SPE 84092
Analyzing Reservoir Fluid Composition In-Situ in Real Time: Case Study in a
Carbonate Reservoir
Go Fujisawa, Schlumberger-Doll Research; Oliver C. Mullins, Schlumberger-Doll Research; Chengli Dong, SPE,
Schlumberger Sugar Land Product Center; Andrew Carnegie, SPE, Schlumberger; Soraya S. Betancourt, SPE,
Schlumberger-Doll Research; Toru Terabayashi, Schlumberger K. K.; Satoko Yoshida, Schlumberger K. K.; Antonio R.
Jaramillo, SPE, Abu Dhabi Company for Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO); and Mostafa Haggag, Abu Dhabi Company for
Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO)
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., 5–8 October 2003.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy is used to provide in-situ
quantitative characterization of reservoir fluids during wireline
sampling using five representative composition groupings (C1,
C2–C5, C6+, CO2, and water). This information is vital for the
proper execution of wireline fluid sampling jobs. Time
variances of fluid compositions, along with absolute
compositions, give us important clues about the phase and
contamination level of the capturing samples in real time. In
addition, quantitative compositional analysis during wireline
sampling provides immediate identification of the critical fluid
issues, thereby enabling optimization of the sample acquisition
program. Laboratory pressure-volume-temperature (PVT)
analysis requires samples that are captured in single phase and
are relatively free from mud filtrate contamination. Such
information is essential for reservoir management and flow
simulation modeling.
This paper consists of three parts. The first part covers
laboratory NIR spectroscopic study of petroleum fluids at
elevated pressures and temperatures. This extensive database,
coupled with principal components regression (PCR)
technique, establishes the feasibility of such an in-situ
compositional analysis.
The second part reports shop test results on a downhole
experimental prototype. The tool estimates density for each
composition group for more than 10 live fluids at conditions
simulating a petroleum reservoir. Typically, the measured
mass fraction for each composition group agrees with the mass
fraction acquired from PVT analysis within ±5% accuracy.
The final part presents a field test case study conducted in
an onshore carbonate reservoir in the United Arab Emirates
(UAE). A gas injection pilot has been running for years, and a
comprehensive monitoring program is in place. The first field
trial of the subject technology in an observation well
successfully identified the presence of injected gas, as
determined by fluid compositions. This result was later found
to be in good agreement with laboratory PVT analysis.
Introduction
The accurate description of reservoir fluids is essential for
successful reservoir evaluation and development because fluid
properties influence almost every aspect of production,
including economic value, completion design, and production
protocol. There is no substitute for acquisition of valid
representative reservoir fluids from the formation for proper
analysis.
The most serious concern associated with wireline fluid
sampling is validity of sampled fluid. Wireline samples can
contain unacceptably high concentrations of water-base mud
(WBM) filtrate or oil-base mud (OBM) filtrate. An equally
serious issue is phase transition of fluid caused by pressure
drawdown or temperature change, particularly for phase-
sensitive fluid such as condensates. Both high filtrate
contamination and phase transition invalidate the sampled
fluid for any succeeding laboratory analyses. In order to solve
these issues, the E&P industry has developed various in-situ
techniques to detect these problematic situations while
sampling is taking place. Optical fluid analysis is the most
accepted technology for fluid discrimination. Water and oil
are discriminated using differences in NIR absorption peaks.1
Miscible OBM filtrate contamination in crude oil is analyzed
utilizing the time evolution of the visible-NIR spectra during
wireline sample acquisition.2, 3
In addition to sample validation for wireline sampling, a
new development allows some fluid analyses in downhole.4
Such in-situ analyses have the advantages of time, robustness,
and clear chain of custody for samples. The first one is
obvious. In-situ fluid analysis by definition gives answers in
real time when it can take months before oil companies
receive a full laboratory analysis report. Considering the
nature of the petroleum industry, access to real-time fluid
analysis results has a tremendous impact on the decision-
making process. The second item is robustness of
2 G. FUJISAWA ET AL
measurements. The fluid sample is most representative in the
downhole conditions. By contrast, the fluid a surface
laboratory receives must experience adverse situations such as
pressure change, temperature change, and fluid transfer before
it reaches the laboratory. As a result, fluid properties may no
longer be representative of true reservoir fluid because of
irrevocable changes such as irreversible asphaltene onset
caused by temperature change or partial loss of fluid caused
by sample transfer and/or mishandling. The third item is chain
of custody for fluid. In-situ fluid analyses tend to be coarse
because the analytical apparatuses available for wireline tool
are usually limited in their accuracy and resolution compared
to surface laboratory counterparts. Both in-situ analyses and
laboratory analyses have their strengths and weaknesses. In-
situ analyses are robust but coarse—laboratory analyses are
accurate but the results may not truly represents reservoir
fluid. The best practice is using them both, thus making
analyses robust and accurate. If both in-situ analyses and
laboratory analyses agree well, there will be an increased
confidence in analyses results.
In this paper, we outline the technology that enables in-situ
analysis of reservoir fluid and quantitatively characterizes it
