Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Spe 17685 MS
Spe 17685 MS
Spe 17685 MS
Conference, Singapore
2-5 February 1988
SPE 17685
OSEA 88174
Enhancing the Evaluation of PVT Data
by J.K. Drohm and W.H. Goldthorpe, Woodside Offshore Petroleum Pty. Ltd.,
and R. Trengove, Murdoch U. (Australia)
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 7th Offshore South East Asia Conference held in Singapore,
2-5 February 1988. This paper was selected for presentation by a programme committee following review of information in an
abstract. Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by OSEA and are subject to correction by the author(s).
ABSTRACT
A procedure for evaluating the quality and
consistency of PVT data is presented. This
procedure uses the material balance and the
associated error analysis for investigating
experimental accuracy, and to identify the
sources of erratic data. The use of this method
to 'correct' erratic data is illustrated for a
near-critical or volatile oil and a gascondensate.
INTRODUCTION
The need for sampling of petroleum reservoir
fluids and the subsequent experimental
determination of their properties has grown in
the last decade with the increased cost and
complexity of recovering hydrocarbons. Reservoir
recovery mechanisms relying on compositional
effects (such as COz flooding or gas cycling),
and the construction of more elaborate surface
processing plants (e.g. LNG and LPG) have
created a situation where engineers must now use
mathematical models to understand and predict
phase behaviour in a whole range of
circumstances. It has therefore become
imperative that the experimental data used for
generating a mathematical description of a
particular fluid be of the highest quality.
Despite development in the theory and use of
equations of state (EOS) over the last twenty
years, the commercial experiments performed on
fluids to understand their behaviour have hardly
changed. The gulf that now exists between the
accuracy of some experiments and the accuracy
actually required can result in erroneous
predictions from equations of state, however
good they may be.
626
88174
"
~
I " 1
n1
(2)
Mt
~1 X.n
- I="
~ n1 1
p~
Po
627
(1 - s~
>
(3)
88174
Po
(1 - s~
... . (4 >
( 8)
Po
and
The vapour densities can he obtained from the
reported vapour compressibility factors by
applying the real gas law
v
(9)
y~
Mt
Pk
z:
RT
(5)
VL
(10)
K:
where
indicates the molecular weight of the
vapour at pressure Pk. For an initial mass of
fluid M0 , equation (3) can therefore he expanded
to
(11)
k-1
- 1=1
%
zr
R T
(V~- V~)
(6)
M'
vL
v:
MASS
v'
PVT REPRESENTATION
Ra M'~
R8
(13)
Rs rs
(14)
r8
(15)
Bsr
where M' and M' indicate the total mass of the
light a~d heav~ pseudo-component in the cell.
By way of .~xample the total liquid mass is given
by
ML
PL yL
1 + R8
(16)
R8 r 8
We denote by
Bsr
(12)
Rs rs
1.
rs
Bo
628
88174
11
EXAMPLES
We provide two examples that serve to illustrate
the evaluation procedure. In addition we will
see that
- for obviously erroneous data, common sense
is often enough to make repairs, and
- if the irregularities are only mild, then
repairing the data becomes tricky and is often
incomplete.
The first example is the CVD experiment on an
oil described in the original paper on
constant volume depletions Reudelhuber and
Hindsz. It shows that an irregularity can not
always be attributed to an error in any
one single parameter, but at least it points to
a weak spot in the data.
The second example is a CVD experiment on a
near-critical gas-condensate from a paper by
MosesB on the use of PVT in reservoir
engineering applications. The liquid saturations
had to be obtained from elsewhere6 , despite the
author's viewpoint that they form an essential
part of the experimental data set. We also give
the CCE data of the same fluid, also not
provided by Moses.
Volatile oil example
Table 1 gives the quantitative experimental data
available from the Reudelhuber and Rinds paper.
Figure 1 shows the extensive parameters, liquid
saturation, fractional mass production, and
independently determined vapour density, which
all look very reasonable. Figure 2 shows the
liquid density as obtained from the balance
calculation. (solid line). The initial density is
determined independently (ie not from material
balance). Clearly there is a 'kink' in the
density curve, for which two reasons can be
suggested
- wrong liquid saturations. This is unlikely
in view of their big~ values, although with a
volatile oil it is not imp~ssible that
insufficient equilibration times cause the
measured liquid saturations to be in error.
