Integrated Oil PVT Characterization Lessons From Four Case Histories

R. WU, L. ROSENEGGER
Teknica Petroleum Services Ltd.

Abstract
Oil characterization plays an important role in integrated geophysical, geological and reservoir engineering studies. From project inception, correct fluid characterization can provide useful information about reservoir description and compartmentalization as well as properly defining fluid behaviour for engineering calculations. In this paper four field examples are presented to illustrate (1) how to use equation of state (EOS) oil characterization to check the accuracy of fluid sampling procedures and laboratory fluid property measurements, and (2) how to use EOS oil characterization to check for consistency between the geological/geophysical reservoir description and actual field performance (e.g., produced gas-oil ratio). This results in a better reservoir model and makes further engineering and simulation tasks much easier.

EOS Oil Characterization

Reservoir fluids are comprised of a very complex mixture of naturally occurring compounds. These compounds are principally hydrocarbons ranging from methane to asphalt. There are no fixed rules on the distribution of hydrocarbons in reservoirs. Fluids in reservoirs can exist as either single phase (gas or liquid), two phase (gas and liquid) or multi-phase (gas, liquid, liquid) fluids depending on the reservoir conditions and the components present. The ability to predict production rates, optimize production strategies and design production facilities depends on a knowledge of the properties of the reservoir fluid, not just at the original reservoir conditions, but also at a great many conditions on the subsequent depletion and production path. It is usually impractical, due to cost, time or lack of sufficient sample, to conduct laboratory analyses for such a wide range of conditions. In order to predict typical fluid properties and phase behaviour of hydrocarbon fluids, engineers have increasingly been using predictive EOS techniques. But EOSs are semi-empirical correlations which require some physical PVT data to tune their parameters. Unfortunately, the measured PVT data can be in error or some of it may be missing. A very good understanding of PVT analysis procedures and of the parameters needed to correctly tune the EOS is, therefore, needed. In this study the reservoir fluids were characterized(1) using one pseudocomponent (C7+). The reason is that under conditions normally encountered in production and facility operations, the C7+ concentration in the gas phase is usually less than 1 mole per cent, especially at reservoir conditions. This means that the C7+ in the liquid phase generally stays there. All EOS packages using more than one pseudocomponent use correlations to generate the required parameters which are derived from grouping of pseudocomponents based on boiling point range(2) and this data is generally not available for old PVT analyses. The procedure(1) requires only C7+ MW (molecular weight) and C7+ SG (specific gravity). A commercially available PVT package was used in this study and in this PVT package, four different correlations were available to generate the heavy end properties. They are Kesler-Lee(3), Edmister(4), Cavett(5) and Riazi-Daubert(6).

Introduction
Integrated reservoir studies are usually initiated after the reservoir in question has been on production for many years. This provides sufficient data on field performance to ensure that some matching of calculations to actual history can be done. To conduct such studies, engineers generally have to use available data including existing PVT data. In most cases the existing PVT data, which may have been collected right after completion of the initial development wells before field production or after many years of production, can show considerable inconsistency. In addition, some key data may not have been measured or some of the data may not reflect actual reservoir performance, such as gas-oil ratio (GOR). It is, therefore, important from the outset of a project to check the consistency of available PVT data with the production test data and with the geological description before using it in a reservoir simulation study. EOS models are used by engineers to identify such inconsistencies in the PVT data and to calculate data which may not have been measured or is obviously incorrect. Before an EOS can be used, one must first correctly tune its parameters(1), that is, characterize the oil. Hence oil characterization plays an important role in the integrated reservoir study. Correct fluid characterization enables accurate EOS fluid property predictions which can provide useful information about reservoir description and compartmentalization, as well as properly defining fluid behaviour for engineering calculations. In this paper we use four actual field examples to illustrate the procedures used.
Special Edition 1999, Volume 38, No. 13

Field Applications
Four practical field applications are used here to illustrate: 1. How to identify small pools and zones in one geological structure, 2. How to sort out representative fluid properties for each formation, 3. How to check for consistency and accuracy of fluid sampling procedures and laboratory fluid property measurements, and
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

PAPER: 97-05

FIGURE 1: Structure map for Reservoir 1.

FIGURE 2: Static pressure history for Reservoir 1.

4. The difference characterization.

between

C 30 +,

C 20 +,

and

C 7+

How to identify small pools and zones in one geological structure Six PVT reports, two for each of the three producing wells (#1, #6, and #8), were available for Reservoir 1 (Figure 1). There were some minor differences between the two reports for each well, but there were large differences between the three wells. The first task was to identify whether these three wells were in three different pools separated by sealing faults and, if so, to select the most representative PVT for each well. The three wells (Figure 1) penetrate a deep sandstone reservoir in what has been postulated as a wrench fault system. Due to the depth of the structure and the quality of the seismic data it was difficult to accurately interpret the normal faults usually associated with such a system. Well spacing is 0.82 and 0.69 miles between wells #1 and #8 and between wells #8 and #6, respectively. Based on the available static reservoir pressures for wells #1, #6, and #8 (Figure 2), it was initially thought that the three wells were in a single reservoir with some restricted communication between the wells, since their pressure was declining at approximately the same rate. However, the PVT data revealed that the fluids from these three wells were behaving differently. The following outlines the procedure that was used to resolve these differences. Table 1 lists the bubble point pressure (P b), gas-oil ratio (GOR), sample type, and sample depth for the six available PVT tests. The fluids were all sampled between 4,223 to 4,375 m (13,852 to 14,350 ft.) SS, but the saturation pressures ranged from 35,405 to 22,360 kPa (5,135 to 3,243 psia) and the GOR varied

