SPE 167560

An Analytical Approach to Consistency Checks of Experimental PVT Data

Otavie Imo-Jack, SPE, SPDC and Chima Emelle, SPE, SPDC

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 30 July–1 August 2013.

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
Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT) relationships have
long been studied as a basis of understanding the phase
behavior of fluid systems. In order to understand the
behavior of these fluid systems, smaller quantities usually
referred to as samples are obtained and studied under
varying PVT conditions in order to define the character of
the fluids. PVT experimental measurements provide key
data for reservoir engineering and production applications;
however the importance of having valid samples may be
overlooked during preparation of the laboratory study and
interpretation of the results.
PVT data is an important input into the evaluation of oil
and gas resources, reservoir simulation and surface
equipment design. Oil and Gas companies are required to
disclose estimates of their oil and gas resources on an
annual basis. Accurate reporting of resources is largely
dependent on an accurate fluid description, PVT derived
properties like the formation oil and gas volume factor can
have a significant effect on the final resource estimate.
PVT data is also employed in reservoir simulation models
and their effect span from the model initialization through
history matching to production performance forecasting.
The amount of oil and gas initially present is largely
impacted by the PVT properties input; the recovery
mechanisms which play an important role in the history
matching and forecasting phases are also influenced by the
PVT properties.
optimization benefits. These meters can only operate at
their full potential if they are precisely calibrated and
benefit from high quality volumetric sampling that reflects
the changing fluid and process conditions of the reservoir.
Accurate measurement of PVT properties is important to
avoiding some of the pitfalls mentioned above.
This paper presents some of the analytic approaches
employed in quality checking PVT data covering the
application of mass balance compositional consistency
checks, material balance checks on Differential Liberation
and Constant volume Depletion experiments for oil and
gas condensates respectively. In some instances,
parameters are estimated from different sources and
compared. These methods if properly applied can lead to
huge savings owing to accurate facility sizing and accurate
data which aids optimization efforts including subsea
installations with flow meters in place. Accurate PVT data
also ensures proper reporting of in-place volumes which
otherwise can lead to heavy penalties as well as
reputational issues if wrongly assessed and reported.
Introduction
Oil and gas samples are collected in order to evaluate
properties of produced fluids at reservoir conditions, in the
producing tubing, and in pipeline transportation. The key
PVT (pressure-volume-temperature) properties to be
determined for a reservoir fluid include:

