The 8th International Chemical Engineering Congress & Exhibition (IChEC 2014)

Kish, Iran, 24-27 February, 2014

Gas Condensate Fluid Study and Characterization

E.Sedarat*, S.Gerami
EOR/IOR Research Institute,Tehran,Iran
e_sedarat@yahoo.com

Abstract
I D
S
Reservoir (A) is a lean gas condensate reservoir in Iran. Since beginning of its development,
several fluid samples have been taken from this reservoir. The discrepancies among these data
make the selection of initial representative fluid samples problematic. In order to use an

o f
appropriate fluid data in PVT modeling and reservoir simulation, some diagnostic plots are used to
identify outlying fluid samples. By evaluating all the available data from well conditioning, fluid
sampling, recombination and PVT experiments, representative sample is introduced for equation
of state (EOS) modeling. Finally this fluid is characterized and results of EOS modeling are
validated. This study shows a complete fluid study route and could be utilized extensively in the
industry.

v e
Keywords: Gas Condensate, PVT Study, Representative Sample, Characterization, Fluid Model

Introduction

h i
Construction of a correct gas condensate fluid model is crucial for realistic reservoir

c
simulation. The steps required to develop a fluid model include well conditioning, fluid

r
sampling, fluid property measurements and EOS modeling. Each step is complex and has the
potential of causing a lot of errors that deteriorate the fluid model.
McCain and Alexander [1] used compositional reservoir simulation to study the well

A
conditioning and separator sampling procedure in gas condensate wells. They applied the
industry sampling procedure to investigate the quality of separator gas and oil samples. The
authors notified that rate reduction during well conditioning may cause an abrupt change in
heavy constituents of produced fluid. Moffatt and Williams [2] documented fluid sampling
and laboratory analysis practices for gas condensate fluids. They illustrated the best practices
for fluid sampling, data reporting and quality control of samples. Guidelines for surface and
subsurface sampling, required data for PVT study and quality control steps for compositional
analysis and fluid studies were presented. John Williams [3,4], discussed the challenges in
fluid sampling and its transfer to laboratory. Solutions to minimize the quality loss and the
guidelines to check the integrity and validity of oil and gas samples were introduced.
In addition to the sampling issues, the accuracy of laboratory PVT studies is also a critical
factor that affects the reported composition of a gas condensate fluid. Whitson and Torp [5]
used material balance calculations to evaluate constant volume depletion (CVD) data obtained
from experimental analysis of North Sea gas condensate fluids. Examination of Peng-

www.SID.ir
Gas Condensate Fluid Study and Characterization

Robinson equation of state for studying vapor/liquid phase behavior during CVD was
performed. Eyton [6] studied the stabilization time during CCE and CVD tests and its effect
on liquid drop out. On the basis of his study, small variation in measured liquid amount at
each stage has large effect on gas Z-factor; losses of liquid result in the Z-factor being under
estimated. The author suggested increasing the size of the charge leads to obtain more
accurate CVD data.
In this paper, some diagnostic plots are used to distinguish the outliers and check the quality
and validity of available data. Then by checking the stabilization of some flowing parameters,
well conditioning is reviewed. Next, material balance is used to study the CVD data. After
that, a characterization method is applied on the selected sample and consistency check of
EOS tuning is presented. Finally, conclusions of the study are summarized.

Results and Discussion

I D
Using some specific plots and evidences, amiss data are recognized from a bunch of raw data.
This step clarifies the road and avoids blindfold study among plenty of data. When multiple
samples are available, one should use important properties such as reservoir GOR, dew point

f S
pressure, methane and plus fraction concentration, plus fraction density and its molecular
weight, stock tank oil density and its molecular weight, and plot them with respect to each
other to distinguish right samples from wrong ones. Furthermore, plotting these properties
with respect to depth clarifies the outliers and indicates how these properties vary with depth.

o
Watson characterization factor is applied to evaluate the accuracy of molecular weight
measurement and to check the consistency of molecular weight and specific gravity.
Molecular weight of plus fraction in the analyzed samples is not measured. It is calculated by

e
using gas chromatography results and molecular weight of petroleum fractions in the

i v
literature. Fig. 1 shows two specific plots to determine outliers. Results of these plots are
summarized in Table 1. In this table, the problematic samples are marked. Based on this
study, samples A-1 is good candidate for EOS modeling.

h
Judging the appropriateness of well conditioning requires careful interpretation of the trends
for the wellhead and bottomhole pressures, oil and gas flow rates, and especially the gas-oil

c
ratio. Reviewing the flowing parameters during conditioning and sampling, reveals that good

r
stabilization occurred when sample A-1 was taken.
Backward material balance is used to evaluate the results of CVD test on sample A-1. Its
results lead to negative liquid mole fractions for a few components at the first pressure step,

A
which is expected, because the fluid is lean in heavy constituents. As shown in Table 2, initial
fluid composition is calculated with excellent similarity respect to measured values.
The first step in characterization of sample A-1 is to split the heptane plus component into
five fractions by use of the Gaussian quadrature method. Specific gravities and boiling points
of these fractions are calculated with Soreide correlations. Critical properties and acentric
factor of these fractions are estimated by Lee-Kesler correlations. Binary interaction
coeficients between nonhydrocarbons and hydrocarbons are taken from Nagy and
Shirkovskiy. The Chueh-Prausnitz equation is used for methane- plus fractions pairs. Critical
pressure and temperatures of heavy fractions are selected as regression parameters. An
excellent match with experimental data is obtained. Fig. 2 shows CVD liquid saturation.
To check the consistency of tuned model, a separator test at real separator sampling condition
is simulated. Various parameters such as K-values at separator condition, separator gas and
condensate molecular weight and composition are compared with real fluid data. Trends and
values of critical pressures, critical temperatures and acentric factors are checked against the

www.SID.ir
 The 8th International Chemical Engineering Congress & Exhibition (IChEC 2014)
Kish, Iran, 24-27 February, 2014
molecular weight. The results indicate validity of the measured properties and reliability of
EOS tuned model.

Table 1- Results of quality check of all the available data.

Pd- Pd- Pi-
Well GOR- GOR γC7+- MLDO- Pi < GOR- %C7+- C7+Mw- %C1-
%C7 dept dept
NO. %C7+ -Pd MWC7+ C5+/C4- Pd depth depth depth depth
+ h h
A-1

A-2 • • • • •

A-3 • • •
A-4a •

D
A-4b • • • •

I
A-5a •

A-5b •

A-6

A-7

A-8
• • •

•
• •

f
•

•
S • • •

A-9

A-10

A-11
•

•
•

•
• •

e o •
• •
• • •

A-12

A-13 •
•

i v •
•

•
•

c h
Table 2- Calculated initial fluid composition of sample A-1 by material balance

r
Comp. N2 CO2 H2S C1 C2 C3 IC4 NC4 IC5 NC5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12+
Meas. 3.07 2.24 0.33 83.98 4.84 1.78 0.39 0.63 0.31 0.3 0.36 0.4 0.39 0.27 0.2 0.14 0.37

A
Calc. 3.07 2.25 0.33 84.15 4.86 1.78 0.37 0.63 0.3 0.29 0.34 0.39 0.37 0.25 0.17 0.12 0.34

Conclusions
A complete gas condensate fluid characterization and study were tracked. First, a set of
diagnostic plots were presented to check the quality and validity of available fluid data. Then,
the selected sample is characterized by EOS. Using the results of characterization,
representative fluid sample is double checked. This procedure helps to seelct a reliable sample
among a group of raw fluid data, and avoid blind study.

www.SID.ir
Gas Condensate Fluid Study and Characterization

1
10 0.84

0.82

C7+
Specific Gravity,γ
L
CVD Max. S

0.8
0
10
0.78

0.76
Separator
-1 MDT
10 -2 0.74
10 10
-1 110 120 130 140 150 160
C5+/C4- Molecular Weight, M
C7+

D
Figure 1- Plots related to QC of data

S I
o f
v e
h i
Figure 2- CVD liquid saturation curve

References

r c
A
[1] W.D.J. McCain, R.A. Alexander, Sampling gas-condensate wells, SPE Reservoir
Engineering J. 1992 (August), 358-362.
[2] B.J. Moffatt, J.M. Williams, Identifying and meeting the key needs for reservoir fluid
properties – A multi-disciplinary approach, SPE paper 49067 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Louisiana, Sep (1998). 27-30.
[3] J.M. Williams, Getting the best out of fluid samples, JPT 46 (9) 1994 (Sep.), 752.
[4] J.M. Williams, Fluid sampling under adverse conditions, Oil & Gas Science and
Technology J. 53 (3) 1998 (May-June), 355-365.
[5] C.H. Whitson, S.B. Torp, Evaluating constant volume depletion data, JPT 35 (3) 1983
(March), 610-620.
[6] D.G.P. Eyton, Practical limitations in obtaining PVT data for gas condensate systems, SPE
paper 15765 presented at 5th SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, March (1987) 7-10.

www.SID.ir