from 295 to 137 m3/m3 (1,658 to 772 scf/bbl). Note that Pb in each test is consistent with the GOR (i.e., GOR increases with increasing Pb). Both the Pb and GOR data indicate that these three fluids are different reservoir oils. However, as noted above, the static reservoir pressures show that the three wells declined as if in one reservoir, especially wells #1 and #8 (Figure 2). Based on this it was difficult to say with certainty that the three well fluids were different. Calculations showed that the expected difference in saturation pressure due to the elevation differences between these wells should only be about 1,379 kPa (200 psi), much less than the observed differences in the PVT data. To check the consistency of the PVT measurements, the three reservoir fluids were characterized(1) using the Peng-Robinson equation of state (PREOS). We were able to match both the Pb and the GOR with the given C7+ MW and C7+ SG, so we believe that these PVT data are accurate. Figures 3 to 5 demonstrate the accuracy of the tuned PREOS with very good agreement between the predicted oil density, the predicted oil formation factor (Bod), and the predicted solution gas-oil ratio (Rsd) with the measured experimental data in the differential liberation tests for wells #1, #6, and #8. Table 2 further shows the good agreement of the predicted flash gas compositions at different stages in the differential liberation with measured experimental data for well #1. To confirm the PVT data and PREOS predictions, data from well test reports, as summarized in Table 3, was used. The well test conditions were similar and the duration of the tests was long enough to be reliable. Based on the GORs of the early tests, which were all run with the reservoir(s) above the indicated Pb, one can clearly separate well #6 from wells #1 and #8 since its GOR is significantly lower than the other two (125 vs. 214 m3/m3).

FIGURE 3: Comparison of oil densities for Reservoir 1 measured and EOS predicted. 2

FIGURE 4: Comparison of oil formation volume factor for Reservoir 1 measured and EOS predicted. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

TABLE 1: Comparison of bubble point pressure and GOR for PVT tests from Reservoir 1.
Well # Year Top (m SS) Bottom (m SS) Pb (kPa) GOR (m3/m3) Sample Type Used in Study 1 1966 4,272 4,291 35,198 295 Surface Yes 1 1986 4,223 4,299 35,405 295 BHS Yes 6 1968 4,318 4,375 22,360 137 Surface 6 1986 4,271 4,375 25,180 156 BHS Yes 8 1982 4,223 4,334 31,468 226 BHS 8 1986 4,223 4,334 29,261 195 BHS

TABLE 2: Comparison of measured and PREOS predicted gas compositionsWell #1.

P (kPa) Component CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 33,440 Meas EOS 3.26 0.91 71.47 11.94 5.13 2.70 1.29 3.14 0.88 73.54 11.77 4.88 2.31 1.07 2,9523 Meas EOS 3.29 0.89 72.25 11.97 5.04 2.59 1.15 3.20 0.84 73.76 11.97 4.92 2.20 1.01 23,635 Meas EOS 3.36 0.82 72.94 12.11 4.97 2.45 1.08 3.32 0.78 76.64 12.41 5.06 2.48 1.00 17,754 Meas EOS 3.45 0.70 73.01 12.50 4.99 2.38 1.02 3.49 0.67 72.79 13.16 5.34 2.71 1.04 11,866 Meas EOS 3.64 0.56 71.57 13.62 5.40 2.48 0.98 3.77 0.52 70.46 14.62 5.98 2.71 1.04 5,985 Meas EOS 3.95 0.30 65.70 16.70 7.70 3.24 1.22 4.20 0.32 63.62 18.00 7.92 3.61 1.31

TABLE 3: Well test data summaryReservoir 1.

Well # Date Depth (m) 4,225 4,223 4,314 4,314 4,314 4,314 4,103 4,103 4,334 Duration (hrs) 48.5 29.3 27.0 39.0 31.3 20.0 26.2 29.5 24.5 BHP (kPa) 37,645 25,993 30,268 31,440 30,544 28,296 31,674 31,674 22,587 WHP (kPa) 9,170 7,653 5,550 6,543 5,929 5,929 8,618 10,053 5,323 Separator T ( C) 48.9 60.0 51.7 46.1 43.3 67.2 64.4 71.1 71.1 47.8 GOR (m3/m3) 212 247 531 137 125 102 149 206 224 201

