Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Abstract
Hydrocarbon PVT data are used for a wide range of reservoir engineering applications including early volumetric assessment,
well test evaluation, material balance calculations, and equation of state fluid characterization. High quality, accurate PVT
data can reduce uncertainty in reservoir fluid properties, provide a sound foundation for reservoir engineering studies, and
improve investment efficiency. Poor quality PVT data can result in lost time due to rework and additional studies, inadequate
or overly aggressive development plans, and inefficient investment.
While acquiring sufficient volumes of representative reservoir fluid samples is the first step in obtaining reliable PVT data(1),
understanding and identifying the quality of the PVT data once obtained from the laboratory is essential to ensuring that data
are applied appropriately. A number of techniques exist that can be applied to evaluate PVT data quality and significant
experience in using these techniques has been gained over the years. Examples and illustrations of evaluating data quality for
fluid compositions and flash data, oil PVT data, and gas condensate PVT data are provided.
Introduction
The techniques described have primarily been used to assess PVT data quality for equation of state fluid characterization, but
these techniques have much broader application such as ensuring an appropriate PVT basis for in place volume estimates,
analytical reservoir engineering calculations, and regulatory submittals. When preliminary laboratory PVT data are provided
to the reservoir engineer, these techniques can be used to screen that data. The reservoir engineer can then use the results to
provide feedback to the laboratory and identify when measurements or laboratory calculations may need to be redone.
Equation of state parameters can sometimes be tuned beyond reasonable bounds to match PVT measurements that are not
physically realistic. When an equation of state is overly tuned to bad data, at least two issues arise. First, the quality of the
match to the remaining good quality data is often worse. Second, and more importantly, the ability to predict properties
outside the range of the measurements is compromised. By using these quality and consistency evaluation techniques,
discrepancies can usually be resolved thus enabling the reservoir engineer to improve the quality of the fluid characterization
and property predictions.
Often reservoir fluid samples and laboratory PVT data are acquired over a period of time. Comprehensive assessment of the
data is often performed after data have been acquired from many laboratories using different techniques. This often leads to
differences in measurements between laboratories and/or datasets that need to be resolved. When differences in the data are
observed, the techniques described can be useful for resolving these differences and in identifying data most appropriate for
reservoir engineering applications.
Discussion
The methods described in detail include but are not limited to:
- Material balance checks and Hoffman plots(2) to assess consistency of compositional and flash data
- Graphical techniques to assess the consistency between constant volume depletion and constant composition expansion
data for gas condensates with methods applied to liquid dropout data, Z-Factor data, and density data
- Reference volume translation techniques for formation volume factor and solution GOR measurements to assess data
quality at low pressure and ensure that differential liberation data for oils are used appropriately
- Cross-plot techniques for comparing data from a variety of sources
IPTC 13784
Component
CO2
N2
C1
C2
C3
iC4
nC4
iC5
nC5
C6s
C7s
C8s
C9s
Liquid
Mol %
5.04
0.08
15.71
6.26
8.33
2.33
4.84
2.81
3.09
5.11
8.31
11.46
7.53
Gas
Mol %
8.82
0.77
74.92
8.64
4.50
0.61
0.97
0.24
0.22
0.12
0.10
0.07
0.02
Wellstream
Mol %
8.60
0.73
71.44
8.50
4.73
0.71
1.20
0.39
0.39
0.41
0.58
0.74
0.46
C10+
19.10
0.00
1.12
44.94
Liq MW
92.13
0.7702
16616.8
IPTC 13784
1.2
y = -0.06220560x + 1.06174928
R2 = 0.99995711
1
0.8
yi/zi
Hoffman Plots:
A qualitative test to evaluate consistency of Kvalue (y/x) data is often referred to as the
Hoffman plot. This technique was published
in 1953 by Hoffman, et al.(2) and is based on a
technique developed in the 1930s by S. E.
