ture of 220°F. The gas-phase compressibility factor of the
injectant was determined over the pressure range of 5,000 and
1,000 psig. The results are graphically presented in Figure 5.
Due to the small inconsistencies of the LVDT and the sensitiv-
ities of the Z–factor calculation, it was decided that another
approach was needed to verify our results. Room temperature
density and grams per standard cubic centimeter measure-
ments were obtained. These measurements were repeatable
and verified our Z–factor data from the PVT cell.
The solubility-swelling experiments covered the injection
range from 10–70 mole percent gas per original oil from
6,500–2,000 psig. Variation in the saturation pressure of the
mixture with an increase in injectant gas concentration is dis-
played in Figure 6. Phase volume measurements and satura-
tion pressure determinations were conducted at each injection
stage.
The completed solubility-swelling experiment is presented
graphically in Figure 7 . The viscosity and density measure-
ments for a 70 mol% mixture could not be determined as this
mixture was two-phase at 7000 psig. There is a possibility that
asphaltenes might be precipitated at 30 mole percent injectant.
This observation might be confirmed by asphaltene floccula-
tion onset experiments using near-infrared technology by sep-
arate experiments.
5
Physical Properties of HOT Zone Fluid
The viscosity and density of the bottom hole samples from
well B–36 and synthetic fluid F–17A at reservoir conditions
are noted to be nearly the same at about 2 cP and 0.77 g/cm3.
The viscosity of this fluid is close to that observed for LOC
fluid which varies from 0.5–1.2 cP.1 The measured formation
volume factor for B–36 fluid was 1.32 vol/vol and is similar to
that obtained for LOC fluid which varies from 1.3–1.4 with an
average value of 1.36.1 These measurements indicate that the
oil produced from the HOT zone is similar to the LOC fluid
except for slightly higher asphaltene content. Asphaltene con-
tent of the LOC fluid is < 5 wt% whereas it varied for the HOT
zone fluid from 10–15 wt% (Table 2).
It is noted that the viscosity of the produced fluids from
HOT interval is low and does not represent a heavy oil. It
would be expected that this oil should be easy to produce.
However, log data and laboratory tests conducted with HOT
core samples have shown that the oil in the zone is relatively
immobile and the effective permeability to water through the
HOT interval is about 1 mD.6 This poses serious questions on
the reasons for poor mobility of the HOT zone.
It has been observed that there is considerable difference in
the fluid produced from the HOT interval and the oil found in
the core samples obtained from the HOT zone. If the HOT
zone hydrocarbons are immobile as the past studies6 indicate,
the produced fluid from HOT interval most likely either does
not represent or poorly represents the oil from the zone. The
bottom hole samples collected from the HOT interval, in all
likelihood, represent only the mobile fraction of the hydrocar-
bons in the reservoir. Our results indicate at least two possibil-
ities:
1. The HOT zone actually consists of three sections (see
Table 1) as has been suggested by some researchers. The
section at the top of the HOT interval represents a rela-
tively lighter mobile oil than the rest of the interval. This
oil is produced and collected as the bottom hole sample.
The characteristics of this produced fluid represent the
transition zone oil from the HOT interval. Our current
study has been then with this transition zone oil. In this
case, it will be believed that the oil sample is only repre-
sentative of the upper mobile section of the zone.
2. The sampled fluid essentially comes from the LOC Even
though the sample is collected from the HOT interval.
The fluid flowing from LOC to the wellbore picks up
some asphaltene from the asphaltenic HOT interval and
mixes somewhat with the heavy oil of the interval before
being produced. It thus becomes slightly heavy compared
to the LOC fluid. In this case the sampled fluid poorly
represents the HOT zone oil.
 To test the validity of these plausible explanations, the
bottom hole samples can be collected at increasing depths
in the HOT interval. Below certain depth, the production
will cease when the immobile zone is encountered. Alter-
natively, core plugs can be drilled covering the whole
depth of the HOT zone and the core fluids analyzed for
the purpose. The future studies on the HOT zone are
aimed at the latter. Only when the HOT zone oil is char-
acterized well from the above studies, a suitable recovery
process for the interval can be investigated.
Conclusions
1. Several surface and bottom hole samples were collected
from the Prudhoe Bay HOT zone. The analysis on these
oils showed that the fluid samples were similar to the oil
from the LOC with an increase in asphaltene content and
a slight increase in viscosity.
2. The oil characteristics determined for the bottom hole
samples could not explain the reason for relative immo-
bility of the HOT zone oil. It was believed to be either
transition oil from upper section of the HOT zone or light
oil slightly mixed with the heavy oil of the zone. In either
case, the sampled bottom hole fluid did not truly repre-
sent the HOT zone oil. More studies are required to prop-
erly characterize the HOT zone oil. Only then a suitable
recovery technique for the HOT interval can be investi-
gated.
6
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the Department of Energy and Brit-
ish Petroleum Inc. for funding and supporting this CRADA
project. Thanks are also due to Robert Fishback for his contri-
bution in the experimental work and to British Petroleum Inc.
for providing oil samples.
References
1. Wadman, D.H., Lamprecht, D.E., and Mrosovsky, I.
“Joint Geologic/Engineering Analysis of the Sadlerochit
Reservoir, Prudhoe Bay Field,” JPT, 933–940, July 1979.
2. Szabo, D.J., and Meyers, K.O. “Prudhoe Bay: Develop-
ment History and Future Potential,” SPE 26053 presented
at the 1983 Western Regional Meeting held in Anchorage,
Alaska, May 26–28.
3. Bradley, M.E., Mayson, H.J., and Wilkins, K.L. “An Inte-
grated Approach to Refining Reservoir Description
Through Monitoring Fluid Movements in the Prudhoe
Bay Reservoir,” SPE 15567 presented at the 1986 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
October 5–8.
4. Erickson, J.W. and Sneider, R.M. “Structural and Hydro-
carbon Histories of the Ivishak (Sadlerochit) Reservoir,
Prudhoe Bay Field,” SPE 28574 presented at the 69th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, September 25–28, 1994.
5. Sneider, R.M. and Erickson, J.W. “Rock Types, Deposi-
tional History, and Diagenetic Effects: Sadlerochit Reser-
voir, Prudhoe Bay Field,” SPE 28575 presented at the 69th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, September 25–28, 1994.
6. Haldorsen, H.H., Mayson, H.J., and Howarth, S.M. “The
Heavy Oil/Tar Mat in the Prudhoe Bay Field, Alaska -
Characterization and Impacts on Reservoir Performance,”
paper presented at 3rd International UNITAR Conference,
Long Beach, California, July 22–31, 1985.
 Property Value Property Value
Depth, ft 8950 - 9070 Payzone Thickness, ft 10-80
Reservoir 185 - 240 Initial Pressure, psi 4,315 at 8,8
Temperature, ∞F subsea

