Petroleum Fluid

Characterization:
Oil and Gas Focus
Sachin Anjan,
Probite Design Systems Pvt. Ltd.
 Learning Simulation
What you actually get in our
What we are taught actual project?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A5E19RI3Uo

What we expect

2
 Correct Oil Characterization to What End?
Surface facility design – CPF
Reservoir Analysis
(by Process Engineers)
(Petroleum Engineers)
○ Match GOR
○ Compressor molecular weight
○ Separator stages optimization
○ Stabilizer RVP
○ Gas dew point / cricondentherm

Flow assurance (by Process

Engineers)
○ Vapour and liquid phase fractions
○ Vapour and liquid phase
properties
○ Hydrate formation
○ Wax / asphaltenes
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330
262258_ENGAGING_BEST_PRACTICES_DURING
_WAXY_CRUDE_OIL_PRODUCTION_TO_PREVEN
3 T_DEPOSITION_IN_THE_SUBSEA_PIPELINE https://sciencetechnology3583.blogspot.com/2019/01/intro
duction-to-oil-and-gas-industry.html
PVT Report:
Background
 Oil Characterization
As Carbon number
Oil composition:
increases, too many
- Many Carbon number chain arrangements
- Many arrangements of C / H possible

Too many classes with differing properties: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=6HZLBAAAQBAJ&printsec=fro

ntcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
- Paraffins
- Naphthenes (Cycloalkanes)
- Aromatics are the most prevalent
- Hetero hydrocarbons (Nitrogen, Sulfur
embedded in hydrocarbon)

Both these
Impact
properties

How each fraction / Carbon number

5 impacts fluid behaviour → PVT Report
 PVT Reports
o Bottomhole sample useful if bottomhole
pressure > reservoir fluid saturation
pressure
o Else flashing in tubing / reservoir →
Separator recombination in PVT report
Sample complete PVT report at:
http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~curtis/courses/PhD-
PVT/Class-Problem/PRF/PVT-Reports/PRF-PVT4.pdf
Sample taking
Constant Composition Sample analysis Differential Expansion Test
Expansion Test As fluid extracted from reservoir, n
V = nZRT / P
decreases → pressure decreases;
flash composition also changes
Well tubing
Additional Tests:
No change in composition during test; o GC analysis
Relative volumes of vapour and gas at o Separator tests
different pressure; o Constant Volume
Relevant to check dew point / bubble Depletion
point of reservoir o Viscosity
 Composition by Gas Chromatograph (GC)
https://www.slb.com/
-/media/files/oilfield-
review/1-pvt

Vaporized sample
Mass of C9 fraction = Area under peak
GC Analysis from PVT Reports: o Fractions are not isolated; other
o Defined components (N2, C1, C2 properties are not available
upto C5, sometimes nC6 included) o Minimum information needed for
o Single Carbon Numbers (SCN) e.g. each fraction:
C7, C8, C9 etc ➢ Molecular Weight
o Plus fraction e.g. C7+, C20+ etc 2 of
➢ Normal Boiling Point
o Benzene and Cyclohexanes these 3
➢ Specific gravity
7 considered in C7
 PVT Characterization: Blind Men and Elephant