A complete PVT analysis of a subsurface sample can cost 1. Original reservoir composition(s)
anywhere around $20,000, thus in a large Niger Delta field 2. Oil and gas viscosities
with say 50 plus reservoirs, over a million dollars in 3. Oil and gas densities
evaluation cost can be incurred. There is a case reported in 4. Saturation pressure at reservoir temperature
an Oil Technology publication of April 2012 where oil 5. Shrinkage volume factors of oil and gas to
recovery was underestimated by as much as 40% when surface conditions
separator gas was used to represent both reservoir gas and 6. Liquid content of a reservoir gas
average produced gas. Test lines for subsea well testing
cost as much as US $60 million and with the Historically, the only acceptable method for determining
accompanying logistics challenges, most operators have initial reservoir compositions has been to directly obtain
moved to install flow meters as an alternative with added bottomhole or recombined separator samples which are
2 SPE 167560
truly representative of in-situ compositions. When
bottomhole flowing pressures drop below initial reservoir
pressure multiphase behavior develops around the
wellbore. This is usually a challenge in trying to obtsin in-
situ representative samples in a saturated or slightly
undersaturated reservoirs. Fevang and Whitson, 1994
introduced a more general definition of a representative
sample. They defined “reservoir-representative” sample as
any sample produced from the reservoir and an in-situ
representative sample as the volume-weighted average of
the original fluid(s) in the depth interval drained by the
well during sampling.
Process engineers rely heavily on compositional analysis,
especially extended analysis sometimes up to C40.
However, because equations of state (EOS) are required
for characterization, compositional analysis is not
sufficient by itself. Material balance calculations can be
used to quality check the consistency of the depletion type
experiments namely differential liberation for oils and
constant volume depletions for gas condensates.
The application of material balance calculations to
experimental PVT for calculation of fluid properties was
first outlined by Reudelhuber and Hinds, 1957. Their
description is, however, is somewhat difficult to follow
and never achieved wide acceptance. Whitson and Torp,
1983 presented the work of Reudelhuber and Hinds in a
clear and usable manner, using current SPE nomenclature.
They also linked their approach to a method for
calculating black oil PVT properties first suggested by
Dodson, Goodwill and Mayer in 1953, Whitson and Torp
on the other hand advocated the use of Equation of state
rather than the complicated sampling approach suggested
by Dodson et al. Drohm and Goldthrope reformulated the
black oil PVTrepresentations improving the accuracy of
numerical simulations while obtaining the PVT parameters
from experimentally determined properties As a
consequence these parameters not only reproduce the data
exactly but also highlights the errors in the data which
sometimes include nonphysical values.
Drohm and Goldthrope, 1988 state that although it is not
always possible to trace back and repair irregularities,
most often the sources of observed unexpected and
nonphysical behavior can be identified.The standard
method of smoothing data by PVT laboratories to obtain
consistency is to be avoided as it masks the real quality of
the data and can cause erratic phase behavior upon
application of the material balance.
The material balance checks are applied to two oil and gas
condensate sample each and analyzed.
Standard PVT Experiments
The common PVT experiments for hydrocarbon reservoir
fluids are
1. Constant Composition expansion (CCE)
2. Constant Volume Depletion (CVD)
3. Differential Liberation (DLE)
4. Multi-stage Seperator Test (MST)
The CCE is the most common PVT experiment and is
carried out for both oils and gases. It is also called
constant mass expansion (CME) of flash vaporization. In
this experiment, the original composition of the reservoir
fluid or its original mass always remain constant because
no reservoir fluid either oil or gas is removed from the
cell. Key measurements from the CCE experiment are
total volume, bubble/dewpoint pressure, undersaturated
gas Z-factor, isothermal compressibility for undersaturated
oil and condensate volume below the dew point pressure.
The CVD is the most important experiment for gas
condensate reservoirs. It is designed to provide volumetric
and compositional data for gas condensate and volatile oil
reservoirs producing by pressure depletion. Important
measured properties include bubble point/dew point
pressure, liquid and gas volumes at each pressure stage,
gas composition and volume produced at each stage, Gas
Z factor, volume composition and density of the residual
oil.
The differential liberation experiment is also refered to as
differential vaporization or differential expansion. In this
experiment, the solution gas removed from the oil during
the pressure depletion is contioniously removed from
contact with the oil.This is an excellent representation of a
gas condensate reservoir undergoing depletion.Key
measurements from this test includes bubble point oil
volume, remaining oil volume, oil and gas specific
gravities as well as compositions. Important checks
include stage oil densities, gas z-factor, and comparison of
reservoir oil density with that of multistage separation test.
The multi-stage separation test was designed to provide a
basis for converting DLE data from residual oil to stock
tank oil by including the effect of surface processes. It is
also applied to high yield condensates. Measured
properties include initial volume at saturation pressure,
separator oil volume at each stage and residual oil volume,
density and (composition).
DLE Material Balance
In addition to the measured properties derived from the
DLE and mentioned earlier, other properties can be
calculated and they include
1. Differential solution gas/oil ratio
2. Differential oil FVF
3. Oil Density and
4. Gas Z factor
For stage k, these properties can be determined from
∑ ∆
R ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 1
--------------------------------------------------------- (2)
SPE 167560 3

. ∑ . / . ∆ 1 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 8
--------------------- (3)

The above equation forms the basis of the mass balance

Note that the subscript j=1 indicates the final DE stage at
plot.
atmospheric pressure and reservoir temperature.
The Hoffman et al method, 1953 for correlating k values
There are two types of material balances for the DLE type
has received widespread application.
experiment. These are the forward material balance and
the backward material balance. In the forward material log , -------------------------------------------------------- (9)
balance, the starting fluid is the original sample and gases
are removed in a stepwise process aligned to the ⁄ ⁄
Where F ⁄ ⁄
log p ⁄p ;------------------------------------ (10)
laboratory pressure drop steps. The densities of the fluid
are calculated at each pressure step and compared with the
laboratory report. In the case of the backward material They found show that the measured k values correlate well
balance, the residual oil is the starting fluid and released for a gas condensate reservoir. They found that the trend
gases are added back to the oil until we get to the initial of log (kip) vs.Fi is linear for components C1 through C6 at
composition which can then be compared with what is all pressures bending slightly downwards for heavier
reported by the laboratory. components at low pressures.

