TM 4000

CAPSTONE DESIGN
PROJECT 2: PVT Analysis

NAME/ STUDENT NO: Farid Mulki Antoni 12216086

Nanda Adolf Friedrich Panjaitan 12216087
One Salwa Dinar Kandi 12216089
Reynaldo Billy Towidjojo 12216090
Anthony Kurnia Jaya 12216091

LECTURER: Zuher Syihab, ST., Ph.D.

Billal Maydika Aslam, ST., MT.
Hasian Parlindungan Septoratno Siregar, Prof. Dr. Ir., DEA.

ASSISTANT: Efsion Andre

SUBMISSION DATE: January 27, 2020

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING STUDY PROGRAM

FACULTY OF MINING AND PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
INSTITUT TEKNOLOGI BANDUNG
2020
 DAFTAR ISI
I. Problem................................................................................................................................... 4

II. Basic Theory ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Constant Composition Expansion / Constant Mass Expansion (CCE)............................ 5

2.2 Differential Liberation Test ............................................................................................. 6

2.3 Constant Volume Depletion Test ..................................................................................... 6

2.4 Separator Test .................................................................................................................. 7

III. Data and Calculation ............................................................................................................ 8

3.1 Calculation Data............................................................................................................... 8

3.1.1 Well TM-01 ............................................................................................................. 8

3.1.2 Well TM-02 ............................................................................................................. 9

3.2 Process and Calculation ................................................................................................. 11

3.2.1 Quality Control for Sample Data ........................................................................... 11

3.2.2 Phase Behavior Identification ................................................................................ 13

3.2.3 Fluid Model ........................................................................................................... 14

IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 18

4.1 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 18

4.2 Recommendation ........................................................................................................... 18

Job Description ........................................................................................................................ 19

1
 TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 illustration for CCE procedure .................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 Illustration for DL test ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3 Illustration for CVD procedure ................................................................................... 7
Figure 4 Illustration for Separator Test ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 5 Hoffman plot for TM-01 ........................................................................................... 11
Figure 6 Hoffman plot for TM-02 ........................................................................................... 12
Figure 7 Saturation Pressure Calculation ................................................................................. 12
Figure 8 Phase envelope for TM-01 ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 9 Phase envelope for TM-02 ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 10 Relative Volume Data Matching for TM-01 ........................................................... 14
Figure 11 Matching of various data for TM-01 ....................................................................... 15
Figure 12 Matching relative volume data for TM-02 .............................................................. 16
Figure 13 Matching of various data for TM-02 ....................................................................... 17

2
 TABLE OF FIGURES
Table 1 Pressure volume relations of reservoir fluid at 149oF through TM-01 ......................... 8
Table 2 Hydrocarbon Analysis of Reservoir Fluid through TM-01 .......................................... 9
Table 3 Hydrocarbon Analysis of Reservoir Fluid through TM-02 .......................................... 9
Table 4 Pressure volume relations of reservoir fluid at 158.5 oF through TM-02 .................... 10
Table 5 Saturation pressure crosscheck ................................................................................... 11

3
I. Problem

1. Analisis data PVT yang tersedia, meliputi :

• Quality Control (QC) terhadap sampel yang ada, cek apakah ada terdapat kontaminasi
dan gunakan metode-metode seperti Hoffman plot dan material balance checking dll.

• Tentukan tipe fluida reservoirnya

• Buatlah model fluida (Equation of State) dengan menggunakan software yang tersedia
(manfaatkan data pengukuran lab seperti CCE, CVD, Separator test dll. Sebagai
validator terhadap model fluida)

• Export untuk keperluan simulasi reservoir

2. Bahas dan jelaskan selengkap mungkin

3. Buatlah kesimpulan dan rekomendasi

4
II. Basic Theory

Reservoir fluids contain more than two, three, or four components. Phase-composition
data can no longer be represented with two, three or four coordinates. Instead, phase diagrams
that give more limited information are used.

In order to determine many critical points, there are several tests that can be conducted:
DL (Differential Liberation), CCE (Constant Composition Expansion / Constant Mass
Expansion), Separator Test, and CVD (Constant Volume Depletion).