Buckley of Humble Oil and Refining
Company. This method utilizes a log-linear
plot of K-value versus Hoffman factor, F. F is
defined as follows:
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
xi/zi
F = (log(Pc)-log(14.7))(1/Tb-1/T)/(1/Tb-1/Tc)
GOR =
Where:
GOR =
1 lbmol
0.06221 lbmol
379.5 scf
lbmol
lbmol
92.13 lb
44.94 lb
ft3
5.6145 ft3
bbl
16708 scf/bbl
K = K-value (y/x)
P = separator pressure (psia)
T = separator temperature (R)
Tb = boiling temperature (R)
Tc = critical temperature (R)
Pc = critical pressure (psia)
100
N2
10
C1
CO2
C2
C3
Log K
nC4
nC5
0.1
iC4
iC5
Reported
EOS
C6*
C7*
0.01
C8*
C9*
0.001
-2
-1
Hoffman Factor, F
50.81
44.73
Liq MW
160.70
0.00
25.20
0.966
572
1.6
R = 0.99994598
1.4
1.2
1
yi/zi
IPTC 13784
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
xi/zi
1 lbmol
0.9821 lbmol
379.5 scf
lbmol
lbmol
160.7 lb
44.73 lb
ft3
5.6145 ft3
bbl
603.91 scf/bbl
Figure 4. Hoffman Plot for Example 2 Oil
1000
N2
100
C1
Reported
CO2
EOS
H2S
10
C3
Log K
C2
nC4 iC4
nC5 iC5
1
C6*
C7*
0.1
C8*
C9*
0.01
-2
-1
Hoffman Factor, F
One of the properties typically given important consideration during equation of state tuning is liquid dropout data. Liquid
dropout data are obtained during both CCE and CVD experiments. While CVD liquid dropout data are nearly always reported
relative to the dew point volume, CCE liquid dropout data might be reported relative to the dew point volume, the total
volume, or both. Simultaneously plotting liquid dropout data relative to the dew point from both experiments has little value,
but plotting liquid dropout data from CCE relative to the total volume with the liquid dropout data from the CVD relative to
the dew point volume turns out to provide significant insight to the consistency of the data from the two experiments.
When plotted in this manner, the following characteristics should be exhibited:
Dew points should be identical
CVD liquid dropout should be greater than CCE liquid dropout (on a total volume basis)
CVD maximum liquid dropout should occur at a lower pressure than the CCE maximum liquid dropout.
IPTC 13784
On the other hand, when CCE data and CVD data are
inconsistent, at least one of the tests is certainly inaccurate.
Figure 6 presents liquid dropout data for a rich gas condensate.
The liquid dropout data from the CCE experiment were
originally reported relative to the dew point volume. Little
insight can be gained when these data, represented by the open
squares labeled as CCE Raw in the figure, are compared with the
CVD liquid dropout data, represented by the solid diamonds. By
converting the CCE liquid dropout data to be relative to the total
volume the comparison between CVD and CCE liquid dropout
data becomes much more meaningful. This conversion is
accomplished by dividing the liquid dropout relative to the dew
point volume by the relative volume, V/Vsat, at each pressure to
obtain liquid dropout relative to the total volume and is
described in equation form as follows:
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Pressure (PSIA)
Figure 5 shows the CCE and CVD data from the Example 1 gas
condensate and provides an illustration of consistent liquid
dropout behavior for a gas condensate. The liquid dropout is in
Figure 5 is plotted relative to the total volume in the cell for both
the CVD and CCE experiments. In the case of the CVD liquid
dropout, the total volume and the dew point volume are
obviously the same. Note that this comparison only indicates
that the liquid dropout data from the two tests are consistent with
each other. The test does not imply accuracy for either test.