Analysis and Discussion of Results

CVD Material Balance For the A1 oil sample which was taken through a series of
The mole and component material balance can be validity checks. The composition of the wellstream is
expressed as shown in table 1.

-------------------------------------------------------------- (4) Table 1: Wellstream composition of A1

and

n ∙z n ∙x n ∙ y , ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 5

The only data measured directly and appearing in either of

the equationsis the vapor compositions. Other data can be
determined from the report of the CVD and modified
material balance equations.

The total moles at stage k equals the total number of moles

minus the number of moles of vapor produced. Based on
one mole initial fluid then:

1 ∑ ∆ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 6

When applied on a component basis, equation 6 becomes:

The mass balance plot in Figure 1 shows a fairly good
∙ ∑ ∆ ∙ ,‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 7 representation with the points following a straight line

giving a high degree of confidence in the compositional
Whitson and Torp, 1983 give a detailed description of
analysis.
these equations.

The CVD material balance can either be forward or

backward as in the case of the DLE. The forward material
balance is more sensitive to errors in composition and is a
generally recommended approach for the CVD data
analysis.

Compositional Consistency
The validity of compositional measurements can be tested
by the mass balance closure plot and the Hoffman plot.
The separator oil and gas samples can be recombined
mathematically to obtain the wellstream and this is
represented by:
Figure 1: Mass balance Plot of A1
4 SPE 167560

The Hoffman plot which is a more acceptable check of

equilibrium between the separator oil and gas samples.
The theory behind the method has been stated earlier in
the paper. Standing, 1979 correlated log (kip) vs.Fi for an
Oklahoma City crude and got a fairly good correlation.
Log (kip) vs.Fi for A1 is plotted against standing
correlation on the same axis andis shown in Figure 1
below.
Table 3: Density from Separator Test vs. DLE
A CVD analysis was carried out on the gas condensate
sampe.Table 3 shows. The B1 fluid is a rich gas
condensate from a Niger Delta reservoir with a heptanes
plus molar ratio of 11.66. This reservoir fluid was obtained
through recombination of the separator oil and gas at the
separator GOR of Refered to as sample B1 in this paper
the extended compositional analysis of this sample is as
shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: B1 Extended Compositional analysis

Figure 2: Hoffman Plot for A1 vs Standing Correlation

A backward differential liberation material balance is also

carried out on the oil following the methodology described
earlier. The calculations cover the pressure range from the
bubble point pressure to 1 atmosphere. Stage input are oil
FVF, solution GOR and gas gravity. The residual oil
density as well as molar volume are required input and the
oil gravity is the output. The data for oil sample A1
backward DLE is detailed in Table 2

Table 2: A1 DLE backward material balance

The CVD data for the the B1 fluid is shown in Table 4

below. The fluid has a saturation pressure of 5377 psia.

Table 4: CVD data for B1 fluid

From the table above it can be seen that the deviation of

the calculated oil densities from what is reported is
generally less than 1%, giving a relatively high degree of
confidence in the reported DLE data.

