해양 자원 개발 시스템 개론

: Introduction to Offshore Petroleum Production System

Feb. 14, 2012

Yutaek Seo
Period Contents

1 Week General introduction, outline, goals, and definition

Type of reservoir fluids

: Dry gas / Wet gas / Gas condensate / Volatile oil / Black oil
2 Week PVT laboratory testing
: Constant mass expansion / Differential vaporization / Compositional analysis /
: Oil densities and viscosity / SARA, Asphaltenes, WAT
Fluid sampling and characterization
3 Week
: Bottom hole samples / Drill stem test samples / Case studies
Thermodynamics and phase behavior
4 Week : Ideal gas / Peng-Robinson (PR) / Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK)
: Peneloux liquid density correction / Mixtures / Properties calculated from EoS
Subsea Field Development
5 Week
: Field configuration /
Subsea manifolds
6 Week
: Components / design / installation
PLEM and subsea connections
7 Week
: Design and analysis / installation
Well components
8 Week
: Christmas tree / surface wellhead
Umbilical / risers / flowlines
9 Week
: Design criteria/ analysis
Flow regime
10 Week
: Horizontal and vertical flow / Stratified flow / Annular flow / Dispersed bubble flow / Slug flow
Flowline pressure drop
11 Week
: Frictional losses / Elevation losses / Acceleration losses / Errors in ΔP calculation / Pipe wall roughness
Liquid hold up
12 Week
: Cause / Prediction / Field & experimental data / Three phase flow
Field operation
13 Week
: Operational procedures for offshore petroleum production
14 Week Application Example: Offshore platform (Pluto fields)

15 Week Application Example: Floating production system (Ichthys fields)

16 Week Final Test

Reservoir fluid sampling

• Reservoir-fluid properties play a key role in the design and

operation of subsea and topside facilities .
• Reservoir fluid PVT characterization begins with acquisition of
adequate volumes of representative fluid samples followed by
PVT-data measurement with strict QA/QC protocols and phase
behavior modeling through best-practice methods.
• The main objective of a successful sampling campaign is to
obtain representative fluid samples for determining PVT
properties of well fluids.
• The critical steps in any successful sampling program are
avoiding two-phase flow in the reservoir, minimizing fluid
contamination introduced by drilling and completion fluids, and
preserving sample integrity.
Drilling rig
Fluid Sampling
Downhole fluid sampling tool
Modular Dynamic Tester (MDT)

• Modules can be consist of

: CGA (Condensate-Gas Analyzer), LFA (Live Fluid Analyzer),
SPMCs (Single Phase Multi-sample Chamber-250cc), MPSRS
(Multi-Phase Sample Receiver-450cc)
Downhole fluid sampling

• The samples may be contaminated with drilling mud (C10 - C17

plus viscosifiers)
• Wax or asphaltenes may precipitate in the formation, the tubing
or the surface facilities upon reduction of pressure and/or
temperature, or evolution of solution gas.
• Asphaltene precipitation may not be completely reversible.
Therefore, a single phase, downhole sample is needed for wax-
asphaltene precipitation tests. The sampler should be placed
below the point where precipitation could occur.
• Downhole water samples are needed for scale tests. When the
sample is depressurized, the evolved gases are analyzed. Any
precipitation must also be analyzed along with the dissolved
salts.
• Only small sample volumes (e.g., 500cc) can be obtained.
Drill stem test – Fluid sampling

• The drill stem includes the drill pipe, drill collars, bottomhole
assembly, and drill bit. During normal drilling, fluidis pumped
through the drill stem and out the drill bit.

• In a drill stem test, the drill bit is removed, a drill stem test tool is
added, and fluid from the formation is recovered through the
drill stem, while several measurements of pressure are being
made.
DST assembly using two straddle packers
Test Tree

Swab

Kill Flow

Master
Test Choke
Typical DST

• The typical drill stem test will be split into four period, Pre flow,
initial shut in period, a main flow period and a final shut in
period.
• Times of for each test are dependent on conditions at the well
site.
• Drill stem tests may be run at any time during the drilling
operation at the current depth or may be used to test any
interval in the hole after target depth (TD) has been reached.
• Using these data and based on the evaluation of engineers
and geologists, management can make a decision to complete
the hole for potential production of oil or gas or proceed with
abandonment.