- irregularities in the production. This would
leave the initial density unchanged and only
change the densities at lower pressure.
Since the kink in the density curve already
occurs at P1 , n1 may be the cause of the
problem. Reudelhuber and Rinds in their paper
also graphically display the results of the PV
629
88174
[ ~
:IS
0.095
Po
from the CVD and CCE experiments on this nearcritical gas-condensate. Figure 3 shows the
usual liquid saturation curve, recovery curve
and the vapour density curve. Also indicated are
the CCE liquid saturations (crosses). They
indicate a strong 'tail-like' shape of the
saturation curve close to the dewpoint. Figure 4
shows the liquid density as obtained from the
material balance on the experimental data. Again
a kink is very apparent and accompanies liquid
density trends in contrast with the near~
critical nature of the gas condensate. Using
interpolated vapour densities from the CCE data,
the resulting liquid densities become
nonphysical, ranging up to 3600 kg/m 3 The R8 curve ( C4 _, C5 + pseudo-component split) in
Figure 5 also appears to indicate an erroneous
composition at pressure P1 _
The obvious candidate for the cause of the
problems is the liquid saturations. If we impose
a new density on the liquid at P1 (34575 kPa) by
linear extrapolation from the lower pressures
(see Figure 4 dashed line) equation (4) can be
inverted to yield a new S~ which moves from 8'
to about 15' of the initial cell volume, almost
double. If we now linearly interpolate these
liquid saturations (Figure 4 dashed) and apply
them to the CCE data, the resulting liquid
densities only range from 580 to 610 kg/m 3 ,
instead of up to 3600 kg/m 3
Putting them on the extrapolated liquid density
curve would make the liquid saturation curve
slightly steeper close to the dewpoint.
Nomenclature
reservoir liquid formation volume
factor
reservoir vapour formation volume
factor
total mass of fluid in the cell at
pressure step k
mass of liquid in the cell at
p_ressure step k
molecular weight of the vapour at
pressure step k
total mass of the pseudo-component a
in the cell
number of moles of component j in the
~Jk
liquid in the cell at pressure step k
number of moles of liquid in the cell
at _pressure step k
number of moles of component j in the
vapour in the cell at pressure step k
number of moles of vapour in the cell
llvk
at pressure step k
pressure at pressure step k
universal gas constant
gas-oil ratio of reservoir liquid
oil-gas ratio of reservoir vapour
liquid saturation in the cell at
pressure step k
temperature
volume of the cell at pressure step k
volume of the liquid phase in the PVT
cell
630
88174
vr1
vrk
vv
XJk
xa
YJk
iJ1
Ya
zvk
za
ZJk
zJk
4np1
111
Po
REFERENCES
(1))
:
k
ZJo
-~~~tl~t YJI
- nvkYik
(A.1)
k
pk V~ ll I I
nLlk= ZJo- ~ tln".tYJt- Y11 - - - (1- SLd
1 1
(i\.2)
Z~;RT
631
88174
pk
zk
zo
(1- SLk) (A.3)
MPk
Po
= ZJo
-1:14~1YJ1
(A.4)
APPENDIX B
In order to appreciate the error sources in the
calculation of the liquid mass and density in a
CVD or DLB experiment, we reproduce equation (6)
which includes the main quantities determined
during the experiment. The equation is no longer
on a unit mass basis as there is sometimes an
error introduced in obtaining the initial mass.
Suppose the measured initial volume of the PVT
cell filled with a reservoir fluid at the
saturation pressure is V0 , and that the density
of the fluid has been determined as p0 The
initial mass in the cell is simply p0 V0 The
mass of liquid that would actually be in the
cell at pressure step k is given by
l:
zr
1=1
R T
~v
Kk pk
z:
(V~- V~)
(8.1)
R T
= dK
dM0
dK/
s~ V0
s~ V0
SLk
dp:-
(p: - (Kk I V0
<
s~
>z
))
dS~
n1
(B. 4)
(8.2)
TI
(1-S~)
1 ~1
k-1
K~ =
Mo
(8.3)
632
= 374.8
Pressure fkPa)
27611
33162
21475
16028
9823
4859
Vapour Coaposition
(aole '~
liz
COz
C1
Cz
C:a
i .D -
c..
c..
i - Ca
Ca
.D -
c.