API gravity ~10-15∞ Gas-oil ratio, scf/bbl ~350-550

Viscosity, cP 40-140 (estimated) Asphaltene Content, 10-35

wt.%
Porosity, % ~21 Air Permeability, mD 1-1000
Oil Saturation, % PV 30-70 Oil-in-place, Billion 1.5 - 1.6
bbl
Other Information HOT zone is generally thought of consisting of three parts: immob
at bottom, viscous mobile heavy oil in the middle containing h
asphaltene content, and transition zone oil essentially mixture of
and light oil (API gravity near 22)

Table 1: Prudhoe Bay HOT (Heavy Oil/Tar) Zone Characteristics

Asphaltene Density Viscosity Water

Well location Sample Content at 60°F° at 77°F Content
Type
(wt.%) (g/cm 3 ) (cP) (wt.%)

DS9-31B Surface 1 12.6 0.925 98.5 48.4

Surface 2 13.5 0.948 276.7 31.8
F-17A Surface 1 10.8 0.936 - 13.9
Surface 2 13.1 0.930 146.5 1.2
BHS 11.6 0.919 67.9 <0.001
B-36 BHS 10.0 0.936 303.5 0.20
Surface - 0.928 - 47.3
G-10A BHS 15.2 0.936 303.5 0.03
G-12 Surface 12.5 0.924 109.3 1.34

Table 2: Physical Properties of Stock Tank Oils

7
 Well DS9- DS9- DS9- F-17A F-17A B-36
Location 13B 13B 13B mol % mol % mol %
mol % mol % mol %
Oil Type Stock Model Simulate Syntheti BHS BHS
Tank Stock d Res. c Res. Res. Fl. Res. Fl.
Oil Tank Fl. Fl.
Component
CO2 0.0 0.19 7.66 7.04 2.16 6.57
N2 0.0 0.00 0.38 0.35 0.35 0.34
C1 0.0 0.25 45.11 43.90 41.50 31.34
C2 0.0 0.27 4.37 4.06 3.08 4.18
C3 0.12 0.80 0.41 0.68 2.50 2.64
C4 1.15 2.05 1.06 0.78 1.71 1.61
C5 3.49 2.31 2.10 1.22 1.09 0.95
C6 6.64 2.53 3.21 2.30 1.04 0.76
C7 6.95 5.32 3.14 2.84 2.58 3.00
C8 5.48 6.87 2.30 3.02 2.45 3.66
C9 6.02 5.59 2.45 3.05 2.04 3.60
C10 5.76 4.83 2.31 2.82 2.59 3.35
C11-13 15.02 12.26 5.99 7.44 7.59 8.78
C14-19 20.01 17.49 7.91 10.24 12.85 13.32
C20-26 12.49 14.38 4.94 7.20 7.88 8.17
C27-35 8.40 10.93 3.32 11.07 13.08 5.17
C36+ 8.45 13.93 3.34 - 3.40 2.53