by five compositional groups (C1, C2–C5, C6+, CO2, and
water). Such information can be valuable for assuring valid
fluid sampling and providing in-situ composition analysis as
discussed in the previous two paragraphs. The body of this
paper consists of three parts. The first part covers the theory
of measurement explaining the NIR spectroscopic study
results and the interpretation method. The second part covers
the shop test results performed on the experimental wireline
tool that was designed based on the theory. The third part
presents a field test case study conducted in an onshore
carbonate reservoir in the UAE.
Measurement Theory and Laboratory Study Results
The NIR absorption spectra of hydrocarbons have been
studied extensively and used in many applications in various
industries. However, applications for the wireline oil and gas
exploration industry were limited until recently. This was
partly due to the technical difficulty of bringing a reliable
spectrograph to the harsh and restrictive conditions wireline
tools have to endure, and also it was partly due to the
insufficient amount of studies on hydrocarbon fluid spectra at
such high pressure and temperature. The industry cleared the
first difficulty by introducing downhole spectrometers about
10 years ago.1 The second obstacle is also cleared as more
studies have been conducted on the subject in recent years.5–7
We recently published a study result that indicates the
feasibility of conducting in-situ compositional analysis for gas
and condensates.8 Two new modifications for real wireline
tools have been made since then. These changes and resulting
new calculation results are the main focus of this section. We
limit explanations on the experiment and analysis theory to the
minimum level because the major part of experiment and
analysis is quite similar to that explained in the published
paper. Interested readers are referred to the publication.8
The NIR spectra of both pure and mixed hydrocarbon
fluids were measured at pressures ranging from 4,000 psi to
15,000 psi at temperatures ranging from 20°C to 150°C.
Custom interface optics were used to relay the optical beam
SPE 84092
from the spectrometer to a custom high-pressure, high-
temperature optical cell, which was set inside an oven to allow
temperature control. Single phase sample (SSB) bottles were
used to store and keep the fluid mixtures in single phase. The
bottle is connected to the custom optics cell on the sample
mixture side and connected to a pressure-controlling hydraulic
pump on the other side. Fig. 1 shows a schematic drawing of
the experimental setup. Utmost care was taken to keep fluid
mixtures in single phase at every step of measurement.
Typically, the SSB bottle containing a mixture was
pressurized at around 8,000 psi, well over the fluid saturation
pressure (less than 4,000 psi), and the fluid inside was agitated
using an internal agitation ring prior to opening the bottle.
Both the optics cell and the high-pressure tubing connecting
the cell to the SSB were filled with high-pressure pure
nitrogen so that the fluid inside the SSB would experience the
least possible pressure shock in an event of opening the bottle.
The system was thoroughly purged until there was no effect of
nitrogen (N2 is transparent in the NIR range but affects the
density/pressure relationship), and then actual measurement
took place.
We used a variety of prepared mixtures at various
pressures and temperatures. Pressure and temperature
strongly affect fluid spectra (Figs. 2 and 3), but we showed
that the NIR spectra are essentially linear in fluid density5–8 as
shown in Fig. 4. Thus, we do not need to explicitly account
for pressure and temperature in our NIR analysis. In total 75
spectra were used to create the model function that is based on
PCR. The standard principal component analysis (PCA) was
performed on data to find out 1) the total number of
extractable principal components and composition groups and
2) the best set of wavelength channels for wireline tools. Fig.
5 shows the five largest principal components in decreasing
order of importance. For proper downhole analysis, we
employ these five largest principal components while setting
targets for differentiating four composition groups: C1, C2–C5,
C6+, and CO2.
The actual prediction model for wireline tools was built in
the following manner. First, the spectral data was converted
so that the data was meaningful to wireline tools. There are
significant differences between the research-grade
spectrometer we used to acquire all the data and a
spectrometer that wireline tools can accommodate. The
research-grade spectrometer used measured fluid spectra from
800 nm to 2,500 nm with 1 nm step and 2 nm resolution. By
contrast, a wireline tool spectrometer has a limited number of
discrete lower resolution channels. Following the criteria
described in the previously published paper,8 we chose t
channels best suited for our purpose. Using the low-resolution
spectral data converted from the original high-resolution
spectra, we constructed data matrix Dt×m, where t represents
the number of channels and m represents the number of the
calibration spectra. We employed PCA and PCR for the data
analysis and model building. These analytical techniques are
well explained in many standard chemometrics textbooks and
related literature.9, 10 Throughout this section, we denote a
matrix with a bold capital letter followed by two suffix
numbers showing the size of the matrix. A vector is expressed
with a bold lowercase letter, and a scalar is expressed with a
normal lowercase letter. For the sake of consistency, we also
SPE 84092 ANALYZING RESERVOIR FLUID COMPOSITION IN-SITU IN REAL TIME: CASE STUDY IN A CARBONATE RESERVOIR
added suffix numbers to vectors and scalars. Following the
standard PCA procedure, the Dt×m matrix was decomposed
into two orthogonal matrices, Rt×t (loadings) and Ct×m (scores).
Dt×m = Rt×t Ct×m (1)
We have more samples than channels. Among t principal
components, only f of them are useful for predicting