The initial retrograde portion beginning at the dew point and decreasing in pressure can be nearly identical for the two
experiments at high pressures, but the CVD should exhibit greater liquid dropout as more liquid condenses. The simple
explanation for this behavior is that the composition of the gas
Figure 5. Liquid Dropout Comparison for Example 1 Gas
phase is leaner than the liquid phase once retrograde
Condensate
condensation begins. The leaner gas is removed during the CVD
5.0
experiment resulting in a composition that is richer than the
4.5
original composition that remains in the CCE experiment.
4.0
Because the total composition for the CVD fluid is richer, it will
CVD
CCE
3.5
have greater liquid dropout when compared on a total volume
basis.
3.0
25
20
15
CVD
CCE Dew Point
10
CCE Total
5
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Pressure (PSIA)
The solid squares in Figure 6 represent the same CCE liquid dropout data relative to the total volume. In this case, the facts
that the CCE liquid dropout data is initially greater than, then crosses the CVD liquid dropout data to become lower in the
retrograde region is meaningful and indicates that the liquid
dropout data between the two experiments is inconsistent.
Figure 7. Theoretical Liquid Dropout for a Rich Gas Condensate
While the data from one or the other, or possibly both
30
experiments, are inaccurate, the test does not provide a clear
indication of which experiment is likely more accurate. In the
25
case of this particular gas condensate, other samples were
available that had consistent data so these particular data were
20
given no weight during equation of state tuning. Once the
equation of state was tuned to other available data, comparisons
15
made with the tuned equation of state suggested that first CVD
liquid dropout measurement at approximately 3400 PSIA was in
10
CVD
error.
CCE Dew Point
CCE Total
IPTC 13784
typically for the CCE to be greater than the CVD initially, it can also cross during the revaporization portion of the curve as
described by Whitson(5) making evaluation of data consistency difficult. When the comparison is made on a total volume basis
as represented by the dashed line for the CCE, the behavior is now such that the CVD will consistently have at least as much
liquid dropout as the CCE.
Other simultaneous plots of CCE and CVD data can also be very useful in identifying data consistency. Two properties often
compared are Z-factors and vapor phase density. Sometimes only Z-factors or only vapor phase densities are reported. It is
very common for laboratories to report only Z-factors with CVD data. When this occurs, it is often still useful to calculate the
density for comparison with the CCE data. This can be done using the Real Gas Law:
= P/ZRT
Where:
= Molar density
P = Pressure
Z = Z-factor
R = Gas constant
T = Temperature (absolute)
Density (g/cc)
The molar density can then be easily converted to mass density by multiplying by molecular weight. Combining these tests
has proven useful over the years. Recently, a reservoir engineer had laboratory measurements made on a gas condensate in
support of government regulatory filings. One of the important parameters was the density at initial reservoir conditions.
Once the preliminary data were provided, the consistency test
Figure 8. Density Comparison for a Gas Condensate Discovery
for density was performed. Figure 8 shows the comparison of
the density data from the CVD and the CCE. The procedure
0.6
above was used to convert the CVD vapor phase Z-factors to
mass density so that they could be compared with the reported
0.5
CVD
CCE mass densities. The plot demonstrated that the densities
Original CCE
Corrected CCE
0.4
from the two experiments were not consistent and supporting
equation of state calculations showed excellent agreement with
0.3
the CVD density values. The laboratory was initially reluctant
to revisit their CCE densities solely based on equation of state
0.2
comparisons, but once the plot of densities from the two
experiments was provided to them, they identified that incorrect
0.1
conditions had been used to calculate the original CCE vapor
densities and the corrected values shown in Figure 8 were then
0
provided.
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Pressure (kPa)
IPTC 13784
16
Viscosity (cp)
14
12
Updated Viscosity
The Y-function is commonly used for smoothing CCE data and
10
assisting in precisely determining bubble points for oils.
Ahmed(8) describes the Y-function and its usage for smoothing
Original Viscosity
8
and interpreting bubble point data. Bubble point and relative
volume data reported in hydrocarbon PVT reports for oils have
6
typically been interpreted and smoothed in this fashion.
