Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Forough I 2019
Forough I 2019
Splitting
Reservoir fluid modelling is one of the most important steps in reservoir simulation and modelling of flow lines as well as surface facilities. One of
the most uncertain parameters of the reservoir fluids is the plus fraction. An accurate and consistent splitting scheme can reduce this uncertainty
and as a result, enhance the modelling of reservoir fluids. The existing schemes for splitting plus fractions are all based on assuming a specific
mole fraction‐molecular weight distribution with predefined constant values that may yield inaccurate and inconsistent results. In this study, an
optimization‐based algorithm was developed to determine the aforementioned controlling parameters of the plus fraction distribution function,
enforcing the relationship between specific gravity and molecular weight of the single carbon numbers (SCNs). The introduced optimization‐
based splitting technique was applied to different samples, covering a wide range of reservoir fluids, including gas condensates, volatile oils, black
oils, and heavy oils. The results showed that the proposed technique yielded a more consistent molecular weight‐mole fraction distribution
concerning the experimental extended analysis of plus fractions, yielding an average relative error of 25.8 % compared to 76, 33.6, and 45.9 %
for the Katz, Ahmed, and Whitson methods, respectively. It was also shown that the proposed method results in more accurate and more
consistent phase behaviour predictions than the existing methods concerning the experimental data. Furthermore, the results showed that the
introduced optimization‐based method yields monotonic split samples regarding specific gravity and molecular weight, while the conventional
techniques do not guarantee to preserve the monotonicity.
INTRODUCTION tion of the plus fraction has a significant effect on the reservoir
fluid phase behaviour and calculation of its physical properties.[11]
O
il and gas reservoir fluids may contain a wide range of
components, including hydrocarbons and non‐hydrocarbons Plus fractions consist of single carbon number (SCN) pseudo‐
(e.g., CO2, N2, and H2S). Generally, these components can be components. Reliable determination of the composition of SCNs
classified into the following categories: (1) pure components with a in the plus fraction is a fundamental step in the process of
specified acentric factor and critical properties; (2) components with reservoir fluid characterization.[12,13] Furthermore, accurate
a measured or estimated molecular weight, specific gravity, and characterization of SCN properties is very important for phase
critical properties (i.e., single carbon number (SCN) components); behaviour calculations of fluid samples employing equations of
and (3) heavy ends or plus fractions containing a wide range of state.[14] This is a known fact for a wide range of reservoir fluids
components with carbon numbers higher than a specific quantity. from gas condensates to heavy oils.[5,15,16] Detailed experimental
Usually, mole fraction, molecular weight, and specific gravity are the composition analysis of plus fractions is rarely available. There-
only available measured data for plus fractions.[1,2] It should be fore, mathematical methods, known as splitting schemes, are
mentioned that the mole fraction of the plus fraction is calculated developed for their characterization.[16]
based on its measured mass fraction in the laboratory. The focus of Several methods have been proposed in the literature for splitting of
this study is on plus fraction characterization and splitting. plus fractions into SCN groups. One of the earliest attempts was
In the petroleum industry, laboratory tests are carried out to introduced by Katz,[17] employing an exponential model as the
determine the composition of reservoir fluids. Mole fractions of distribution function. This method was based on the extended
non‐hydrocarbons and hydrocarbons in the range of methane to analysis of the behaviour of different condensate systems.[18] Another
the plus fraction are measured during these experiments, while splitting scheme, proposed by Pederson et al.,[19] was based on
molecular weight and specific gravity of the plus fraction are also assuming a logarithmic relationship between the carbon number of
measured. As mentioned above, these are the only available data SCN groups and their corresponding mole fractions. Ahmed et al.[20]
on the plus fraction.[3] presented a method for plus fraction extension based on a detailed
Poor description of plus fractions can lead to inaccuracy in PVT
predictions.[4–7] Furthermore, the unknown composition of the
plus fraction may result in modelling problems in petroleum * Author to whom correspondence may be addressed. E‐mail address:
characterization.[6,8,9] As a result, one may claim that the jamshidi@sharif.edu; foroughi@mapsaeng.com; khouzan@mapsaeng.com
characterization of the plus fraction plays a major role in PVT Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1–13, 2019
analysis of reservoir fluids. Various techniques have been proposed © 2019 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering
DOI 10.1002/cjce.23516
to characterize reservoir fluid plus fractions.[10] It should be Published online in Wiley Online Library
emphasized that employing the proper approach for characteriza- (wileyonlinelibrary.com).
the final plus fraction is smaller than the specific gravity of the
last SCN pseudo‐component. It should be emphasized that the where z i is the mole fraction of each SCN group and zCn+is the mole
reported specific gravity and molecular weight of SCN fractions fraction of the plus fraction (i.e., Cn+). It is assumed that F(P) is a
in the literature are monotonic.[12,25,26] Also, the proposed continuous distribution function of P and the total area under its
correlations for prediction of these parameters follow a curve from P0 to ∞ is equal to unity. Moreover, P0 is the lowest value
monotonic behaviour.[12,25,26] As a result, developing a new of the considered property in the plus fraction. Also, i represents the
scheme that employs the relationship between specific gravity single carbon number and P is a specified property such as molecular
and molecular weight of pseudo‐components to ensure their weight (MW) or specific gravity (SG). (Pi−, Pi+) are the lower and
monotonicity during the splitting process is necessary. upper property bounds of the fraction i , which are defined as:
Among the existing splitting schemes, which are based on
distribution functions, the most extensively used approaches are Pi + Pi + 1
Pi+ = (2)
the three‐parameter gamma distribution and the generalized 2
distribution models, proposed by Whitson[4] and Riazi,[27] respec-
tively. Also, Pedersen[19] proposed a characterization method in Pi + Pi − 1
which a two‐parameter logarithmic relation between carbon Pi− = (3)
2
number and mole fraction is considered.