2.1 Constant Composition Expansion / Constant Mass Expansion (CCE)

Optimization of oil and gas field exploration and production is done by taking reservoir
fluid samples from explored reservoirr, then sent through a number of laboratorium tests to
achieve knowledge for best production configutation to achieve the best quality products in a
economical way, this is done to achieve best cost-engineered and lab-engineered method.

To achieve that, it is essential to understand at what conditions the initial one-phase

fluid splits into two phases and the compositions and the properties of each phase, etc. Such
tests are called PVT tests and the properties PVT properties which usually are expressed as
functions of pressure and temperature.

CCE is usually the first test to be done in lab after determining the composition. The
test is done from high pressure at reservoir temperature, then decreasing it gradually. The
bubble point or dew point and the fluid properties changed with pressure and temperature are
obtained from the test.

Figure 1 illustration for CCE procedure

5
2.2 Differential Liberation Test

Unlike CCE, the DL test starts from the bubble point pressure (for conventional oil) or
dew point pressure (for gas condensate), and gradually decreases the pressure at a constant
temperature. For each measured steps of changes, the volume of oil and gas are measured and
the depleted gas is collected.

However, the similarity between CCE and DL is that the purpose of DL is to understand
the phase behavior and the PVT properties of the reservoir fluid at the reservoir conditions. DL
also allows lab to understand information of the oil volume at the reservoir conditions as
compared to that at the standard conditions.

Figure 2 Illustration for DL test

2.3 Constant Volume Depletion Test

Test starts at the dew point pressure of the gas condensate and measures the saturation
volume at the dew point. As the pressure decreases, the volume increases to form the gas oil
two phases. The gas is depleted from a valve at the top of the cylinder to keep the total volume
of the two phases equal to the saturation volume at a constant pressure.

The percentage of the depleted gas as to the original gas is measured as well as the
percentage of the liquid dropout of the liquid volume as to the saturation volume.

6
 Figure 3 Illustration for CVD procedure

2.4 Separator Test

The final test in the series is separator test, which is done to optimize the amount of oil
produced at the surface and measure oil formation volume factor and solution GOR. A sample
of reservoir fluid is placed in the laboratory cell and brought to reservoir temperature and
bubble point pressure. Then the oil is expelled from the cell to the next separator stage while
the gas is let out and transferred to standard conditions. The process is repeated until stock tank
conditions are reached.

Figure 4 Illustration for Separator Test

7
III. Data and Calculation

3.1 Calculation Data

3.1.1 Well TM-01

Below are all data used for this procedure:

Table 1 Pressure volume relations of reservoir fluid at 149 oF through TM-01

Pressure Relative Y Function

Volume
Psig (1) (2)
5000 0.9661
4000 0.9729
3500 0.9714
3000 0.9806
2500 0.9846
2000 0.9890
1700 0.9917
1400 0.9946
1200 0.9966
1000 0.9985
853 1.0000
850 1.0019 1.8546
849 1.0025 1.8540
848 1.0031 1.8535
847 1.0038 1.8529
836 1.0108 1.8468
815 1.0250 1.8352
784 1.0475 1.8180
728 1.0942 1.7870
640 1.1872 1.7383
525 1.3629 1.6746
390 1.7151 1.5998
313 2.0583 1.5571
260 2.4130 1.5278
225 2.7370 1.5084
240 2.5869 1.5167
215 2.8482 1.5028
200 3.0351 1.4945
185 3.2507 1.4862
170 3.5022 1.4779
155 3.7989 1.4696
148 3.9564 1.4657

8
 Table 2 Hydrocarbon Analysis of Reservoir Fluid through TM-01

Mol Weight
Component
Percent Percent
Hydrogen Sulfide H2S 0.00 0.00
Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.09 0.03
Nitrogen N2 0.01 0.00
Methane C1 17.43 2.54
Ethane C2 2.50 0.68
Propane C3 2.83 1.13
Iso-Butane i-C4 1.20 0.63
n-Butane n-C4 1.96 1.03
Iso-Pentane i-C5 1.68 1.10
n-Pentane n-C5 1.32 0.86
Hexanes C6 2.72 2.12
Heptanes Plus C7+ 68.26 89.88
100.00 100.00