P (kPa) 2,034 2,068 2,103 1,586 1,862 3,827 1,069 2,413 2,413 2,448

1 1 1 6 6 6 6 8 8 8

Jan-83 Jun-87 May-91 Feb-81 Mar-83 May-84 May-84 Jul-84 Dec-84 Mar-87

The GOR and static pressures from the production histories were plotted for each of the three wells in Figures 6 to 8. Figure 6 shows the static pressure and produced GOR for well #1. The produced GOR started to increase in June to December 1987, just a little after the reservoir pressure declined below its saturation pressure and was also consistent with the well test data in Table 3. At that date the corresponding static pressure was about 35,163 kPa (5,100 psia). This indicates that the Pb of 35,198 to 35,400 kPa (5,105 to 5,135 psia) from PVT data is correct. The last GOR test for well #1 (1991) is very high. While the bottom hole pressure (BHP) was not recorded, the high GOR of this well test also agrees with the produced GOR. Separating the data above and below 35,163 kPa (5,100 psia), one can see two trends in the static pressure data. The slope of the pressure data above Pb is steeper than that below Pb. The first slope is due to reservoir decline under fluid and rock expansion, while for the second, after the pressure drops below Pb, solution gas expansion is the dominant production mechanism. Figure 7 shows the produced GOR and static pressure for well #8. Although the pressure is similar to well #1, the produced GOR only started to increase after June 1992, having remained constant until then. The corresponding reservoir pressure is about 27,580 kPa (4,000 psia). While this is below Pb (29,260 kPa or 4244 psia) from PVT data, the delay could be due to the time needed to build
Special Edition 1999, Volume 38, No. 13

up a critical gas saturation. Test data of Table 3 was too early in the life of the well. The last reservoir pressure point at 26,062 kPa (3,780 psia) and the increased GOR to about 256 m3/m3 (1,440 scf/bbl) further verify the saturation pressure. The produced GORs for wells #1 and well #8 are, therefore, consistent with the PVT data and, thus, indicate that the wells are in different pools. That is, they are separated by sealing faults and contain different oils, even though they are in the same geological formation. Figure 8 shows the produced GOR and static pressure for well #6. The produced GOR remained constant at about 139 m3/m3 (780 scf/bbl) up to the end of 1989 when the well was shut-in. The last pressure at that time was about 27,579 kPa (4,000 psia), well above the PVT measured Pb of 22,360 to 25,180 kPa (3,243 or 3,652 psia). Tests after this date show a rising pressure trend, indicating that this well is also in a separate pool with a good edge water drive from the east. The GORs for this well remained constant because it always produced above Pb and thus both the PVT data and the well test GORs are consistent. This implies that well #6 is separated from, and does not communicate with, well #8. Based on the above analysis and EOS characterization, Table 4 summarizes the PVT data, fluid compositions, C7+ MW, and C7+ SG that were used for each well in the ensuing integrated reservoir study (1986, 1968, and 1982 PVT reports for well #1, #6, and #8 respectively).
3

FIGURE 5: Comparison of solution gas-oil ratio for Reservoir 1 measured and EOS predicted.

FIGURE 7: Pressure and gas-oil ratio for Well#8Reservoir 1.

FIGURE 6: Pressure and gas-oil ratio for Well#1Reservoir 1.

FIGURE 8: Pressure and gas-oil ratio for Well#6Reservoir 1.

How to sort out representative fluid properties for each formation Sixty-five wells were drilled in Reservoir 2 (Figure 9) which is a carbonate reservoir with two main producing horizons (Upper and Lower). The field itself is split into two distinct areas (North TABLE 4: Summary of PVT data for Reservoir 1.
Well No. N2 CO2 C1 C2 C3 IC4 NC4 IC5 NC5 C6 C7+ C7+SG-EOS C7+MW-EOS C7+MW-Meas Pb-EOS(kPa) Pb-Meas(kPa) 4 1 0.0049 0.0277 0.5319 0.1169 0.0585 0.0124 0.0226 0.0084 0.0102 0.0223 0.1842 0.8655 252 250 35,411 35,198 6 0.0047 0.025 0.4317 0.1149 0.0654 0.0138 0.028 0.0101 0.0134 0.0297 0.2633 0.8518 240 240 25,193 22,360 8 0.0047 0.0275 0.4759 0.113 0.0617 0.0133 0.0256 0.0094 0.0119 0.0257 0.2313 0.8645 240 240 29,234 29,261