In this study, the focus is on the two distribution functions Based on the properties of probability distribution functions,
proposed by Whitson[4] and Riazi.[27] It should be emphasized we can calculate the average value of parameter P for the mixture,
that the unknown parameters of these distribution functions Pav, as:
highly depend on the reservoir fluid plus fraction properties.
Using default values for these parameters without considering the ∞
reservoir fluid properties may lead to non‐monotonic and Pav = ∫P 0
PF (P ) dP (4)
inaccurate results. In this study, a splitting algorithm based on
optimization techniques is proposed to determine the values of where P0 is the lowest value of the considered property in the plus
distribution function parameters. The obtained values for fraction. It should be mentioned that in the case of specific gravity
distribution function parameters yield more accurate results in (SG), zi represents the volume fraction of each SCN group.
the phase behaviour of the reservoir fluid, while the monotonicity The probability density function of the gamma distribution
of molecular weight and specific gravity is preserved. model, F(P), can be expressed as:[4]
and the considered property (i.e., molecular weight and specific P is a property such as molecular weight (M) or specific gravity
gravity) of each pseudo‐component, Pav, i , can be obtained by:[4] (SG). xc is the cumulative weight, mole, or volume fraction. Po is a
specific parameter for each property (Mo or SGo) in each sample,
⎡
Pav, i = η +
(
αβ ⎢Γ α + 1,
⎣
Pi− − η
β ) − Γ (α + 1, Pi+ − η
β ) ⎤⎥⎦ (8)
and A and B are the controlling parameters of the distribution
function. This distribution model can be transformed into a
Γ(α + 1) probability density function, F (P ⁎) , as:[5]
⁎ ⎛ B2 ⎞ ⁎ ⎛ B ⁎ ⎞
It should be mentioned that the parameters of the distribution F (P ) = ⎜ ⎟ × (P ) B − 1 exp ⎜ − (P ) B⎟ (14)
⎝A⎠ ⎝ A ⎠
functions are not independent. Analyzing Equation (6), we can
conclude that if α is determined, using a reliable value for η, the
last parameter, β, can be evaluated. The average properties of the mixture can be determined using
According to Whitson,[4] there are two methods for the the following relation:
determination of α: minimization and direct estimation of α. In ∞
the minimization technique, α is determined in a way that the ⁎
difference between the calculated molar distribution and the
Pav = ∫ P ⁎F (P ⁎) dP ⁎ (15)
0
mole fractions resulted from compositional analysis of the plus
fraction become minimized. This method has some limitations ⁎ ⁎
where Pav is the average value of P for the mixture. By
as it needs a full compositional analysis of the plus fraction, ⁎
substituting F (P ) from Equation (14) into the above integral,
preferably with a negligible quantity of the last fraction. In the ⁎
Pav can be calculated as:
direct estimation approach, an empirical correlation is used to
determine α. 1
Whitson[4] proposed a procedure for estimation of α in the ⁎ ⎛ A ⎞B ⎛ 1 ⎞⎟
Pav = ⎜ ⎟ Γ ⎜1 + (16)
absence of an extended analysis of the plus fraction for gamma ⎝B⎠ ⎝ B⎠
distribution method:
To estimate the lower and upper property bounds of the pseudo
α = Y−1 (0.500 087 6 + 0.164 885 2Y − 0.054 417 4Y2) (9) component i for determining the molar distribution of the plus
fraction using Equation (1), i.e., (Pi−, Pi+), Equations (2) and
where: Equation (3) can be employed. The mole or volume fraction and
the specific property of each pseudo component can be
(10) calculated by:[5]
Y = ln [(Mn + − η)/ m G]
⎛ B ⁎− ⎞ ⎛ B ⁎+ B⎞
and: x i = exp ⎜ − (Pi ) B⎟ − exp ⎜ − (Pi ) ⎟ (17)
⎝ A ⎠ ⎝ A ⎠
⎡ N ⎤1 / zn+
1 ⎛⎜ A ⎞⎟1 / B ⎡ ⎛⎜ 1 −⎞ ⎛ 1 +⎞ ⎤
m G = ⎢∏ (Mi − η) zi⎥ (11) Pav, i = − ⎢Γ 1 + , qi ⎟⎠ − Γ ⎜⎝1 + , qi ⎟⎠ ⎥ (18)
⎢⎣ i = n ⎦⎥ xi ⎝ B ⎠ ⎣ ⎝ B B ⎦
The constraints imposed on α are based on the restriction made from 0.2502–98.46 %, including gas condensates, volatile oils,
on this parameter by Whitson.[4] Since no limitation on the B black oils, and heavy oils. Data sets 1–17 are gas samples while
parameter is introduced by Riazi,[5] based on the characteristics of sets 18–43 are oil samples. Samples 1–11 are from Al‐Meshari and
molecular weight and specific gravity distributions, it is enforced McCain,[1] the data for samples 12–15 are taken from Folsta
to be larger than one. Parameter η of the gamma distribution and et al.,[31] and samples 16 and 17 are from Whitson.[4] Oil samples
parameter P0 of the general distribution are the minimum used in this study are selected as follows: data sets 18–28 are
molecular weight or specific gravity expected to occur in the taken from Al‐Meshari and McCain,[1] the data for samples 29–31
CN+ fraction,[4,5] and the recommended ranges of these para- are from Krejbjerg and Pedersen,[32] data set 32 is taken from
meters are between the molecular weight and specific gravity of
the N‐1st and Nth SCN fraction,[4,5] as enforced in the proposed
optimization problem. The algorithm for calculating the objective
function is presented in Figure 1.