Composition + MW/NBP/SG/Tc/Pc/w
PVT Elephant properties + Binary Interaction Parameters
that match data from all above tests
8 Characterization
Fluid Characterization
Understanding
 Typical GC Output as in PVT Report
Problems faced by Process Engineer:
1. Composition upto C80 or C200
needed for heavy oil reservoirs →
how to extend C12+ to these
numbers?
2. C6 – C11 or other C12+ extended
components properties not known
3. Not known if this composition
predicts other PVT tests like CCE /
MW / Liquid CVD etc
density / 4. Too many components increase
NBP not computation time → is it possible
available to match phase equilibrium with
reduced components?
5. Many components for each oil → is
Typical plus
it necessary to have separate
fractions used: components for each oil or can we
C7+ / C10+ / combine these?
C20+ / C36+ 6. Can we increase components to
reasonable number if required for
10 fidelity?
 Characterizing Elephant / Characterizing Oil
Deciding components Component properties:
• GC gives mass fraction of SCN fractions • MW/NBP/SG of plus (e.g. C7+)
• Ordinary reservoirs need upto C80, fraction known
heavy oil reservoirs ~ C200 • MW/NBP/SG of components heavier
• GC lumps components as plus fraction; than plus fraction needed
can be C7+ to C45+ • Tc, Pc, w of all components needed
• Need to extend composition of plus
fraction Lumping:
• Composition to C80 or
EOS Tuning even C200 needed
• Vary MW, NBP/SG • Handling so many
of SCNs to match components →
PVT data convergence time / file
• Vary BIPs to match size increases
PVT data • Match PVT data with
minimum components
Multiple fluid management:
• Same set of lumped Delumping:
Characterized
components to describe • For process facility, lumped
Fluid(s) for Process
multiple fluids going to a components revert back to
Facility
facility original constituents
 Step 1: Deciding
Components • What characterization needs:
o Upto C80 needed for ordinary
Component Wt% from GC
reservoirs;
H2S 0.00
N2 0.31
o Upto C200 for heavy oil
CO2 10.02 • What PVT report can give?
C1 53.77 o PVT reports showed C7+ till 1985
Properties C2 6.72 o C10+ is other common plus
Known C3 7.08 fraction basis
iC4 2.12 o C20+ also indicated in PVT
nC4 2.54
reports as that corresponds to
iC5 1.33
limit of TBP distillation
nC5 0.94
C6 1.41
o Present GC instrument accuracy
C7+ 13.75
allows upto C45+
Two basic questions:
1. Is C7+ or C10+ or other adequate
to represent reservoir fluid?
2. If NOT, how to proportion C7+ or
C10+ or other wt% from GC to
heavier components?

12
 Plus Fraction: Which is Adequate for Reservoir?
Treat C7+ as pseudo-component with MW and SG:
o Estimate Tc, Pc and acentric factor using correlations
o PR / SRK EOS can simulate system
https://onepetro.org/JCPT/article-abstract/doi/10.2118/99-13- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15567030
59/181820/Integrated-Oil-PVT-Characterization-Lessons-
From?redirectedFrom=fulltext
701436339?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=
ueso20

1. C7+ is adequate and better basis 1. EOS predictions are

2. Saturation pressure of rich gas significantly improved when
condensate sample incorrectly the C7+ fraction is extended.
predicted
3. Can predict bubble point
pressure instead of dew point

Probably C7+ adequate

13
 Plus Fraction: Impact on CPF Design?
Typical CPF: Slug catcher + 2 flash stages +
Stabilizer + Compressor
Parameter Unit Characterized PVT C7+ PVT C11+

Fluid mass flow kg/hr 4.39E+05 4.39E+05 4.39E+05

Fluid MW 110 110 106.8

Fluid Pressure barg 40 40 40

Fluid Temp deg C 40 40 40

Fluid phase fraction 0.2684 0.2496 0.2488

Oil Flow BPSD 66850 67060 66640

Oil RVP psia 5.732 5.753 5.826

Gas flow MMSCFD 45.88 46.07 47.41

Gas MW 27.99 27.99 27.98

Compressor power kW 4154 4309 4342

14 ~3 – 5% difference seen
 Step 2: Extending Plus fraction / Properties?
Option-1: Extended Composition by
Properties of C7+ Fraction Properties from Katz-Firoozabadi table
Molecular Weight 140.8 o GC gives mass fraction even up to C36+
Density, kg/m3 760 o C7 (now SCN) to C35 MW and density values
from Katz-Firoozabadi table
Normal Boiling Point, oC 175.76
o Properties of C36+ adjusted to match
properties of whole sample

Option-2: Splitting Plus fraction

o Distribution of Molecular weight / density is
continuous and can be described by
distribution function
o HR allocates salary hikes as Normal or Bell
shaped Gaussian distribution
o E.g. Gamma distribution function by
Whitson
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266664642_Multipl
e_EOS_Fluid_Characterization_for_Modeling_Gas_Conden
sate_Reservoir_with_Different_Hydrodynamic_System_A_C
ase_Study_of_Senoro_Field
Properties of SCNs from Katz - Firoozabadi
Katz – Firoozabadi suggested values of MW / Specific
gravity based on study of 26 gas condensates