and South) and all evidence points to hydraulic separation between the two horizons while the two areas may be connected through common aquifers. Eight sets of PVT data were available, all from bottom-hole samples, from three of the four producing zones (Upper South, Lower South, Lower North and one commingled Upper & Lower South sample from well #1). This data is summarized in Table 5. For the reservoir study we needed to decide whether the fluids in the Upper and Lower horizons and in the North and South were the same or different and to determine the most representative PVT sample for each zone. We used the eight available sets of fluid compositions and their measured bubble point pressures to identify each zone. Then the Peng-Robinson equation of state was used to check this PVT data for consistency. From the eight data sets, we can readily identify the Upper and Lower North zones. There are 4 PVT data sets (wells #2, #3, #27, and #50) from the Upper North and these seem to be good since the basic indicators (Pb, GOR, and C7+ concentration) are consistent between the 1963 and 1988 data. Two data sets (wells #10 and #14) from the Lower North zone also show like Pb and GOR. The difference between Upper and Lower North is the variation of Pb (2,413 vs. 3,585 kPa or 350 vs. 520 psia) and GOR (68 vs. 91 m3/m3 or 380 vs. 510 scf/bbl) so we can easily say that they are different oils. Other evidence is that the oil from Lower North contained H2S (hydrogen sulphide) while that of the Upper North zone did not. This interpretation of separate horizons with different oil is consistent with the geological description. The problem occurs in trying to separate the PVT for the South area. Only two sets of PVT data were available from this area.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE10: Comparison of solution gas-oil ratio for Reservoir 2 measured and EOS predicted.

FIGURE 9: Structure map for Reservoir 2.

One sample (well #11) was from the Upper South zone and one was commingled from the Upper and Lower South zones (well #1). These two data sets showed some inconsistency in P b and GOR in that the GOR was higher with a lower Pb for the Upper South. The details of the eight sets of fluid compositions are given in Table 6. To resolve the problem, we needed to carefully consider the H2S concentration (last column of Table 5). H2S content is one of the most important parameters for identifying reservoir fluid compositions. Samples from wells #1, #10, #11, and #14 all contained H2S. Wells #11 and #14 are from the Lower North zone with H2S definitely present. Samples from the Upper North zone from wells #2, #3, #27 and #50 contain no H2S in contrast to the South where two samples (wells #1 and #11) both contain H2S. But the H2S concentration in well #11 (Upper South only) is very small, 0.02 mole per cent. On other hand, the sample from well #1 contains a higher H2S concentration, 0.51 mole per cent. One could therefore TABLE 5: Summary of PVT dataReservoir 2.

FIGURE 11: Comparison of oil formation factors for Reservoir 2 measured and EOS predicted.

consider that the H2S content in well #11 was due to contamination. Assuming no H2S in well #11 (Upper South), then the Pb and GOR data of well #11 are the same as those of samples from the Upper North zone. Hence one PVT data set can be used to represent both the Upper North and South reservoir zones. As there was no separate sample from the Lower South zone and based on the H2S concentration of well #1, we had to assume that the fluid in the Lower South was the same as in the Lower North zone. To confirm this conclusion we requested a sample from a non-commingled well in the Lower South zone. With a small adjustment of C7+ MW and C7+ SG, we were able to match Pb and GOR simultaneously for these PVT data. Table 6 summarizes the fluid compositions and shows the measured C7+ MW and C7+ SG and the values used in the EOS. Note that one can also use the C7+ MW to separate the Upper and Lower zones

Well # 1 2 3 10 11 14 27 50

Sample Date Oct-61 Apr-60 Dec-63 Dec-63 Dec-63 Dec-63 Aug-88 Aug-88

Zone U&L-S U-N U-N L-N U-S L-N U-N U-N

T ( C) 64.4 53.3 60.6 65.0 62.8 63.3 58.9 56.7

Pb (kPa) 2,432 2,597 2,618 3,487 2,577 3,583 2,482 2,392

PVT GOR (m3/m3) 25.3 22.1 19.1 17.3 20.1 16.9 21.2 22.1

Prod Test GOR (m3/m3)

API 33.5 33.8 36.6 32.4 36.2 32.1 36.3 37.0

Viscosity (cp) @Pb Bob 1.77 3.04 2.66 3.30 2.72 3.69 1.86 1.95 1.135 1.102 1.107 1.087 1.108 1.080 1.110 1.117

H2S Mole% 0.51 0 0 1.41 0.02 0.49 0 0

11.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 11.0 11.2

Special Edition 1999, Volume 38, No. 13

TABLE 6: Oil compositions and characterization summaryReservoir 2.

Well # T ( C) N2 CO2 H2S C1 C2 C3 IC4 NC4 IC5 NC5 C6 C7+ C7+SG-EOS C7+SG-Meas C7+MW-EOS C7+MW-Meas Pb-EOS (kPa) Pb-Meas (kPa) 1 64.4 0.0021 0.0075 0.0051 0.0605 0.0259 0.0583 0.0186 0.0583 0.0288 0.0326 0.0542 0.6481 0.857 0.857 220 231 2427 2427 2 53.3 0.0088 0.0134 0 0.0563 0.0251 0.046 0.015 0.0581 0.0264 0.0335 0.0471 0.6703 0.852 0.855 225 224 2599 2599 3 60.0 0.003 0.0001 0 0.0714 0.0154 0.0371 0.0119 0.0612 0.0307 0.0358 0.0619 0.6715 0.863 0.8595 220 233 2620 2620 10 64.4 0.0035 0.0056 0.0141 0.0999 0.0145 0.0187 0.01 0.0264 0.0205 0.0242 0.0523 0.7103 0.8575 0.8722 255 258 3489 3489 11 62.2 0.0031 0.0028 0.0002 0.068 0.0198 0.0401 0.0115 0.0547 0.0282 0.0375 0.0665 0.6676 0.858 0.8579 220 237 2579 2579 14 62.8 0.0029 0.0046 0.0049 0.1075 0.0111 0.0158 0.0107 0.0261 0.0242 0.0161 0.0475 0.7286 0.858 0.8612 250 261 3585 3585 27 58.9 0.0033 0.0035 0 0.0672 0.0219 0.0404 0.0129 0.0425 0.0237 0.0293 0.0447 0.7106 0.8526 0.858 225 50 56.7 0.0041 0.0026 0 0.0614 0.0238 0.0471 0.0147 0.048 0.0253 0.0311 0.0468 0.6951 0.857 0.86 225