Table 3: Composition of Stock Tank Oils and Reservoir Fluids

Component CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6+

mol % 12.66 0.63 74.59 7.22 0.60 1.01 1.18 2.11

Table 4:Composition of the Simulated Solution Gas for Oil from Well DS9-31B

Properties F-17A (Synthetic)F-17A (BHS) B-36

Reservoir temperature (°F) 224 224 207
Bubblepoint pressure (psi) 3770 2600 2748
Gas-oil ratio (scf/bbl) 500 507 489
Viscosity (cP) 1.84 1.98
Density (g/cm3) 0.778 0.766
Formation Volume Factor* (vol/vol) - 1.316
Thermal expansion at 5000 psig - 1.101
Compressibility of liquid phase
(vol/vol/psi)
5000 - 4528 psi 9.0E-06 8.4E-06
4528 - 4009 psi 9.9E-06 9.4E-06
4009 - 3544 psi 1.4E-06 9.6E-06
3544 - 2980 psi - 9.9E-06
2980 - 2748 psi - 1.0E-05

Table 5: Physical Properties of the Prudhoe Bay Reservoir Fluids

8
 Separator Separator Gas-Oil Tank Oil Formation Gas
Pressure Temeperature Ratio* Gravity Volume Gravity (air=1)
psig scf/bbl ∞API Factor**
∞F vol/vol
0 62 489 22.5 1.316 0.8522
* Gas-oil ratio is in cubic feet of gas at 14.7 psi and 60 F per barrel stock tank oil at 60∞F
∞
** Formation volume factor is barrels of oil at saturation pressure and reservoir temperature
per barrel of stock tank oil at 60∞F

Table 6: Separator Flash of Reservoir Fluid from Well B-36

Components wt %
Saturates 25.6
Aromatics 25.2
Resins 13.7
Asphaltene 35.6

Table 7: SARA Analysis on B-36 Flashed Oil

Component CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 i-C4 n-C4 i-C5 n-C5

mol % 19.11 0.14 34.91 19.05 21.51 1.99 3.21 0.05 0.03

Table 8: Composition of Prudhoe Bay Miscible Injectant Gas

9
 PVT Cell: Transducer: Densitometer: ÆP Transducer: Piston Cylinder:
Temco Inc. 0 - 10000 psig range Anton Paar model DMA 512 0 -12500 psig line pressure Stainless steel, 316
918/835-2193 250ûF working temp. 6,000psigworkingpressure 0 - 125 psid differential 100 cc volume
SerialNo.WC20-500-2 low volume - flush mount 224ûFworkingtemperature 250ûFworkingtemperature 10,000psigworkingpressure
10,000 psig at 350ûF. 316 SS wetted parts 410 SS wetted parts 224ûFworkingtemperature
500 cc volume Teflon seals

PISTON

Tubing:
1/8" OD, 0.035 wall
316 stainless steel
ÆP 10,000psiworkingpressure
224ûFworkingtemperature
Mixing Ring:
316 stainless steel
Groovedandperforated
Oven:
24 cuft capacity
Temperature to 224ûF
0.25% temperature control
316 SS interior

Relief Valve:
316 stainless steel
30,000psigworkingpressure
adjustable, set at 5,500 psig
Liquidservice
Capillary Coils Valves:
Temco Pump: Viscosity: Two-waystraightvalves
1/8" SS tubing, 0.03" ID 316 stainless steel
Dualopposed,
independently 0.048" wall, 10 feet long 10,000psiworkingpressure
operated 12" diameter coil at 224ûF
10,000psigworkingpressure 10,000 psig at 224ûF Regulatingstem
100 cc volume minimum
316 SS wetted parts

Figure 1: Schematic of the PVT Measurement Apparatus

Figure 2: Comparison of Compositional Analysis of Samples F17-A and DS-31B

10
 Figure 3: Predicted Viscosity for DS9-31B Fluid at Reservoir Conditions

0.86

0.84 F17-A (Synthetic Fluid)

B-36 (Bottom Hole Fluid)
DENSITY, g/cm3

0.82

0.80

0.78

0.76
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
PRESSURE, psi

Figure 4: Variation in Density of Prudhoe Bay Reservoir Fluids With Pressure

11
 7.0

6.0
F17-A (Synthetic Fluid)
B-36 (Bottom Hole Fluid)
VISCOSITY, cP

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
PRESSURE, psi

Figure 5: Viscosity of Prudhoe Bay Reservoir Fluids With Pressure

1.00

0.950
PV Z
0.900 MeasuredZ
Z FACTOR

0.850

0.800

0.750

0.700
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
PRESSURE,psig
Figure 6: Z Factor of Miscible Injectant (MI) Gas at Reservoir Temperature

12
BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURE, psig 4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
MI GAS CONCENTRATION, mol %

Figure 7: Variation in Bubblepoint Pressure of F17-A Bottom Hole Sample With MI Gas

100

95

90
LIQUID VOLUME, %

85

80

75 Original Reservoir Fluid

10 Mole Percent Mix
20 Mole Percent Mix
70 30 Mole Percent Mix
40 Mole Percent Mix
65 50 Mole Percent Mix
70 Mole Percent Mix

60
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
PRESSURE,psig

Figure 8: Solubility-Swelling Data on F17-A Bottom Hole Sample With MI Gas Mixtures

13
14