3.1.2 Well TM-02

Below are all data used for this procedure:

Table 3 Hydrocarbon Analysis of Reservoir Fluid through TM-02

Mol Weight
Component
Percent Percent
Hydrogen Sulfide H2S 0.00 0.00
Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.29 0.12
Nitrogen N2 0.01 0.00
Methane C1 19.66 3.00
Ethane C2 3.07 0.88
Propane C3 3.33 1.40
Iso-Butane i-C4 1.32 0.73
n-Butane n-C4 2.02 1.12
Iso-Pentane i-C5 1.56 1.07
n-Pentane n-C5 1.15 0.79
Hexanes C6 1.63 1.34
Heptanes Plus C7+ 65.96 89.55
100.00 100.00

9
Table 4 Pressure volume relations of reservoir fluid at 158.5oF through TM-02

Pressure Relative Y Function

Volume
Psig (1) (2)
5000 0.9624
4500 0.9663
4000 0.9708
3500 0.9748
3000 0.9794
2700 0.9823
2400 0.9852
2100 0.9881
1800 0.9912
1400 0.9955
993 1.0000
990 1.0016 1.9097
982 1.0058 1.9065
968 1.0134 1.9008
928 1.0366 1.8848
855 1.0855 1.8555
748 1.1772 1.8126
605 1.3567 1.7552
450 1.6902 1.6930
360 2.0196 1.6569
300 2.3486 1.6329
255 2.6946 1.6148
235 2.8893 1.6068
215 3.1185 1.5988
195 3.3923 1.5908
180 3.6350 1.5847
165 3.9187 1.5787

10
3.2 Process and Calculation

3.2.1 Quality Control for Sample Data

TM-01
For the Quality Control through the data sample, we will use the Hoffmann Plot method
which is shown below

Figure 5 Hoffman plot for TM-01

We could see that each component is near to the Quality Check line, so it means that
all the component isn’t contain any contaminant

Before we do some analysis for the given data, our team will conduct a saturation
pressure crosscheck to know whether all the data have an accurate data or not. Based
on the data given, the saturation pressure should be at 853 psig.
Table 5 Saturation pressure crosscheck

With the given toleration around 5% from 853, which mean the range for the value will
be 895.65 – 810.35 psig. Therefore, the value shown in the table above will be accurate
enough to be used

11
TM 02

Same like TM-01, in order to assess the quality of the data sample, we will use the
Hoffman Plot as shown below

Figure 6 Hoffman plot for TM-02

As we can see, each component is near to the Quality Check line, which means that all
the component isn’t contain any contaminant. This also infer that we have a proper data
to continue for further simulation.

Before we conduct some analysis for the given data, we will crosscheck the saturation
pressure in order to ensure that we have a quite accurate data to perform the simulation.
Based on the data given, the saturation pressure should be at 993 psig.

Figure 7 Saturation Pressure Calculation

Based on the result above, the Psat is 996.057, which means that it is deviated only
0.3% from the original data. Therefore, the result must be already accurate to be used
on the simulation

12
3.2.2 Phase Behavior Identification

TM-01
For the reservoir fluid type, we could analyze from the phase envelop below

Figure 8 Phase envelope for TM-01

It could see that the reservoir fluid type in well TM-1 is Black Oil, where from reservoir
condition point to the separator point, it first cuts off the phase envelope’s 100% liquid
percentage, which could mean that the fluid reservoir type, at first, is mainly oil (liquid).
And, at the end, the separator point, it produces only 80% liquid percentage, which is
relatively high percentage. Thus, it could only mean that the oil type is tend to be black
oil, instead of volatile oil.

TM-02

For the reservoir fluid type, we could analyze from the phase envelop below

Figure 9 Phase envelope for TM-02

13
 From the phase envelope above, it can be concluded that the fluid type is Black Oil.
The reservoir condition point quite far from the critical point, and when the reservoir
pressure decline, it will get through the bubble point line, indicates that there will be
gas evolved in the reservoir. In addition, small reduction in pressure below bubble point
result in small amount of gas release in reservoir. Explanation above support the
statement that the fluid model of TM-02 well is black oil

3.2.3 Fluid Model

TM-01
For the fluid model, we will use the IPM 7.5 PVTP software to analyze some laboratory
data, such as CCE and Differential Vaporization. The first data that we analyze is the
relative volume based on the CCE data, which in the CCE experiment, it can be used
to measure the bubble point pressure, making the shape of the (Relative Volume)-
Pressure curve according to the type of the reservoir fluid (either black oil, volatile oil,
gas condensate, dry gas). And from the produce curve of the software, we could find
the match curve to the actual data.