2482 2482

2406 2392

(220 vs. 255). To demonstrate that the tuned EOS can match other measured properties, Figures 10 and 11 compare the differential liberation (DL) measured and the calculated oil formation volume factor (Bod) and solution gas-oil ratio (Rsd) for well #1. How to check for consistency and accuracy of fluid sampling procedures and laboratory fluid property measurements Reservoir 3 contains 15 wells. This clastic reservoir is highly fractured and faulted and all parts of the reservoir appear to be in pressure communication. Four surface sample analyses were available from three different labs as shown in Table 7. The Pb of these samples varies from 25,010 to 28,655 kPa (3,627 to 4,156 psia) and the solution GOR ranges from 346 to 683 m3/m3 (1,943 to 3,833 scf/bbl). Hence, the Pbs are consistent with the GORs. It appears however that the surface samples were recombined to different GORs, this being the only explanation for the difference in the Pbs among them. The questions then were (1) how accurate are the recombined PVT measurements and (2) which PVT data set (i.e., what recombination GOR) can be used to best represent the reservoir fluid.

To check the laboratory fluid property measurements, we used the same procedure as in the previous two applications. We adjusted the given C7+ MW and C7+ SG to match the measured Pb and then predicted the GOR. With only a slight or no change to the measured C7+ properties, we were able to match the measured Pbs (Table 7). Note that in the EOS, the C7+ MW used only varied from 175 to 180 while the C7+ SG ranged from 0.83 to 0.856. With such small variation of these parameters, one can consider that the characterization of these fluids is similar. This agrees with the geological description. However, as summarized in Table 7, there is a large difference between the measured and EOS calculated solution GOR (Rsd) for differential liberation (DL) processes for wells #1, #9, and #14. The difference is greater than 50%. To resolve this, we compared two available single stage flash GORs, one from the first stage of DL and the other from the separator test results (Table 8). The parameter used in this table is the pressure drop (P). Note that the smaller P from the DL measurement gives a much higher evolved GOR per kPa of P than the larger P from the separator test data. In well #1 for example, a P of 4,282 kPa (621 psi) from the DL produced a GOR of 220 m3/m3 (1,233 scf/bbl) while a P of 22,856 kPa (3,315 psi) only

FIGURE 12: Gas-oil ration and pressure historyReservoir 3. 6

FIGURE 13: Rsd and Bod for recombined reservoir fluid Reservoir 3. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

TABLE 7: Oil compositions and characterization resultsfor Reservoir 3.

Well No Date T ( C) N2 CO2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7+ 1 Sep-89 146.1 0.0003 0.0839 0.4743 0.1029 0.0612 0.0123 0.0297 0.0134 0.0155 0.0205 0.1861 Meas 0.83 180 27,579 416 632 EOS 0.83 180 27,579 388 417 3 Jul-87 154.4 0.0052 0.0647 0.3958 0.1068 0.0727 0.0173 0.0355 0.0185 0.018 0.029 0.2367 Meas 0.858 178 25,007 278 346 EOS 0.856 176 25,014 296 323 9 Mar-93 156.7 0.0034 0.071 0.4843 0.0924 0.0584 0.0139 0.03 0.0147 0.0174 0.0228 0.1917 Meas 0.805 183 28,144 368 648 EOS 0.835 175 28,151 367 406 14 Feb-93 153.9 0.0038 0.0703 0.4873 0.0893 0.0548 0.0128 0.0277 0.0139 0.0161 0.0214 0.2026 Meas 0.805 181 28,654 391 683 EOS 0.8335 175 28,654 364 393

C7+SG C7+MW Pb (kPa) GOR@std (m3/m3) GOR(DL)(m3/m3) Sample Type Sep.Conditions Sep Pres (kPa) Sep T( C) Reservoir P (kPa) Company

Surface

Surface 1620 57.2

Surface

Surface

38,601 Lab #1

Lab #2

35,446 Lab #3

35,446 Lab #3

TABLE 8: Comparison of single stage flash (m3/m3).

Well #1 Source 1st Stage of DL Separator P 4,282 22,856 GOR 220 289 Well #3 P 2,848 22,146 GOR 102 243 Well #9 P 1,717 23,814 GOR 180 227 Well #14 P 2,365 24,311 GOR 248 256

TABLE 9: Two or three stage flash GOR (m3/m3).