Because the data have already been smoothed, consistency
4
problems with relative volume data are usually hidden. One
indication that there might be issues with relative volume data
2
or the bubble point measurement is when there are few points
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
reported near the saturation pressure. Often the laboratory
Pressure (PSIA)
does not report all of the measurements so checking with the
laboratory to verify the measurement is a good idea if the data is difficult to match during equation of state tuning.
Another very simple qualitative test for oil data consistency is to compare the residual oil API gravity from the differential
liberation with the stock tank API gravity from a staged flash or separator test. Typically, the oil remaining from a differential
liberation will be denser and thus have a lower API gravity than the stock tank oil from a staged flash. This is because the
differential liberation is usually performed at a much higher temperature. When there is little difference between the
differential liberation temperature and the flash temperature, this might not be true, so this test is not rigorous. While this test
is not completely rigorous, it can be very useful for identifying inconsistent data.
Possibly the most useful technique for determining what differential liberation data should be matched during equation of state
tuning is to convert solution gas-oil-ratio (GOR) to cumulative GOR referenced to the bubble point volume and convert
formation volume factors to liquid shrinkages. These changes are important because the reported solution GOR and formation
volume factor data will include any error that occurs during the experiment in all of the data points. Differential liberation
formation volume factors will include any error in liquid measurement during the experiment because the values are all
referenced to the residual liquid from the experminet. Differential liberation solution GOR will include any errors in gas
measurement as well as any error in liquid measurement. In addition to the challenges associated with measurement of the
final depletion point, the theoretical simulation of the last step might not replicate the laboratory process. The most common
points when errors are introduced result from depressuring to atmospheric pressure. This can make understanding the data and
tuning an equation of state very difficult. The conversions to eliminate the propagation of these errors are described as
follows:
Rcbp = (Rsbp Rs)/Bobp
V/Vsat = Bo/Bobp
Where:
Rcbp = Cumulative GOR referenced to bubble point volume
Rsbp = Solution GOR from differential liberation at bubble point
Rs = Solution GOR from differential liberation
V/Vsat = Liquid shrinkage
Bo = Formation volume factor from differential liberation
Bobp = Formation volume factor from differential liberation at bubble point
If any errors were introduced during the laboratory procedures, these conversions will remove the errors from any points that
are at pressures higher than where the errors were introduced. This technique makes it much easier to identify when errors
might have occurred and enables the engineer to utilize the data measured before the errors were introduced.
The utility of these conversions is best illustrated with an example. A reservoir engineer had acquired some PVT data for an
oil and started equation of state tuning. He soon realized that extreme modifications of critical parameters were required to
IPTC 13784
match the differential liberation data and that he could not simultaneously match densities and multi-stage flash data along
with the differential liberation data. At this point, the reservoir engineer was advised to make the above conversions and
compare those predictions. Figure 10 shows a comparison of laboratory measured and equation of state predicted solution
GOR and cumulative GOR referenced to the bubble point volume. The comparisons of solution GOR cause the equation of
state to appear biased, while the comparisons of cumulative GOR show the equation of state to make accurate predictions of
the oil behavior down to the 700 PSIA depletion point. Likewise, comparisons of formation volume factors and liquid
shrinkage in Figure 11 show the equation of state to make accurate predictions of the liquid volumetric behavior, while the
formation-volume-factor comparison alone would lead you to believe that the equation of state did not accurately predict the
liquid volume behavior. Once the reservoir engineer tuned the equation of state to match the cumulative GOR referenced to
the bubble point volume and liquid shrinkage data instead of the reported solution GOR and formation volume factors from the
differential liberation experiment, predictions for densities and separator GOR were easily matched as well.