Properties of Plus fraction → adjusted to

match measured property of whole sample
http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~curtis/courses/PhD-
PVT/Class-Problem/PRF/PVT-Reports/PRF-PVT4.pdf
considering SCN properties from table
 Properties of Split Plus Fraction
o Decide mole fraction of each split
fraction
o Decide MW / density of each split
fraction
o Match plus fraction MW / density
o E.g. Gamma distribution function
by Whitson

Phase Behavior of
Petroleum
Reservoir Fluids,
Pedersen et al

17
 Extended Composition or Splitting
◎ Pedersen explains pitfalls in using extended composition
sampling:
○ Katz – Firoozabadi SCN properties are for paraffinic oils and
Phase Behavior of
therefore low.
○
Petroleum
Reservoir Fluids, C20+ or C36+ properties are estimated from whole crude sample
Pedersen et al
and non-representative properties of SCN. This introduces double
error
○ Error in molecular weight leads to error in saturation pressure
◎ This is what he concludes:
○ Gas chromatographic analyses beyond C10 are therefore of little use
when characterizing a reservoir fluid. When there is no TBP data,
one may as well use the composition to C7+ or C10+.

18
 Step 3: EOS Tuning
What we have now:
- SCN or split fraction
- MW / NBP / Liquid density

Thermo models need Tc, Pc, w

19
 o Component parameters varied for fractions to
EOS Tuning meet PVT data (CCE, DL, CVD, viscosity etc)
o Tc, Pc, w, MW/NBP/SG/ interaction
Composition from GC parameters regressed to best describe
elephant correctly

Basic Properties (MW,

NBP/SG) from Katz-
Firoozabadi or Splitting
plus fraction

No Tuning With Tuning

Tc, Pc, w, BIPs from
correlations
• Easily done with
softwares like PVTSim
• HYSYS has PVT Tuning
icon – not used it
• May be possible with
regular HYSYS
features; but
20 significant iterations
 Step 4: Lumping

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266664642_Multipl
e_EOS_Fluid_Characterization_for_Modeling_Gas_Conden
sate_Reservoir_with_Different_Hydrodynamic_System_A_C
ase_Study_of_Senoro_Field

Tuned Extended
Composition or
Splitting
Lumping

21
 Step 4: Lumping
Original statements:
o Composition up to C80
may be needed
o C7+ may not adequately
represent fluid
o Lumping → bottom line is to
lump components while still
matching phase envelope /
reservoir parameters
o 3-5 lumped components for
C7+ fraction are suggested
https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/p
url/22082929c
Now:
o Too many components increase
computation time → lump
components ☺
o E.g. OLGA compositional tracking
for pipeline in hilly terrain can
take days to converge
Lumping idea is to represent
reservoir fluid with minimum
components
 Lumping
o Which components lumped?
→ leave light ends including
C6 as individual components;
rest can be lumped
o SCN and plus fractions can be
lumped to 3-5 components
o Procedure given by Montel
and Gouel used in operation
“Lumper”

23 https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/servlets/purl/22082929
 Step 5: Multiple Reservoir Fluids
For CPF/FPSO process model:
o C1 to C6 common for all wells
o Lumped 5 pseudos for Fluid 1
o Lumped 5 pseudos for Fluid 2
o Lumped 5 pseudos for Fluid 3

How about single set of

5 pseudos to represent
Fluids 1 to 3?

https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/zama-
a-potential-success-story-in-mexico.html
Preferred → can be done
in PVTSIM or using Lumper
operation in HYSYS

• Each fluid characterized separately, pseudo-components of

each used → distribution behaviour of each fluid can be
checked; simulation time / file size
• Single set of pseudo-components for all fluids → easier to
24 manage; preferred
 Step 6: Delumping
◎ Fluid characterized by 3 lumped Hypo components →
adequate for reservoir simulation
◎ CPF plant where better resolution would be preferred
○ Separator flashes to compressor
○ Condensate stabilization
○ Natural gas dew point estimation
◎ Delumping → split hypo components into multiple
components without losing phase behaviour
accuracy
◎ If you have raw data and objective is only process
plant → not necessary to lump; directly use data from
25
EOS tuning
 Delumping Operation