Figure 10 Relative Volume Data Matching for TM-01

From the produce matching curves, the actual data relatively matches with the
regression curve, which means that this data can properly be use.

The other data that we use for constructing the fluid model, we will use the Differential
Vaporization data for GOR, oil formation volume factor, oil viscosity, and oil density,
to know that these data used is matched and properly used. These data are picked for

14
the validation check so that it can be used to recreate the reservoir simulation. After
some regression calculation and data matching, the results are shown below.

Figure 11 Matching of various data for TM-01

15
From the looks of the produced matching curves for each data, the data and the
regression nearly match to one another, which mainly means that the GOR, Oil FVF,
Oil Viscosity and Density data can properly be used for the reservoir simulation.

TM-02

Same like the TM-01, we will use the IPM 7.5 PVTP software to analyze some
laboratory data, such as CCE and Differential Vaporization. The first data that we
analyze is the relative volume based on the CCE data, which in the CCE experiment, it
can be used to measure the bubble point pressure and make the shape of the Relative
Volume vs Pressure curve according to the type of the reservoir fluid (either black oil,
volatile oil, gas condensate, dry gas). And from the produce curve of the software, we
could find the match curve to the actual data.

Figure 12 Matching relative volume data for TM-02

From the produce matching curves above, the actual data relatively matches with the
regression curve, which means that this data can properly be use.

The other data that we use to construct the fluid model is the Differential Vaporization
data for GOR, Oil Formation Volume factor, Oil Viscosity, and Oil Density, in order
to know that these data used is matched and can be properly used. These data are
selected for the validation since it will important to be used as an input parameter for
the reservoir simulation. After some regression calculation and data matching, the
results are shown below.

16
 Figure 13 Matching of various data for TM-02

Result above shows that produced matching curves for each data, which are the data
and the regression nearly match each other, which means that the GOR and Oil Density
data can be properly used for the reservoir simulation.

After all the simulation and analysis is conducted, the data is then exported for the
reservoir simulation purposes.

17
IV. Conclusion

4.1 Conclusion

• Based on the Quality Control using Hoffman plot, the quality of each sample data
already shows a good result and there is no any significant contamination for the
component, as shown on the Quality Check line result
• The fluid reservoir for both TM-01 and TM-02 wells are Black Oil
• Based on the fluid model simulation using IPM 7.5 PVTP, the laboratory data from
CCE and Differential Vaporization shows that the produced curve for each parameter
already match each other, which means that these parameters already appropriate to be
used for the simulation reservoir
• The simulation result from this software is then exported for the reservoir simulation
purposes

4.2 Recommendation

Based from our analysis of lab data using software IPM 7.5 PVTP, we found that
Relative Volume data for saturation pressure of 853 psig matches with other data. On the other
hand, for Gas Oil Ratio procedure, we found that the data of Gas Oil Ratio matched, ensuring
that for pressure of 853 psig, large volume of gas will be produced. For Formation Volume
Factor, we found that the data of Formation Volume Factor to be stable, concluding that data
as a whole are stable.

For oil viscosity and oil density, we found that it’s number are slightly different. We
recommend further analysis to do further lab check to ensure accuracy of those parameters.

18
 Job Description

NIM Name Contribution

12216086 Farid Mulki Antoni Assisting simulation, create the report

for TM-01 well

12216087 Nanda Adolf Friedrich Panjaitan Review result, compiling, and write of
the report

12216089 One Salwa Dinar Kandi Running the simulation for well TM-01,
review

12216090 Reynaldo Billy Towidjojo Assist the simulation, create the report
of TM-02 well

12216091 Anthony Kurnia Jaya Running the simulation for well TM-02,
review

19