22.3-14
Pre-flow and Initial shut in

• Pre-Flow Period is a production period to clean up the well and

is used to remove any supercharge given to the formation due
to mud infiltrating into the prospective formation during the
drilling operation.
• Initial Shut In period is to allow the formation to recover from
pressure surges caused during the pre flow. this is often
referred to as "closed in for the pressure build up" this period
will be longer.
Main Flow

• a more lengthy production period designed to test the

formations flow characteristics more rigorously.
• Samples of any fluids will be checked for water content, gas
bubble bust pressure, temperature, and many other nice
surprises.
• This will be done using set choke or variable chokes.
• Sample reaching surface will be measured as to volume and
gathered for analysis in a laboratory. Samples of any fluids in
the drill string at the conclusion of the test will be measured as
to volume and gathered for analysis.
• Flowing pressures and temperatures will be recorded.
Final Shut-In

• Formation pressure is recorded over this period.

• The shape of the pressure build up curve will tell us the
permeability of the formation, the degree of formation damage
(likely caused during the drilling operation).
• It will also tell us if we have found a small reservoir but there is
no telling if it is a big one.
• It is very expensive to keep a drill ship occupied with well
testing long enough to "clean up" the near wellbore formation
from the drilling mud.
• Wax or asphaltenes may precipitate and deposit in the
formation, the tubing or the surface facilities upon reduction of
pressure and/or temperature, or evolution of solution gas.
• The composition of the reservoir fluid is determined by
analyzing samples of the separator gas and liquid phases
separately. The reservoir fluid composition is calculated by
recombining the gas and liquid phases at the correct GOR
• Large sample volumes of oil (barrels) can be obtained.

(Downhole water samples are needed for scale tests)

Case study

• DST Wellhead sampling

: A sampling method to take well stream fluid through a
sampling manifold and a small separator set upstream of choke
: The pressure and temperature of a small separator is
controlled properly during the sampling

• Six PVT samples obtained with appropriate compositional

analysis and CCE/CVD tests necessary to understand reservoir
fluid behaviour and to establish an acceptable EOS model.
 PVT Samples and review
Well A 1. Fluid sampling from the test separator was
Production test DST 2 DST 2 conduced during the main flow and final flow
Flow period Main flow Final flow periods
2. The separator condition was unstable as the
Top perforation (m) 3080 3080
separator pressure decreased gradually
Bottom perforation (m) 3100 3100
during the main flow period.
Mid perforation (m) 3090 3090 3. Also during the final flow period, the
Formation Formation 1 Formation 1 separator conditions and measured
Date Sep 2002 Sep 2002
condensate rates were unstable because
hydrate formation occurred
Available PVT data Composition up Composition up
to C12+ to C12+ 4. Compositional analysis of fluid samples was
CCE/CVD at CCE.CVD at performed only up to C12+. Characterization
300F 300F
of C12+ components has to be estimated
CGR (stb/MMscf) 30 60 5. Recombined well stream composition
Separator P (psi) 600 300 between samples taken from main flow and
Separator T (F) 110 50
final flow periods are considerably different
and compositional uncertainty appears to be
Dew point pressure (psi) 4000 5000
large
Temperature (F) 300 300

CGR for DST samples are figures used for recombination of separator gad and liquid
CCE: Constant Composition Experiment, CVD: Constant Volume Depletion
 Well B Well B – DST 1
Production test DST 1 DST 2

Flow period Flow period 3 Flow period 1 1. Flowing bottom-hole pressure was
below dew point for the entire flow
Top perforation (m) 3060 2900
period.
Bottom perforation (m) 3080 3000
2. Condensate drop-out around wellbore
Mid perforation (m) 2070 2995 may have occurred, therefore there is
Formation Formation 2 Formation 1 a possibility that separator liquid
Date May 2003 July 2007
samples did not contain some heavy
components and that the composition
Available PVT data Composition up to Composition up to
C36+ C36+ of the recombined well stream sample
CCE.CVD at 290F CCE.CVD at 290F is different from the original reservoir
CGR (stb/MMscf) 50 55 fluid composition
Separator P (psi) 500 500
3. The composition derived from this
sample is unrepresentative and
Separator T (F) 80 80
unacceptable for use in EOS
Dew point pressure (psi) 4500 4600 modelling
Temperature (F) 290 290
 Well B Well B – DST 2
Production test DST 1 DST 2

Flow period Flow period 3 Flow period 1 1. This sample was taken during the
main flow period 1. The CGR was
Top perforation (m) 3060 2900
stable during this period and this value
Bottom perforation (m) 3080 3000
was consistent with the average CGR
Mid perforation (m) 3070 2995 from the test separator measurement.
Formation Formation 2 Formation 1 2. Flowing bottom-hole pressure during
Date May 2003 July 2007
the flow period was higher than the
dew-point pressure. Condensate drop
Available PVT data Composition up to Composition up to
C36+ C36+ out around wellbore did not happen
CCE.CVD at 290F CCE.CVD at 290F during the test.
CGR (stb/MMscf) 50 55 3. This is the only sample obtained form
Separator P (psi) 500 500
Formation 1 from the main field area.
This formation 1 is the main formation
Separator T (F) 80 80
interval for production and accounts
Dew point pressure (psi) 4500 4600 for approximately 75% of total gas in
Temperature (F) 290 290 place
 Well C Well C – DST 2
Production test DST 2 DST 2