Density calculated from the separator test was also

compared to that from DLE and the results are shown for
both oil samples in Table 3.
SPE 167560
A Forward and backward material balance were carried
out for the B1 fluid. As was mentioned earlier, the forward
material balance is more sensitive to errors in composition
and this is seen in the output of the calculation for B1 gas
condensate.The deviation of the calculated molar
compositions are more pronounced for the forward
material balance than the backward material balance,
hence the preference of the forward material balance for
condensates. See Table 5 for more details.
Table 5: B1 Forward and backward material balance
K values are expected to be monotonic for each
component over the range of pressures. When k values are
calculated from the CVD material balance then the quality
of the data can be visually inferred.
Figure 3: K-values for B1 fluid
It can be seen from the k values plot above that there is an
intersection between the k values between C1 and C3 at
about 1700 psia and 3000 psia. There should ideally be no
intersection for very quality data. There are cases when we
have negative k-values which then do not plot on the log
scale. Physically, it is impossible to have negative k-
values and when we get this it means the compositional
5
analysis is incorrect. This is very critical as it will be
worthless continuing a PVT characterization on inaccurate
compositional analysis. Sometimes negative liquid
densities are observed, which indicate that there was
insufficient time to equilibrate at each pressure stage (i.e.
liquid saturation is too low). Drohm et al, 1998 discuss
this issue in reasonable detail.
It can be seen from the CVD data analysis output in the
appendix that we can obtain much better results than what
is reported for the B1 fluid in Table 5 and Figure 3. There
is a close match between the calculated and measured
compositions for both the forward and backward material
balance calculations. There is also a relatively high degree
of monoticity for both the B2 and B3 Fluids as reported in
the appendix.
Conclusions
From the discussions and cases presented it can be
concluded that established methods exist for checking the
consistency of PVT data. These methods provide a
powerful intervention guide to ensuring consistent and
reliable fluid properties data. From the paper we can draw
the following conclusions:
1. PVT data is important for several oilfield
applications including reserves estimation,
production performance forecasting and
facilities design
2. It is important for the engineer to work with
the laboratory during sample collection and
analysis to ensure quality output before a final
report is issued.
3. Consistency checks are important not only for
compositions but for the depletion type
experiments
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the management of Shell
Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) for granting
permission to publish this paper. The support of Inem
Ekong, Femi Akinwumi and Peter Joseph are appreciated.
Nomenclature
i, k = Relate to the pressure step
j = Relate to the component
R = Differential solution gas/oil ratio
n = Moles of gas
V = Residual-oil volume
= Differential oil FVF
= Oil volume
= Oil density
= Specific gravity of gas
= Total moles
= Moles of liquid
= Moles of vapour
x = Mole fraction in the liquid phase
= Mole fraction in the gas phase
∆ = Moles of vapour removed
6 SPE 167560

= Total mole fraction

PVT = Pressure-Volume-Temperature
CVD = Constant Volume Depletion
CCE = Constant Composition expansion
DLE = Differential Liberation
MST = Multi-stage Seperator Test
CME = Constant Mass Expansion

References
1. Reudelhuber, F. O. and Hindis, R. F., 1957. A
Compositional Material Balance Method for
Prediction of Recovery from Volatile Oil Depletion
Drive Reservoir. Trans., AIME 210: 19 – 26. Figure A1: Mass Balance Plot for A2
2. Fevang, Ø. and Whitson, C.H.1994. Accurate In-Situ
Compositions in Petroleum Reservoirs. Paper SPE
28829 presented at the 1994 European Petroleum
Conference, London, and 25–27 October.
3. Dodson, C. R., Goodwill, D., and Mayer, E. H. 1953.
Application of Laboratory PVT Data to Reservoir
Engineering. Petroleum Transaction, AIME 198:
287 – 298.
4. Drohm, J.K. and Goldthorpe, W. H. 1988. Black Oil
PVT Revisited – Use of Pseudocomponent Mass for
an Exact Material Balance. Paper SPE 17081
available from SPE, Richardson, Texas.
5. Hoffman, A.E., Crump, J.S., and Hocott, CR.:
“Equilibrium Constants for a Gas-Condensate
System,” Trans., AIME 198, 1.
6. Standing, M.B.: “A set of Equations for Computing
Equilibrium Ratios of a Crude Oil/Naural Gas Figure A2: Hoffman Plot for A2
System at Pressures Below 1,000 psia,” JPT
(September 1979) 1193 Table A2: Backward DLE for A2

Appendix

Table A1: Wellstream of A2

SPE 167560 7

Table A3: Wellstream for B2

Figure A3: K-value Plot for B2

Table A4: CVD Data for B2

Table A5: CVD Material Balance for B2