concentrations of composition groups. So we can reduce the
dimensions of Rt×t and Ct×m without losing meaningful
information. Now the data matrix Dt×m is approximated by
Dt×m, so that
Dt×m ~ Dt×m = Rt×f Cf×m , (2)
where Rt×f and Cf×m represent reduced loading matrix and score
matrix, respectively. In the PCR model, the concentration of
each chemical composition y is independently related to the
score of spectra by a regression vector b. Using m calibration
dataset, the relation is given as follows:
y1×m = b1×f Cf×m . (3)
Since both y1×m and Cf×m are known quantities, either by
definition or calculation for the calibration dataset, the
regression vector b1×f can be determined using a least-squares
approach. Once the regression vector b1×f is determined, the
concentration of each composition group is predicted by the
following model equation,
y1×1 = b1×f (Rt×fT Rt×f)-1 Rt×fT mt×1 , (4)
where mt×1 is a spectrum of reservoir fluid measured with a t-
channel wireline spectrometer tool. The model equation
occasionally returns a negative value if the concentration of a
composition group in question is very low. We built a process
to treat negative values into the simulation so that it never
returns physically meaningless negative concentrations.
The model expressed in Eq. 4 was then tested for all 75
spectra data, and its results were compared to the true
concentrations. The results are plotted in Figs. 6 to 9. The
vertical axis of each graph shows the predicted concentration,
and the horizontal axis shows the true concentration. The
estimations agree to the correct concentrations for all four
compositional groups.
Shop Test Results of an Experimental Prototype
Encouraged by the positive results discussed in the previous
section, we engineered an experimental prototype wireline
tool based on the study. The spectrometer part was equipped
with the previously discussed t wavelength channels, each
measuring fluid absorption at the wavelength specified by the
study. In order to confirm the feasibility of the composition
analysis, the prototype tool was tested with several
hydrocarbon fluids in a shop test.
Fig. 10 shows the schematic of the test setup. The
prototype tool was placed inside a large oven. A conventional
sample bottle (CSB) was used to store and keep testing fluid
mixture in single phase. The hydraulic fluid side of the CSB
was connected to a high-pressure pump, which controlled the
pressure of the whole experiment system. The sample side of
the CSB was first connected to a custom high-pressure optics
cell, then to the prototype tool inside the oven. The insertion
3
of the high-pressure optics cell allowed us to monitor the fluid
with a research-grade spectrometer at the same time without
disrupting spectroscopic measurement by the tool. The most
important aspect of the test was to keep the fluid mixture in
single phase throughout the test, and the same care and
procedures described in the previous section were used at
every step of the experiment.
We tested the tool against 14 live fluids. Roughly
categorizing, six of them were gas, three of them were
condensates, and five of them were live oil. The descriptions
of the 14 samples are given in Table 1. All measurements
took place at 8,000 psi and 180°F. Figs. 11 to 14 compare the
estimations given by the tool to the correct values given by
laboratory PVT analysis. Here, the plots are shown in a mass
fraction, i.e., each component group mass divided by a total
sample density. All four figures show excellent agreement
between the tool estimations and correct values regardless of
the fluid types.
Field Test Case Study
As the final step of the feasibility study, we decided to bring
the prototype tool to the oil field. For the tool to be of real use
in the oil field, it has to endure adverse conditions that were
not included in the laboratory study and could not be realized
in the previous shop test. For a well drilled with WBM,
presence of water in the tool flowline is a major issue. Water
is known to have a strong absorption effect in the wavelength
range of our interest. The presence and quantification of water
can be determined relatively easily, and its effect can be partly
eliminated by subtracting water spectrum from a measured
spectrum. However, this spectrum subtraction is never perfect
because water and hydrocarbon do not create a homogeneous
flow (on which the justification of the spectrum subtraction is
based). Another issue related to the presence of water is that
its own very strong absorption properties overlap the weaker
absorption spectrum of CO2 and makes accurate CO2
measurement difficult. Scattering is another issue. Small sand
particles, water droplets in oil, and oil droplets in water all
give light scattering. Most of the scattering is wavelength
independent, and it can be removed by baseline channel
subtraction. However, any scattering that is dependent on
wavelength will not be removed in this manner and will
introduce additional measurement error.
The first field trial of the prototype tool was conducted in
an onshore carbonate reservoir in the UAE. A gas injection
pilot has been running for years and a comprehensive
monitoring program was in place. A new monitoring well was
drilled with WBM for the purpose of conducting wireline
sampling to determine the progress of injected sweep gas. The
prototype tool was attached to a wireline sampling tool string
equipped with a dual packer module, a pumpout module, an
optical fluid anaysis module, and 18 single-phase multisample
chambers allowing multiple zones to be sampled. The
wireline sampling tool was able to acquire single-phase
samples of sufficient quality for all laboratory analysis
purposes from six different stations. The prototype tool was
used to analyze fluid at the first four stations (A, B, C, and D,
in order of increasing depth). Fig. 15 shows fluid analysis
results in mass ratio given by the tool. Streaks of dark blue
lines, indicating the presence of water slugs, were caused by
4 G. FUJISAWA ET AL SPE 84092