Flow period Sampling period Flow period 2 1. Wellhead sampling was conducted
during the sampling flow period and
by welTop perforation (m) 3030 3030
flow period 2.
Bottom perforation (m) 3060 3060
2. As the test separator conditions were
Mid perforation (m) 3045 3045 not stable due to hydrates during flow,
Formation Formation 2 Formation 2 reliable CGR measurements were not
Date Mar 2008 May 2009
observed from the separator.
3. Although the CGR by wellhead
Available PVT data Composition up to Composition up to
C36+ C36+ sampling was stable, the CGR value
CCE.CVD at 310F CCE.CVD at 310F cannot be validated without reliable
CGR (stb/MMscf) 45 55 CGR from separator measurement.
Separator P (psi) 500 500

Separator T (F) 80 80

Dew point pressure (psi) 4500 4600

Temperature (F) 310 310

Black Oil Models vs Compositional Models

• Black oil modeling is appropriate when limited information is

available about the fluids.
• Input required for black oil models includes: Oil API gravity, gas
gravity, GOR (solution gas/oil ratio) and WOR. STO viscosity at
two temperatures and Bo are desirable.
• Black oil models are usually chosen for single-phase oil
systems (i.e. export pipelines).
• Compositional models are generally more accurate; particularly
for gas-condensate systems and volatile oils.
Laboratory Measurements to Improve Black
Oil Model

• Oil saturated gas content at the bubble point (Rs)

• Formation volume factor at the bubble point (Bo)
• Formation volume factor at pressure above the bubble point to
account for oil compressibility above the bubble point
• Live oil viscosity at the bubble point
Fluid Characterization for Compositional
Models

• Petroleum reservoir fluids consist of thousands of different

hydrocarbon molecules. In reality it is not practical to analyze all
the components in a reservoir fluid and model them in a PVT
simulator.
• Petroleum components with carbon numbers seven and higher
are not separated as pure compounds. A set of pseudo-
components are devised to represent these compounds. They
are assigned critical properties, molecular weights and binary
interaction parameters
Classification of Fluid Components

• The components of a reservoir fluid may be classified as

follows:
- Defined components : those which show up as individual
components on a gas chromatographic analysis and for which
critical temperature, critical pressure and acentric factor are
known.
- TBP fractions : mixture of hydrocarbons having a boiling point
within a given temperature range. Hydrocarbons with the same
number of carbon atoms, but different structure may have very
different boiling points. TBP fractions cover from C7 up to C30.
The density and average molecular weight should be measured
on each fraction.
- TBP residue consists of components that are too heavy to be
separated using a TBP distillation procedure. The density and
average molecular weight are measured for the total sample.
Fluid Characterization for Pseudo-
Components

• The Flow Assurance engineer needs to follow a fluid

characterization procedure in tuning the EOS parameters of a
set of pseudo-components to match the PVT experimental data.
• Viscosity data should also be used.
• There are no "universal" fluid characterization rules. The
characterization of an EOS iterates through a series of steps to
get the best match with the experimental data.
Fluid Characterization Procedure - 1

• Collect and review all relevant experimental data including

constant mass expansion, constant volume depletion,
differential liberation, multistage flashes, viscosity, and
compositional analysis.

• Group pseudo-components. Typically the C7+ fraction is

divided into three or more groups that are approximately equal
size by weight. The pseudo-components critical properties are
computed as weight-mean values.
Fluid Characterization Procedure - 2

• Obtain an initial EOS characterization based on compositional

analysis and experimental data

• Tune pseudo-component critical parameters in EOS models to

minimize the error between experimental data and predictions.
This process is more an art than a science because of the
highly nonlinear nature of the EOS and the large number of
adjustable parameters in regression. Fortunately, modern PVT
simulation models have algorithms to do this automatically.
Fluid Characterization Limitation

• There are limitations associated with fluid characterizations.

The pseudo-components are assumed to behave as single,
lumped components in phase behavior. Some of the pure
components lumped in a pseudo-component may not change
phase as the pseudo-component does under certain conditions.

• The applicable range of the EOS characterization depends on

the type of PVT data used and the pressure and temperature
range (consider reservoir depletion, flowline flow and process
facilities).
Contact: Yutaek Seo

Phone: 042 350 1521

Email: Yutaek.Seo@kaist.ac.kr

Thank you