https://dias.library.tuc.gr/
view/manf/81271

26
Fluid Characterization
Implementation
 HYSYS / UNISIM Feed Stream Situations
You are lucky
- GC Composition of feed stream
given and matches GOR / flows
- PVTSim characterized feed
composition is available and
predicts GOR / saturation
pressure etc
- PVT data available and access to
PVTSim software; tune and lump
components
GC Assay with Isomers
data available
- Add pure components as database
components and SCNs as Hypos
- If GOR, overall MW, saturation
pressure and liquid density match,
continue
- Else use methods given in next
slide
PVT Data is available,
but only access to HYSYS
- Use GC composition in HYSYS Upto
C10+ or higher plus fraction
- If GOR, overall MW, saturation
pressure and liquid density match,
continue
- Else use methods given in next slide
Oil, Gas and Water
composition / flows given
- Limited options
- Define individual streams with
composition and desired flows
- Add streams to a mixer
- -
Additional gas flow need to be added
to match total gas flow to account for
solubility of gas in oil
Only GC composition
given, no data for SCNs
- SCN data assume from Katz-
Firoozabadi or n-Paraffins
- If GOR, overall MW, saturation
pressure and liquid density match,
-
continue
Else use methods given in next slide
Oil assay is available with
extended light ends
- Define oil assay and light ends as
given
- HYSYS has provision to avoid overlap /
double counting
Most likely for refinery systems
 GC Composition in Simulators
https://www.aspentech.com/uploadedfiles/
heavy_oiils/odw_heavy_oils_slides.pdf

◎ Entering GC composition
○ As assay → D2887 in Assay
types
○ As individual hypothetical
components

Close Match

GC Assay Hypo method - Hypo method Hypo Method Hypo Method - Hypo Method -
PVT
method C36+ - C36+ - C7+ C11+ C20+
MW 31 30.69 30.66 30.66 30.61 30.65 30.67
EOS PR PR PR SRK PR PR PR
Gas MMSCFD 8.522 8.52 8.51E+00 8.445 8.517 8.519
Oil stbl/d 933.4 933.4 939 1002 931.5 932.5
GOR 8586 9130.1 9127.9 9067.1 8428.1 9143.3 9135.7
% Error 6.34 6.31 5.60 -1.84 6.49 6.40

29 Not much different

 Matching GOR
PVT / GC Composition + GOR available as input →
HYSYS does not give same GOR
Adjusting flows method
This works for Process facility design as:
1. Gas and liquid flows are essential for
separation
2. Liquid density is estimated by non-
EOS correlation
3. Gas density / molecular weight gets
dominated by gas flowrate
30
Dharmadhikari Method
Uses basic approach:
1. Composition from GC directly may give 40%
error in GOR
2. Error of 10% in reservoir saturation pressure
prediction would give 20% error in GOR and
10% error in oil stock tank density
3. Target to match reservoir fluid molecular
weight (+/-1%), GOR (+/-5%) and stock tank
oil density (+/-1%)
4. Vary MW of heaviest pseudo-component to
match reservoir fluid molecular weight
5. Vary Tc, Pc and accentric factor (within +/-
20%) of heaviest component to match
reservoir fluid saturation pressure
6. Vary viscosity constants of heaviest
component to match viscosity of oil
7. Verify CCE / CVD data from PVT with
simulation
 Illustration of GOR Matching

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255022225_PVT_data_useful_for
_design_of_oil_production_facilities

31
 Illustration of GOR Matching

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255022225_PVT_data_useful_for
_design_of_oil_production_facilities

32
 Handling Isomers

◎ BTEX specification
○ Problem of gas turbine
emissions
○ Amine / TEG regenerator
overhead (SRU / fuel gas /
Incinerator implications)
○ Special seals for valves
○ Freezing problems in
cryogenic systems
◎ Specify Isomers as pure
components
◎ SCNs can not be defined as
D2887 assay in this case;
define as Hypos
Additional info in: https://whitson.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2018-URTeC-
33 551-Younus-Whitson-etal-Field-wide-EOS.pdf
 One interesting
TBP vs GC project PVT data
where both TBP and
GC composition
data were available

o GC @ C30+ is way-
off
o GC @ C7+ is close
to actual TBP but
UOP K = 12 still not accurate
API Gravity = 20 enough

o Gas Chromatograph → MW, boiling point are assumed data except for
plus fraction
o TBP → Boiling point, MW, Density of each cut is measured
o If both TBP and GC data is available, use TBP data without doubt
34