Well #1 Meas 289 40 Well #3 Meas 243 32 Well #9 Meas 227 42 24 Well #14 Meas 256 42 24

P (kPa) 4,619 103

EOS 347 37

P (kPa) 2,861 103

EOS 221 60

P (kPa) 4,240 793 103

EOS 252 43 25

P (kPa) 4,240 793 103

EOS 251 41 24

yielded a GOR of 289 m3/m3 (1,622 scf/bbl) from the separator test. Similar results were noted for wells #9 and #14. Physically, one would have to suspect some measurement error in the DL experiments. The error was likely induced because the amount of gas phase present was small at the high pressure for the first stage of the DL experiment. During the process of removing the gas phase, some amount of oil was likely displaced out of the cell. Counting some of the oil as gas volume would result in a higher measured GOR from this first stage of the DL process. If this were the case, we would believe in the EOS prediction rather than the measured results. To verify our observation, Table 9 shows two and three stage separator flash GORs. The EOS calculated GORs generally compare very well with the measured separator flash GORs, leading us to accept the flash rather than the differential data.
Special Edition 1999, Volume 38, No. 13

Figure 12 shows all available field produced GORs and the measured pressures and can be used to resolve the second point about which PVT data should be used for the reservoir study. The GOR varies from 249 to 392 m3/m3 (1,400 to 2,200 scf/bbl) with an average produced GOR around 321 m3/m3 (1,800 scf/bbl). As shown in Table 8, except for the data from well #3, all the other DL data sets had measured GORs greater than 434 m3/m3 (3,000 scf/stb) and thus should not be used. The separator test gas and liquid compositions from well #3 were used for a mathematical recombination to a GOR of 321 m3/m3 (1,800 scf/bbl). The EOS calculated oil formation factor (B od) and solution gas-oil ratio (Rsd) data is shown in Figure 13. The difference between C30+, C20+, and C7+ characterization Reservoir 4 is a broad reef rimmed carbonate buildup covering
7

TABLE 10: EOS characterization of reservoir fluid composition summaryReservoir #4.

Well T ( C) N2 CO2 C1 C2 C3 IC4 NC4 IC5 NC5 C6 C7+ C7+SG-EOS C7+SG-Meas C7+MW-EOS C7+MW-Meas Pb-EOS (kPa) Pb-Meas (kPa) GOR@std (m3/m3) Additional Information Sample Date Sample Type Sample Depth (m) Sample P (kPa) Sep. P (kPa) Sep. T ( C) Sep GOR (m3/m3) Lab May-63 BHS 1,423 1,7092 Jan-95 BHS 1,680 13,341 Dec-89 Sep S. 1,680 545 30.6 63 #1 #2 #1 #2 #2 Jan-95 BHS 1,678 11,969 Jan-70 BHS 15,003 Oct-67 Flowing 1,560 17,168 Nov-75 BHS 13,996 448 24.4 67 #2 #1 May-94 Sep S. Jan-95 BHS 1,593 8,915 531 16.7 50 #2 Jan-95 BHS 1,665 11,204 531 16.7 49 #2 N5 68.9 0.0053 0.0012 0.2280 0.0645 0.0851 0.0116 0.0544 0.0210 0.0261 0.0424 0.4604 0.8596 0.8638 242 242 9,135 9,136 62 N118B 69.4 0.0078 0.0010 0.2064 0.0580 0.0705 0.0151 0.0539 0.0264 0.0331 0.0511 0.4767 0.8571 237 N118S 68.9 0.0060 0.0012 0.2371 0.0718 0.0871 0.0146 0.0539 0.0229 0.0288 0.0285 0.4481 0.8514 0.8680 238 238 9,563 9,563 69 N134 69.4 0.0113 0.0013 0.2545 0.0699 0.0960 0.0155 0.0632 0.0263 0.0330 0.0188 0.4102 0.8507 237 N51 68.9 0.0037 0.0002 0.1728 0.0611 0.0823 0.0121 0.0426 0.0164 0.0212 0.0396 0.5480 0.8400 0.8509 250 242 5,787 3,709 39 S4 68.9 0.0054 0.0018 0.2162 0.0603 0.0839 0.0158 0.0552 0.0204 0.0271 0.0385 0.4754 0.8597 0.8627 239 236 8,667 8,667 58 S26 68.9 0.0139 0.0028 0.2132 0.0621 0.0811 0.0139 0.0498 0.0274 0.0110 0.0545 0.4703 0.8683 0.8699 257 257 8,412 8,412 55 S59 68.9 0.0068 0.0016 0.2284 0.0628 0.0783 0.0142 0.0482 0.0206 0.0257 0.0344 0.4790 0.8683 0.8636 226 226 9,698 9,701 64 S65 65 0.0039 0.0014 0.2140 0.0640 0.0743 0.0109 0.0397 0.0184 0.0250 0.0445 0.5039 0.8418 245 S84 71.4 0.0102 0.0012 0.1976 0.0552 0.0689 0.0102 0.0385 0.0187 0.0262 0.0267 0.5466 0.8496 247

8,336 8,336 62

9,767 9,770 86

7,751 7,750 57

7,943 7,943 49

80 #1

TABLE 11: Comparison the EOS results with separator gas compositions.
Well No. Sample Date Sep T ( C) Sep P (kPa) S43 12-Jul 56 393
EOS Meas. N2 CO2 C1 C2 C3 IC4 NC4 IC5 NC5 C6 C7+ H2S 0.0145 0.0167 0.0027 0.0050 0.5623 0.5466 0.1540 0.1492 0.1520 0.1619 0.0184 0.0195 0.0582 0.0602 0.0148 0.0139 0.0155 0.0139 0.0075 0.0129 0.0000 0.0000 0.0003

S65 6-Feb 9 414

EOS Meas.