Figure 10. Differential Liberation GOR Comparisons
1200
1.8
Lab Rs
Lab Rcbp
EOS Rs
EOS Rcbp
1.6
1.4
Relative Volume (BBL/BBL)
1000
GOR (SCF/BBL)
800
600
400
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
Lab Bo
Lab V/Vsat
EOS Bo
EOS V/Vsat
0.4
200
0.2
0
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Pressure (PSIA)
Pressure (PSIA)
0.9
Oil Shrinkage (V/Vsat)
0.8
0.7
Measured
PR-VT
BWRS
0.6
0.5
0
1000
2000
3000
Pressure (PSIA)
4000
5000
6000
IPTC 13784
Yield data from the gas cap also indicated that the equation of state should be re-examined.
Peng-Robinson characterization met with little success.
At this point, the question of whether the data should be matched was given serious consideration and a test with another
equation of state, the BWRS(10) was performed to try to gain a better understanding. Surprisingly, the BWRS required little
tuning and matched the liquid shrinkage and gas gravity data very closely. Figure 12 aslo shows the results of the BWRS
equation of state predictions for liquid shrinkage. The BWRS also predicted gas gradients consistent with field observations.
In this case, data that had been questioned based on the match with one equation of state were now considered very good based
on the match with another equation of state. The BWRS equation of state, being derived from the Virial equation, also
provided a good contrast to the cubic Peng-Robinson for testing the reasonableness of the data.
Because compositional reservoir simulation was being performed for this fluid, a Peng-Robinson characterization was still
required. Now armed with additional data and confidence in the data, the Peng-Robinson was aggressively retuned (while still
maintaining reasonable parameter adjustments) to improve the match to the gas gravities, expected yields, and liquid
shrinkages. While the final Peng-Robinson match was not as good as the match with the BWRS, the results were considered
suitable for future reservoir simulation and engineering.
Conclusions
Major conclusions from this work include:
While most laboratory PVT data are of high quality, poor data quality can be identified using a variety of quality
assessment and consistency evaluation techniques. These techniques are straightforward and easy to apply. These
techniques have been demonstrated through a series of examples and illustrations.
While many of these PVT techniques are available in the open literature or easily understood, they are often not being
used. This has been observed through the continued identification of poor quality PVT data.
These techniques can be applied to assess data quality and consistency to identify high quality data. The high quality
data then provide improved bases for reservoir engineering calculations, including equation of state fluid
characterization.
References
1) Lawrence, J. J., Chorneyko, D. M., Smith, C. K., Nagarajan, N. R., Representative Reservoir Fluid Sampling: Challenges,
Issues, and Solutions, IPTC 12401 presented at the 2008 International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 3-5 December, 2009.
2) Hoffman, A. E., Crump, J. S., and Hocott, C. R.: "Equilibrium Constants for a Gas-Condensate System," Petroleum
Transactions, AIME (1953), Vol. 198, 1-10.
3) Whitson, C. H. and Torp, S. B.:Evaluating Constant-Volume Depletion Data, J. Pet. Tech. (March 1983), 610-619.
4) Moses, P. L.:Engineering Applications of Phase Behavior of Crude Oil and Condensate Systems, J. Pet. Tech. (July
1986), 715-723.
5) Whitson, C. H. and Brule, M. R.:Phase Behavior, Monograph 20, SPE, Henry L. Dougherty Series.
6) William D. McCain, Jr.: Analysis of Black Oil PVT Reports Revisited, SPE 77386 Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September 2 October 2002.
7) Al-Marhoun, Muhammad A.: Adjustment of Differential Liberation Data to Separator Conditions, SPE 84684 revised
from SPE 68234 first presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 17-20 March 2001.
8) Ahmed, Tarek H.: Reservoir Engineering Handbook, Elsevier/Gulf Professional, 2006.
9) Javeri, Bharat S., and Youngren, Gary K., Three-Parameter Modification of the Peng-Robinson Equation of State to
Improve Volumetric Predictions, SPE 13118, SPE Reservoir Engineering (August 1988), 1033-1040.
10) Hopke, S. W. and Lin, C. J. Application of the BWRS Equation to Natural Gas Systems, paper presented at the 76th
National AIChE Meeting, Tulsa (March 1974).