In this work, the objective function is minimized using the
Nelder‐Mead optimization method.[30] The Nelder‐Mead method
is a commonly applied numerical optimization technique in
multidimensional problems. This method is suitable for nonlinear (Equation (16)).
optimization problems for which the derivatives may not be
known. The Nelder‐Mead technique is a heuristic search‐based
method with a high chance of finding the global minima. Since
the distribution parameters that should be optimized are bounded (Equation (17)).
to specific ranges, the proposed splitting algorithm can be
expressed as a constraint optimization problem that is tackled
by the Nelder‐Mead technique in this paper.
(Equation (18)).
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Effect of the α parameter on: (a) the molar distribution of the plus fraction; and (b) the phase envelope of a gas condensate sample.
(c) (d)
Figure 3. The molecular weight distribution of the plus fraction resulting from the proposed optimization‐based method and Whitson’s method along
with experimental results: (a) oil sample 30; (b) oil sample 32; (c) gas condensate sample 7; and (d) gas condensate sample 15.
of the final plus fraction after the splitting process becomes less order of magnitude as the Whitson and Ahmed methods. Also, the
than the final SCN fraction specific gravity that leads to evaluated mole fractions employing Katz’s method[17] are
inconsistency and unreliability. This was predictable since the unreasonable (negative) in some cases.
conventional methods do not consider the specific gravity The negative mole fraction obtained from Katz’s method is a
distribution in the splitting process. result of its correlative nature. In this method, the mole percent of
Another interesting point is the trend of the MW ratio and each constituent of the plus fraction is correlated to the carbon
SG ratio for the different methods. For the MW ratio, the number in the fraction as:
results of the proposed method using both the distribution
functions are close to each other and similar to Ahmed’s z n = 1.382 05zpf e−0.259 03n (23)
method. Meanwhile, for the SG ratio, the consistency between
the proposed method and the method of Ahmed remains
In the case of C6+ characterization, the resulted split sample
preserved. However, Ahmed’s method does not maintain 12
employing the Katz method gives ∑n = 6 z n > zpf , hence:
monotonicity.
Finally, the mole fraction of the final plus fraction (xN+) for
12
each split sample resulted from different splitting techniques is
z13 + = zpf − ∑ zn < 0 (24)
reported in Table 4. As can be seen in this table, the mole fraction
n=6
of the final plus fraction in the proposed method is in the same
Table 3. The average absolute relative error of the proposed method in terms of predicting the mole fraction of the pseudo‐components comparing
to the existing techniques for the selected samples (the minimum error value in each row is shown in bold)
Average absolute relative error (AARE) (%)
Ahmed
Fluid zPF MWPF SGPF Fluid type Proposed method (gamma) Katz[17] et al.[20] Whitson[4]
Figure 5. The ratio of the specific gravity of the final plus fraction to the last SCN specific gravity.
However, in the case of the C7+ plus fraction, the obtained mole
fraction of the final plus fraction employing Katz’s method does
not become negative.
Based on the presented results, it can be concluded that
all the considered conventional splitting methods lead to
inconsistent results. In contrast, the proposed optimization‐
based splitting method yields monotonic results. In other words,
for all considered samples, the yielded final plus fraction
properties, including molecular weight, specific gravity,
and mole fraction are reasonable and the corresponding
molecular weight and specific gravity distributions are
monotonic.
For most of the samples in this study, the final SCN has been
considered equal to 30 in the characterization process, which is a
reasonable value considering the previous studies in the
literature. However, it should be mentioned that the proposed
Figure 6. Predicted phase envelopes employing characterization results algorithm can be applied to split a plus fraction to even higher
of the proposed method and Whitson’s method for condensate sample E. values for the final SCN, while preserving the monotonicity and
Proposed
Sample Proposed Method method Ahmed
name Experiment Parameters (Gamma) (Generalized) Katz[17] et al.[20] Whitson[4]
Sample
name AARE Max. ARE Min. ARE AARE Max. ARE Min. ARE