N124 12-Jul 52 448

EOS 0.0150 0.0028 0.5793 0.1552 0.1468 0.0169 0.0522 0.0126 0.0130 0.0061 0.0000 Meas. 0.0160 0.0094 0.5659 0.1484 0.1553 0.0168 0.0551 0.0126 0.0123 0.0077 0.0000 0.0006

S60 12-Jul 53 434

EOS Meas.

S4 24-Feb 27 552
EOS 0.0173 0.0030 0.6573 0.1553 0.1154 0.0102 0.0285 0.0055 0.0053 0.0021 0.0000 Meas. 0.0200 0.0067 0.6608 0.1465 0.1108 0.0111 0.0293 0.0055 0.0051 0.0026 0.0016

S4 24-Feb 38 552
EOS Meas. 0.0164 0.0196 0.0029 0.0067 0.6281 0.6258 0.1562 0.1455 0.1284 0.1295 0.0126 0.0134 0.0367 0.0380 0.0077 0.0078 0.0077 0.0076 0.0033 0.0041 0.0000 0.0020

S4 24-Feb 49 552
EOS Meas.

0.0179 0.0214 0.0031 0.0072 0.6816 0.6520 0.1555 0.1600 0.1039 0.1169 0.0081 0.0098 0.0215 0.0225 0.0037 0.0033 0.0034 0.0031 0.0012 0.0028 0.0000 0.0000

0.0148 0.0166 0.0028 0.0150 0.5736 0.5602 0.1548 0.1447 0.1486 0.1507 0.0174 0.0181 0.0542 0.0550 0.0133 0.0131 0.0138 0.0134 0.0066 0.0126 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005

0.0156 0.0175 0.0029 0.0065 0.6016 0.5990 0.1556 0.1461 0.1386 0.1366 0.0150 0.0159 0.0451 0.0466 0.0104 0.0106 0.0105 0.0103 0.0048 0.0064 0.0000 0.0045

about 32 square miles. Over 230 exploration and development wells were drilled in this field which has been on production since late 1964. Ten PVT reports were available from nine wells as summarized in Table 10. The measured bubble point pressure from these tests varies from 3,709 to 9,770 kPa (538 to 1,417 psia) and the solution GOR varies from 39 to 86 m3/m3 (219 to
8

484 scf/bbl). Some of the oil compositional analyses are up to C30+ and they were conducted by 2 different laboratories. Hence, this data set provides a good opportunity to see the difference in C30+, C20+, and C7+ characterization. In addition, a representative fluid composition for simulation and enhanced oil recovery application had to be selected.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 14: Average production test GORNorth Reservoir 4.

FIGURE 15: Average production test GORSouth Reservoir 4.

First, we used the given C7+ MW and C7+ SG to match the measured Pbs and then predicted the GORs(1). We had no problem matching both the Pb and GORs for eight of the nine wells, but we had difficulty matching both of these parameters for well N51. After discussion with the client, it was agreed that the well N51 PVT was likely in error. After eliminating this data the range of Pb was from 7,750 to 9,770 kPa and the variation in GOR was from 53 to 86 m3/m3 (300 to 484 scf/bbl). An increase of Pb consistent with increasing GOR was noted. The variation could be due to sampling procedures since the geological data indicates that these wells are in same formation. The C7+ MW varies from 237 to 257 while the C7+ SG ranges from 0.840 to 0.870. Based on the C7+ MW variation of more than 5% it is difficult to justify that these samples represent the same reservoir fluid. These differences could be due to sampling procedures as was postulated for the GOR data. To clarify this, Figures 14 and 15 plot available separator test average GORs for 1994 and 1995 respectively. Taking into account the variation of separator conditions, the range of scatter of this GOR data is similar to the PVT GOR (i.e., from 53 to 86 m3/m3 or 300 to 450 scf/bbl). We, therefore, averaged the separator test GOR data which yielded 69 m3/m3 (385 scf/bbl). This GOR was also used for the N118 recombined surface sample which in turn was used to analyse many of the EOR laboratory tests. Finally, we selected the N118S sample for our reservoir study. To verify the selection, Table 11 compares gas analyses during 1968, 1994, and 1995 with those predicted by EOS. The match was very good except for the H2S component. H2S was not present in the original samples but there was a small amount of H2S