C7+
0.24
0.27
66.83
8.28
5.15
1.04
2.27
1.00
1.04
1.85
12.03
0.27
0.27
75.94
8.23
4.59
0.90
1.93
0.78
0.84
1.24
5.01
0.28
0.27
79.34
8.29
4.41
0.77
1.73
0.64
0.67
0.90
2.70
0.29
0.28
80.87
8.44
4.35
0.75
1.57
0.55
0.57
0.72
1.61
0.29
0.29
80.74
8.85
4.65
0.77
1.61
0.54
0.57
0.65
1.04
0.28
0.32
77.75
9.90
5.69
0.94
2.08
0.64
0.70
,0. 73
0.97
182
144
123
115
112
112
1.042
0.924
0.848
0.845
0.879
0.929
0.0
9.054
22.100
36.318
55.083
70.880
100.00
50.35
45.80
42.50
37.93
34.50
C7+ aolecular
weight
Vapour z factor
Cuaaulative
Production (aole ')
Liquid saturation
(' of cell voluae)
Pressure
= 397.6
lkPa~
*
41539 41125 40780 40091 38712 36643 34575 27680 20786 14580
8375
4928
Vapour Coapoition
iaole 'l
z
COz
C1
Cz
c.
i-
.D-
c..
c..
i - Ca
.D -
c.
Ca
C7+
C7+ aolecular
weight
0.11
0.01
68.93
8.63
5.34
1.15
2.33
0.93
0.85
1. 73
9.99
0.12
0.01
70.69
8.67
5.26
1.10
2.21
0.86
0.76
1.48
8.84
0.12
0.01
73.60
8.72
5.20
1.05
2.09
0.78
0.70
1.25
6.48
0.13
0.01
76.60
8.82
5.16
1.01
1.99
0.73
0.65
1.08
3.82
0.13
0.01
77.77
8.96
5.16
1.01
1.98
0.72
0.63
1.01
2.62
0.12
0.01
77.04
9.37
5.44
1.10
2.15
0. 77
0.68
1.07
2.25
0.11
0.01
75.13
9.82
5.90
1.26
2.45
0.87
0.78
1.25
2.42
158
146
134
123
115
110
109
1.015
0.897
0.853
0.865
0.902
0.938
Vapour Z factor
1.140
Cuaaulative
0.0
Production (aole ')
Liquid saturation
0.0 trace
'' of cell voluae)
Total Cell Voluae
0.2
0.5
2.0
7.8
633
21.3
25.0
24.4
22.5
21.0
-.s
11.-ooucnoN (~ON)
.ao
,10
,OQ
.150
.40
.~
.20
,10
.oo
,150
?+-------~------~------~------~------_,
.oo
.20
.eo
,40
1,00
?+-------~------~------~~------._------~
,I'
,/
I
I
''
I
/
/
'
/
"\
""
",
'\.
'\.
'\.
'\.
'
,I
'/
I 00,
1 110.
200.
2150,
2110.
.10Q,
,.,... II"<)OUcnON
DO.
..0,
1180,
8110,
Fig. 7 Volatile oil liquid denllty end m... production; original end modltled.
(~ON)
.ao
.40
,110
.150
.oo
:I
.oe
,to
.us
.2o
.211
?+-----~----~------._----~----~----~
\
\
\
\
\
\
100,
aoo.
V~U"
~o.
DEN811Y (1<0/M~)
7110.
,10
~~--~--~--~--~--~
i+----~--r--~----,..---r-----1
110,
I
J
/1
1/
.oo
'\.
,/
0,
'\.
I'
I
I
//
I
I
I
I
fi
1/
;'
'\.
;;
[/
,1'
/I
// I
/
I
400.
1500.
634
.oo
.oo
,10
eeo.
100.
110.
700.
1..101.110 DENIIT"'' (ICO/Nol)
,10
.ao
P+-------~------~----~------_.
.ao
.10
_______.______~
III
I:
I
'i~
i
!~
~
i)
00
....
~
Fig. 4 Gal condent liquid den1lty and liquid turaUon; original and
modified.
.0 ("II, Wol/ICO)
.ooae
.ooao
.0010
P+-----------._
__________
.___________
._________.00.10
~
I
I
l
j
j +---....-....-.----..-------.,.--.-l
.oo
.10
.ao
.10
.40
.eo
.eo
"I (MO/ICO)
635