the characteristics of the pumpout module. Fluid segregation
within the pumpout unit prior to downhole sample analysis
enhances the likelihood of oil slugs without water enabling
more robust analysis. As seen in this figure, the fluid from
depth A contains very little gas component (C1 and C2–C5
group); it is primarily C6+ group, indicating the injected gas
has not reached depth A. On the other hand, significant
amounts of C1 and C2–C5 are present in depth B, clearly
showing that the injected gas has reached the section.
Obviously, depths A and B are not in communication. The
situation for depths C and D is similar, as seen in Fig. 15.
Some amount of the injected gas has reached these two depths.
The tool analysis results were later compared to the standard
laboratory PVT analysis results (Table 2). These two results
are in good agreement.
Conclusions
The feasibility of in-situ reservoir fluid composition analysis
was discussed and tested in three stages: laboratory study,
prototype test, and field test. The result at each stage turned
out to be very promising, and it now seems very possible to
bring this type of in-situ analysis to the E&P industry.
Downhole compositional analysis is seen to provide
immediate accurate feedback on the disposition of reservoir
fluids. These real time results are important for determining
sample validity and sample collection objective.
Examples from North Sea Operations”, SPE 71736, 76th SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (2001).
4. O. C. Mullins, G. F. Beck, M. E. Cribbs, T. Terabayashi, and
K. Kegasawa, “Downhole Detemination of GOR on Single-
Phase Fluids by Optical Spectroscopy”, SPWLA 42nd Annual
Logging Symposium, M (2001).
5. O. C. Mullins, N. B. Joshi, H. Groenzin, T. Daigle, C.
Crowell, M. T. Joseph, and A. Jamaluddin, “Linearity of
Near-Infrared Spectra of Alkanes”, Applied Spectroscopy,
54, 624 (2000).
6. O. C. Mullins, T. Daigle, C. Crowell, H. Groenzin, and N.
Joshi, “Gas-Oil Ratio of Live Crude Oils Determined by
Near-Infrared Spectroscopy”, Applied Spectroscopy, 55, 197
(2001).
7. M. A. van Agthoven, G. Fujisawa, P. Rabbito, and O. C.
Mullins, “Near-Infrared Spectral Analysis of Gas Mixtures”,
Applied Spectroscopy, 56, 593 (2002).
8. G. Fujisawa, M. A. van Agthoven, F. Jenet, P. A. Rabbito,
and O. C. Mullins, “Near-Infrared Compositional Analysis of
Gas and Condensate Reservoir Fluids at Elevated Pressures
and Temperatures”, Applied Spectroscopy, 56, 1615 (2002).
9. E. R. Malinowski, Factor Analysis in Chemistry (Wiley-
Interscience, New York, 1991), 2nd ed.
10. B. M. Wise and N. B. Gallagher, a tutorial material for
PLS_Toolbox 2.1 (Eigenvector Research, Inc., 2000).

Nomenclature
Dt×m = spectral data matrix consists of t-number of
wavelength and m-number of sample
Rt×t = loading matrix
Ct×m = score matrix
Dt×m = reduced data matrix
Rt×f = reduced loading matrix
Cf×m = reduced score matrix
b1×f = regression vector
y = concentration
mt×1= spectrum measured with a t-channel wireline
spectrometer tool

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express gratitude to Abu Dhabi
Company for Onshore Oil Operations (ADCO) and
Schlumberger for permission to publish this paper.

References
1. R. Smits, D. V. Fincher, K. Nishida, O. C. Mullins, R. J.
Schroeder, and T. Yamate, “In-Situ Optical Fluid Analysis as
an Aid to Wireline Formation Sampling”, SPE 26496, 68th
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (1993).
2. O. C. Mullins, J. Schroer, and G. C. Beck, “Real-Time
Quantification of OBM Filtrate Contamination during
Openhole Wireline Sampling by Optical Spectroscopy”,
SPWLA 41st Annual Logging Symposium, SS (2000).
3. F. H. Fadnes, J. Irvin-Fortescue, S. Williams, O. C. Mullins,
and A. V. Dusen, “Optimization of Wireline Sample Quality
by Real-Time Analysis of Oil-Based Mud Contamination –
SPE 84092 ANALYZING RESERVOIR FLUID COMPOSITION IN-SITU IN REAL TIME: CASE STUDY IN A CARBONATE RESERVOIR 5

TABLE 1—LIVE FLUID

USED FOR THE PROTOTYPE TESTS
Sample Fluid Type Descriptions
No.
1 Gas
2 Gas Contains CO2
3 Gas Contains high CO2
4 Wet Gas
5 Wet Gas Contains CO2
6 Wet Gas Contains high CO2
7 Condensate Gas Gas/oil ratio (GOR) ~ 17,500 scf/bbl
8 Condensate Gas GOR ~ 25,500 scf/bbl
9 Condensate Gas GOR ~ 66,500 scf/bbl
10 Oil GOR = 135 scf/bbl, dead oil API =
57.7
11 Oil GOR = 503 scf/bbl, dead oil API = 46
12 Oil GOR = 937 scf/bbl, dead oil API =
42.6
13 Oil GOR = 1057 scf/bbl
14 Oil GOR = 1400 scf/bbl

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF
DOWNHOLE TOOL ANALYSIS (LEFT)
AND LABORATORY ANALYSIS (RIGHT)
Depth C1 (wt%) C2–C5 (wt%) C6+ (wt%) GOR
(scf/bbl)
A 2%, 2% 5%, 9% 93%, 89% 250, 400
B 28%, 25% 23%, 31% 49%, 44% 4800, 6200
C 9%, 7% 10%, 14% 81%, 79% 950, 1030
D 7%, 6% 9%, 13% 84%, 81% 800, 875

Spectrometer

150oC
Oven
Sample
Optics
Heating
Cell Jacket
Piston
Hydraulic

150oC
kpsi
Oil

10
5 15
Hydraulic 0 20
Air Line Pump

Fig. 1. A schematic drawing of the measurement system.

6 G. FUJISAWA ET AL SPE 84092

0.5 1.0 4,000 psi, 100 °C

15,000 psi, 100 °C 6,000 psi, 100 °C
12,000 psi, 100 °C 8,000 psi, 100 °C
0.4 0.8 10,000 psi, 100 °C
10,000 psi, 100 °C
8,000 psi, 100 °C 12,000 psi, 100 °C
6,000 psi, 100 °C 15,000 psi, 100 °C
0.3 0.6
4,000 psi, 100 °C 8,000 psi, 21 °C

OD
OD

8,000 psi, 60 °C
0.2 0.4 8,000 psi, 125 °C

0.1 0.2

0.0 0.0
1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100
Wavelength (nm) Wavelength (nm)

Fig. 2. An example of a series of NIR spectra measured at 100°C Fig. 4. An example of a series of NIR spectra normalized for their
with different pressures for a same mixture. The magnitude of respective density. Their overlap suggests the spectra can be
spectra is dependent on pressure, but it is essentially linear in approximated as a function of density alone.
fluid density, as shown in Fig. 4.

0.5 2.5
8,000 psi, 21 °C PC1
8,000 psi, 60 °C 2.0 PC2
0.4 8,000 psi, 100 °C PC3
8,000 psi, 125 °C 1.5 PC4
0.3 PC5
OD

OD

1.0
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.0

0.0 -0.5
1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100
Wavelength (nm) Wavelength (nm)
Fig. 3. An example of a series of NIR spectra measured at 8,000 Fig. 5. The five largest principal components are plotted in
psi with different temperatures for a same mixture. The decreasing order. The wavelength range from 1800 nm to 1950
magnitude of spectra is dependent on temperature, but it is nm was eliminated from our analysis because of contamination of
essentially linear in fluid density, as shown in Fig. 4. some sample mixtures.
SPE 84092 ANALYZING RESERVOIR FLUID COMPOSITION IN-SITU IN REAL TIME: CASE STUDY IN A CARBONATE RESERVOIR 7

0.35 0.8
C1 C6+ group
0.30 y=x y=x
0.6
Estimation (g/cm3)

Estimation (g/cm3)
0.25

0.20
0.4
0.15

0.10
0.2
0.05

0.00 0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Correct concentration (g/cm3) Correct concentration (g/cm3)

Fig. 6. Comparison of methane concentration from NIR analysis Fig. 8. Comparison of C6+ concentration (integrated) from NIR
against actual results. The estimations agree with the correct analysis against actual results. The estimations agree well with
concentrations very well. the correct concentrations.

1.2
0.14 C2-C5 group
CO2
y=x
1.0 y=x
0.12
Estimation (g/cm3)

Estimation (g/cm3)

0.10 0.8

0.08
0.6
0.06
0.4
0.04
0.2
0.02

0.00 0.0
0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Correct concentration (g/cm3) Correct concentration (g/cm3)

Fig. 7. Comparison of C2–C5 group concentration (integrated) from Fig. 9. Comparison of CO2 concentration from NIR analysis
NIR analysis against actual results. The estimations agree well against actual results. The estimations agree with the correct
with the correct concentrations. concentrations.
8 G. FUJISAWA ET AL SPE 84092

Sample Hydraulic Fluid

Valve 1

Pump
Valve 2 Pressure
Sample Bottle Gauge 1
Optics Cell and
Spectrometer
Pressure Tool Oven Pressure
Gauge 2 Gauge 3

Prototype Tool
Valve 3

Fig. 10. The schematic drawing of the prototype tool test.

100 100
C1 C6+ group
y=x y=x
80 80
Tool estimation (wt %)

Tool estimation (wt %)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
True mass fraction (wt %) True mass fraction (wt %)

Fig. 11. The shop test results of the prototype tool for methane Fig. 13. The shop test results of the prototype tool for C6+ group
concentration. The estimations agree well with the correct concentration. The estimations agree well with the correct
concentrations. concentrations.

100 100
C2-C5 group CO2
y=x y=x
80 80
Tool estimation (wt %)

Tool estimation (wt %)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
True mass fraction (wt %) True mass fraction (wt %)

Fig. 12. The shop test results of the prototype tool for C2–C5 group Fig. 14. The shop test results of the prototype tool for CO2
concentration. The estimations agree well with the correct concentration. The estimations agree well with the correct
concentrations. concentrations.
SPE 84092 ANALYZING RESERVOIR FLUID COMPOSITION IN-SITU IN REAL TIME: CASE STUDY IN A CARBONATE RESERVOIR 9

Depth A: No injected gas

Depth B: High concentration of

injected gas

Depth C: Some injected gas

Depth D: Some injected gas

Color Keys

Fig. 15. The tool analyzed fluid at four different depths (A, B, C,
and D, in the order of increasing depth). The color key
corresponds to a concentration group in the following manner:
yellow (C1), brown (C2–C5 group), green (C6+ group), and blue
(water). As seen in the figure, the injected gas has swept the
depth B most efficiently, and depths C and D for some degree
where little gas has reached depth A. Obviously, depths A and B
are not in communication.