in the gas analyses from 1994 and 1995. This likely resulted from inadequate treatment of the injected water. As noted above we used the available C30+ oil analyses to demonstrate that the C7+ grouping is adequate for reservoir management purpose. The oil analyses from Lab #2 for wells N118B, N134, S65, and S84 include the aromatics and napthenes in the C5 to C9 components. Lab #1 on other hand separates the aromatics and napthenes from the C5 to C9 components for wells N118S and S59 which results in lower concentrations of the C6 to C10 components as shown in Figure 16. The reason for separating these two groups from the C7 to C9 components is that the MW of these two groups (aromatics and napthenes) is less than the MW of the C7 to C9 components which are used in the EOS package. Without separation, the concentration, and hence the MW of the C7 to C9 components, would be too high resulting in erroneous critical properties generated from the correlations of the PVT package. To verify the inadequacy of Lab #2 data, one can calculate the C7+ molecular weight using molar weighting given in the EOS package. The result shows that the calculated C7+ MW from Lab #2 for wells N118B, N134, S65, and S84 varies from 149 to 168 which is less than the C7+ MW calculated by EOS of 240. On other hand, the agreement between the measured and calculated C7+ MW is very good for N118S from Lab #1 data. For well S59, the difference is less than 5%, well within acceptable range. Figures 17 to 19 compare the oil formation factors, the solution GOR, and the oil density from DL measurements to the EOS calculated values using C 7+ and C 20+ characterization for well N118S. The difference between the EOS predicted values using C7+ or C20+ characterization is small. However, it seems that the C7+ grouping predicts better the measured values than the C20+ grouping. This could be due to the fact that the correlations used to generate the critical properties and accentric factor for the C7 to C19 components in the C20+ characterization are based on normal alkane rather than the individual components.

Conclusions and Recommendations

From this study we conclude and recommend the following: 1. It is very important at the outset of a project to analyse all available PVT data together with the well test data, the reservoir static pressures, and the production information such as GOR (Application 1). 2. With proper oil characterization, one can better predict reservoir fluid properties which, in turn, can be used to better describe the reservoir and to identify compartmentalization in a formation (Application 2). 3. It is very important to interpret laboratory measurements with physical reasoning when there is inconsistent data (Application 3).
9

FIGURE 16: Oil analysis up to C20+Reservoir 4. Special Edition 1999, Volume 38, No. 13

FIGURE 17: Comparison of oil formation factors using C7+ and C20+ characterization Reservoir 4.

FIGURE 19: Comparison of oil densities using C7+ and C20+ characterization Reservoir 4.

ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript, Integrated Oil CharacterizationLessons from Four Case Histories, (9705), first presented at the 48th Annual Technical Meeting, June 811, 1997, in Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for review November 13, 1996; editorial comments sent to the author(s) November 19, 1998; revised manuscript received December 17, 1998; paper approved for pre-press December 18, 1998; final approval November 8, 1999.

Authors Biographies
Ray Wu is currently a senior engineer with Teknica Petroleum Services Ltd. Before joining Teknica, he was involved in oil recovery research, both conventional and thermal, with Imperial Oil Ltd. He received M.A.Sc. in 1972 from the University of Windsor, Ontario and a Ph.D. in 1976 from the University of Alberta. Dr. Wu is a member of APEGGA and the Petroleum Society. Lothar Rosenegger is currently engineering manager with Teknica Petroleum Services Ltd. and has 25 years of diverse petroleum engineering experience, both domestic and international. He received his B.Eng. and M.Eng. degrees in mechanical engineering from McGill University in 1971 and 1973 and MBA from the University of Calgary in 1980. Mr. Rosenegger is a member of APEGGA, the Petroleum Society, and the SPE.

FIGURE 18: Comparison of solution gas-oil ration using C7+ and C20+ characterization Reservoir 4.

4. The existence of H 2S in the reservoir fluid can play an important role in identifying the formation and in reservoir management (Application 2). 5. One heavy end (C7+) characterization is adequate for fluid property prediction for reservoir engineering applications (Application 4).

References
1. WU, R.S., and FISH, R.M., C 7 + Characterization for Fluid Properties Predictions; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, July August, 1989. 2. WHITSON, C.H., ANDERSON T.F., and SOREIDE I., C 7 + Characterization of Related Equilibrium Fluid Using the Gamma Distribution, Paper in C7+ Characterization; edited by Mansoori G.A., and Chorn L.G., Taylor and Francis, New York, 1989. 3. LEE, B.I., and KESLER, M.G., Improved Vapour Pressure Prediction; Hydro. Proc., pp. 163-179, April 1958. 4. EDMISTER, W.C., Applied Hydrocarbon Thermodynamics; Petroleum Refiner, pp. 173-179, April 1958. 5. CAVETT, R.H., Physical Data for Distillation Calculations Vapour-Liquid Calculations; Proceedings 27 API Meeting, San Francisco, pp. 351-366, 1962. 6. RIAZI, M.R. and DAUBERT, T.E., Simplify Property Predications; Hydro. Proceedings, pp. 115-116, March 1980.

10

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology