Uncertainties in Reservoir Fluid Description

for Reservoir Modeling

K.K. Meisingset, SPE, Statoil
Summary
The objective of the present paper is to communicate the basic
knowledge needed for estimating the uncertainty in reservoir fluid
parameters for prospects, discoveries, and producing oil and gas/
condensate fields. Uncertainties associated with laboratory analysis, fluid sampling, process description, and variations over the
reservoirs are discussed, based on experience from the North Sea.

Introduction
Reliable prediction of the oil and gas production is essential for
the optimization of development plans for offshore oil and gas
reservoirs. Because large investments have to be made early in the
life of the fields, the uncertainty in the in-place volumes and production profiles may have a direct impact on important economical decisions.
The uncertainties in the description of reservoir fluid composition and properties contribute to the total uncertainty in the reservoir description, and are of special importance for the optimization of the processing capacities of oil and gas, as well as for
planning the transport and marketing of the products from the
field. Rules of thumb for estimating the uncertainties in the reservoir fluid description, based on field experience, may therefore be
of significant value for the petroleum industry. The discussion in
the present paper is based on experience from the fields and discoveries where Statoil is an operator or partner, including almost
all fields on the Norwegian Continental Shelf,1,2 and all types of
reservoir oils and gas condensates except heavy oils with stocktank oil densities above 940 kg/m3 below 20 API.
Fluid Parameters in the Reservoir Model
The following parameters are used to describe the reservoir fluid
in a black oil reservoir simulation model:
densities at standard conditions of stabilized oil, condensate,
gas, and water;
viscosity ( ), oil formation volume factor (B ), and gas-oil
O
O
ratio (R S ) of reservoir oil;
viscosity
( G ) gas formation volume factor (B G ), and
condensate/gas ratio (R SG ) of reservoir gas;
viscosity (
W ), formation volume factor (B W ), and compressibility of formation water; and
saturation pressures: bubblepoint for reservoir oil, dew point
for reservoir gas.
The actual input is usually slightly more complex, with saturation
pressure given as a function of depth, with R S and R SG defined as
a function of saturation pressure, and with oil and gas viscosities
and formation volume factors given as a function of reservoir
pressure for a range of saturation pressure values. However, minor
changes in saturation pressure versus depth are usually neglected,
and the oil dissolved in the reservoir gas can also be neglected
(R SG 0) when the solubility is small.
Uncertainties in the modeling of other fluid parameters interfacial tension may for instance be of importance, because of its
effect on the capillary pressure, or compositional effects like revaporization of oil into injection gas, are not discussed here. Uncertainties in viscosity, formation volume factor and compressibility of formation water, and density of gas at standard conditions,
Copyright 1999 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 57886) was revised for publication from paper SPE 38112, first presented
at the 1998 SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modeling for Asset Management,
Kuala Lumpur, 2324 March. Original manuscript received for review 7 November 1996.
Revised manuscript received 7 July 1999. Paper peer approved 8 July 1999.

SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng. 2 5, October 1999

are judged to be of minor importance for the total uncertainties in

the reservoir model. The uncertainty in the salinity of the formation water is discussed here instead, because it is used for calculations of water resistivity for log interpretation, and therefore,
affects the estimates of initial water saturation in the reservoir.
In a compositional reservoir simulation model, the composition
of reservoir oil and gas with, typically, 4 to 10 pseudocomponents is given as a function of depth, while phase equilibria and
fluid properties are calculated by use of an equation of state. However, the uncertainties in the fluid description can be described in
approximately the same way as for a black oil model.
Quantified uncertainty ranges in the present paper are coarse
estimates, aiming at covering 80% of the probability range for
each parameter estimated value plus/minus an uncertainty estimate defining the range between the 10% and 90% probability
values3.
Prospect Evaluation
Assessments of the uncertainties in the reservoir description, as a
basis for economic evaluation, are made in all phases of exploration and production. Of course, the complexity in the fluid description increases strongly from prospect evaluation through the
exploration phase and further into the production phase, but the
main fluid parameters in the reservoir model are the same.
The prediction of fluid parameters in the prospect evaluation
phase, before the first well has been drilled, is based on reservoir
fluid data from discoveries near by, information about source
rocks and migration, and empirical correlations. The uncertainties
vary strongly from prospect to prospect. The probability as a function of volume for the presence of reservoir oil and gas is usually
the most important fluid parameter. The probability for predicting
the correct hydrocarbon phase varies from 50% equal probability
for reservoir oil and gas to 90% in regions where either oil or
gas reservoirs are strongly dominating, or when the reservoir fluid
can be expected to be the same as in another discovery near by.
For formation volume factors, gas/liquid ratios, viscosities, and
densities, an estimate for the most probable value as well as for a
high and low possible value is commonly given. The range between the high and low value is often designed to include 80% of
the probability range for the parameter, but accurate uncertainty
estimates can seldom be made. The ratio of the high and low
value is, typically, 1.5 to 50 for R SG , 1.1 to 1.5 for B G , 1.1 to 2.5
for G ; 1.2 to 3 for R S , 1.1 to 2 for B O , 1.5 to 5 for O , and
1.03 to 1.1 for densities of stabilized oil and condensate.
From Discovery to Production
After a discovery has been made, the fluid description is based on
laboratory analyses of reservoir fluid samples from drill-stem
tests, production tests, and wireline sampling RFT, FMT, MDT
in exploration and production wells. Pressure gradients in the reservoirs from measurements during wireline and drill-stem tests,
analysis of residual hydrocarbons in core material from various
depths, measurements of gas/oil ratio during drill-stem and production tests, and measurements of product streams from the field,
give important supplementary information.
Variations in Fluid Properties Over the Field. Early in the exploration phase, when 1 to 2 exploration wells have been drilled,
we have usually little information about contrasts in fluid properties over sealing faults and changes in fluid properties with depth
or position in the reservoirs. Great contrasts in fluid properties
may exist between formations and fault blocks without pressure
communication. The possibility of such contrasts may give a sig1094-6470/99/25/431/5/$3.500.15

431

nificant contribution to the total uncertainty in the fluid description, depending on how well the reservoir fluids in different formations have been mapped, and the sealing probability of layers
and faults in the reservoirs. The uncertainties can be handled by
treating undrilled fault blocks as prospects, with estimated probabilities for the presence of reservoir oil and gas, and with estimated uncertainties in fluid properties.
In gas/condensate reservoirs with an underlying oil leg, significant contrasts may exist with respect to the thickness of the oil
column in different formations and fault blocks, even when pressure communication is assumed to exist both within the overlying
gas cap and within the underlying aquifer. Such a situation exists
in several fields offshore Norway examples, Gullfaks South,
Heidrun, Troll, Midgard1,2. The possibility of variations in the
thickness and fluid properties of the oil leg should be taken into
account in the uncertainty evaluation, whenever a direct communication within the oil zone between different formations and fault
blocks may be prevented by partly sealing layers or faults. The
significance for the total uncertainty is again dependent on how
well the fluid contacts and oil properties in different formations
and fault blocks have been mapped. Uncertainties in depth measurements in deviated wells and contact definitions from well logs
may also be of importance.
Variations in the composition and properties of the reservoir
fluid are also observed within reservoirs with good pressure communication. Generally, the dewpoint pressure and content of dissolved condensate in reservoir gas increases with increasing reservoir depth, while the bubblepoint pressure and gas-oil ratio of
reservoir oil decreases with increasing depth. In most reservoirs
offshore Norway, the change in saturation pressure versus depth is
less than 0.3 bar per meter typical examples, The Statfjord and
Gullfaks oil fields, and the Sleipner and Huldra gas condensate
fields2. It is, therefore, often difficult to prove that a depth gradient exists, since lateral variations as well as uncertainties in test
separator gas-oil ratio measurements may be of the same order of
magnitude. The observed depth variations in the gas-oil ratio are
usually less than 25%. Neglecting the depth gradient on the Sleipner East field2 was still experienced to cause a 10% error in the
estimate of the average condensate-gas ratio, because a majority
of the drill-stem tests in the exploration wells were relatively close
to the gas-water contact.
Greater changes in bubble-point pressure versus depth, of the
order of magnitude 1 bar/m, have been observed just below the
gas-oil contact in some reservoirs offshore Norway, for instance,
in the Gullfaks South field.1 Very large depth gradients are also
observed in the Brent field offshore Britain,4,5 where the fluid
composition changes continuously from reservoir oil at the bottom
of the reservoir to gas condensate on the top, without any traditional gas-oil contact with saturation pressures equal to the reservoir pressure. Within an oil column, the change in stock-tank oil
density and viscosity with depth is usually relatively small; possible exceptions from this rule are observed on the Heidrun field
offshore Norway1 and the Claymore field offshore Britain.6
Compositional depth gradients can be calculated on the basis of
the reservoir fluid composition, by including the effect of gravitation in an equation of state.5 Although the degree of correspondence with observed depth gradients has been found to vary
strongly from reservoir to reservoir, the method is still an important tool for the modeling of depth variations and uncertainties in
fluid parameters. The method may also give some indication on
the probable distance to a gas-oil contact, on the basis of pressurevolume temperature PVT and compositional data for a representative PVT sample at a given depth. The error in the prediction of
such a contact depth can, however, often be more than a hundred
meters.
The uncertainty in the fluid description, which is due to possible variations in fluid properties over a field, varies strongly
from field to field, depending on data acquisition, production experience, and geological complexity. In the exploration phase, the
typical uncertainties due to possible variations in fluid parameters
over the field can be estimated to be 15 to 30% for R SG , 5 to 10%
for B G , 5 to 30% for G , 10 to 20% for R S , 5 to 10% for B O ,
432

K.K. Meisingset: Reservoir Fluid Description

Fig. 1Illustration of the uncertainty in modeling of average

fluid parameters due to possible variations over the field for
gas condensate above and reservoir oil below.

10 to 30% for O , 0.5 to 2% for the density of stabilized oil and

condensate, and 5 to 20% for the salinity of formation water. The
uncertainty is somewhat greater when the water resistivity has to
be determined from well logs due to the lack of representative
formation water samples.
Data acquisition in the production phase usually includes accurate measurements of the export of sales products from the field,
periodical measurements of test separator gas-oil ratios in the production wells, and laboratory analyses of PVT samples from all
wells where the well stream gas-oil ratio or the density of stabilized oil is found to be different from the predictions. On the basis
of such measurements, we will usually have reliable information
about the most important variations in fluid properties over the
field after some years of production. For instance, after 15 years
of production from the Statfjord field,2 the contributions from possible variations over the main reservoirs to the total uncertainty in
average fluid parameters were estimated to 1% for B O , 2% for
R S , 5% for O , 5 bar for the bubblepoint pressure of the reservoir oil, and 1% for the salinity of the formation water. Similar
estimates for the Gullfaks field,2 which is geologically more complex than Statfjord, would be at least doubled. For a gas condensate field like Sleipner East,2 which like Statfjord has a relatively
homogeneous reservoir fluid and a relatively low geological complexity, it should be possible to reduce the contribution to the total
uncertainty from possible variations over the field to approximately 5% for R SG , 2% for B G , and 5% for G . The numbers in
the text are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Representativity of PVT Samples. The most important types of
pressurized samples from PVT sampling during well testing and
openhole logging are described briefly in Table 1.
Bottomhole Samples. For oil reservoirs, bottomhole samples
are generally judged to be the most representative, provided that
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 5, October 1999

TABLE 1 ALTERNATIVE PVT SAMPLING METHODS

Sample Type

Fluid Sampled

Sampling Point

Wireline samples
(RFT,FMT,MDT)

Formation fluid close to the well

Pressurized chamber on wireline

during openhole logging

Bottomhole samples

Single-phase well stream

Pressurized chamber on wireline

during well testing

Single-phase wellhead
samples

Single-phase well stream

Upstream choke
during well testing

Isokinetic wellhead
split-stream samples

Homogenized well stream, or

oil and gas from a small separator

Upstream or downstream choke

during well testing

Separator samples

Gas and oil at test separator

conditions

At the gas and oil outlet on the

test separator during well testing

the reservoir pressure at the time of sampling is higher than

the initial bubblepoint pressure of the reservoir oil;
the well has been properly conditioned before sampling, with
a low rate flow with low pressure drawdown;
the pressure at the sampling depth is higher than the initial
bubblepoint pressure of the reservoir oil; and
PVT laboratory studies show that at least two bottomhole
samples from the same reservoir depth are equal, and also similar
to recombined separator samples.

The same criteria are valid for single-phase wellhead samples,

which are often taken instead of bottomhole samples when the
bubblepoint pressure of the reservoir oil is lower than the wellhead pressure.
Separator Samples. The representativity of separator samples
is dependent on the uncertainty in the gas-oil ratio measurements
in the test separator typically, 5 to 10%, because the gas-oil ratio
is used for recombination of separator gas and oil samples to
reconstruct a sample of the well stream. Usually, separator
samples are still regarded as the most representative samples for
gas-condensate reservoirs, because the experience with bottomhole samples is less positive than for oil reservoirs, and because
the volume of a bottomhole sample often is insufficient for a
gas-condensate PVT analysis program. Separator samples are
judged to be of acceptable quality when
the reservoir pressure at the time of sampling is higher than
the initial saturation pressure of the reservoir fluid;
test separator measurements show that the gas-oil ratio is constant and the separator conditions are stable for 4 to 6 hours before
sampling; and
laboratory measurements show that the bubblepoint pressure
of the separator oil sample, as well as the opening pressure of the
separator gas bottle, is as expected no leakage.
Very high gas production rates may result in liquid carry-over
through the test separator gas outlet, which may cause significant
errors in the gas-oil ratio measurements. Such an error may be
difficult to avoid for very lean gas/condensate reservoirs, because
the separator liquid rate often will be too low to be measured
exactly with conventional liquid meters if the gas rate is reduced.
A typical example is the Troll field offshore Norway,2 where
isokinetic split-stream sampling proved to be a great improvement compared to conventional test separator sampling. With
modern split-stream sampling methods,7 the uncertainty in the
gas/oil ratio measurements has been experienced to be 5 to 10% at
high gas rates above 0.5 million Sm3 per day, while greater
errors have been observed at lower gas rates.
Wireline Samples. Drill-stem tests have usually given more
representative PVT samples than wireline sampling, which are
taken from the near-well region where the reservoir fluid may
have been more or less affected by contact with well fluids.
Wireline samples from wells where oil-based or oil soluble
drilling mud has been used, has been experienced to contain at
K.K. Meisingset: Reservoir Fluid Description

least 2 to 3% mud filtrate contamination often much more, sometimes 80 to 100% mud filtrate. The problem is similar with wireline samples of water from wells with water-based mud, which
seldom have proved to give reliable formation water data.
With all types of drilling fluids, some diffusion of lighter
components from the reservoir fluid into the drilling fluid must be
expected. Laboratory analyses have shown that the CO2 content in
most wireline samples has been significantly altered. Indications
on minor changes in the C6 to C8 fractions are also often detected.
Measurements of the H S content in wireline samples are
2
usually unreliable, because H2S reacts with the metal in the
sample chambers. High H2S concentrations are sometimes caused
by bacterial degradation of certain types of drilling mud.
Great deviations from representativity may be caused by pressure drawdown during sampling, or leakage from the chambers in
the well or during storage and transfer.
The representativity of samples with no obvious indications
on sampling problems or leakage, has been experienced to vary
from being perfect to giving deviations of 20 to 30% in gas-oil or
condensate-gas ratios from the actual reservoir fluid.
Still, wireline samples have given useful information in the exploration phase for most Statoil-operated fields, in combination with
samples and data from drill-stem tests. Wireline sampling is far
less expensive than drill-stem testing, and the sampling equipment
has been improved during the last years. But, wireline samples are
still hardly reliable enough to be the only basis for very large and
expensive field developments offshore.
Uncertainty in Laboratory Analyses. The uncertainties in compositional analyses and volumetric measurements in the PVT
laboratory are usually small compared to the uncertainties with
respect to the representativity of PVT samples and the variations
in fluid parameters over a field.
With capillary gas chromatography,8 the relative uncertainty in
the compositional analysis should vary from about 1% for methane, ethane, or propane, to about 10% for inorganic components
nitrogen and carbon dioxide, heavier fractions C7 to C10 for
gas samples, C10 for oil samples, and pure components in very
low concentrations 0.1%, provided that the operator is experienced and the procedures for calibration and operation have been
optimized. Somewhat greater deviations between different service
laboratories are, however, often observed.
The reservoir fluid composition is often used as the basis for
calculation of reservoir fluid properties, by use of equations of
state and empirical methods. Examples from the Statfjord field2
indicate that the uncertainties in the compositional analysis correspond to 2 to 3% variation in calculated R S values and about 1%
in B O . The uncertainties in a reservoir gas composition, espeSPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 5, October 1999

433

cially for lean gas condensates, would correspond to greater volumetric uncertainties of the order of magnitude 5 to 15% for R SG
and 1 to 4% for B G .
The uncertainties in other PVT laboratory measurements are
usually 1 to 2 bar for a bubblepoint pressure, 1 to 10 bar for a
dewpoint pressure, and approximately 3% for the Z factor of a
reservoir gas sample, 2% for the density of a reservoir oil sample,
0.05% for the density of a stabilized liquid sample at atmospheric
pressure, and 2% for the salinity of formation water samples. For
oil viscosity measurements, the uncertainty with the rolling
ball method used by most service laboratories is expected to be
about 10% for viscosities between 0.3 and 5 cP, with optimal
routines for calibration and operation. 30% deviation from the
average has, however, often been observed in multilaboratory ring
tests.* For reservoir oils with very low viscosity 0.1 to 0.3 cP,
the deviations between different laboratories have been experienced to be even greater often 30 to 50%. Two other methods,
falling sinker and capillary viscometry, have proved to give
more accurate results for viscosities below 0.2 cP.
The viscosity of reservoir gas is usually calculated from the
reservoir fluid composition and not measured. The error in calculated gas viscosities is relatively small 10% for lean gas condensates at low reservoir pressures 300 bar, while alternative
calculation methods can give differences up to 30% for very rich
gas condensates at high reservoir pressures 500 bar.
Uncertainty in Process Description. The condensate-gas ratio
for most reservoir gases is strongly dependent on the design of the
processing plant. One example is the Sleipner East field,2 where
the condensate volumes were more than doubled compared to
early estimates, by using turboexpanders to separate the reservoir
gas into dry gas and unstabilized condensate on the production
platform instead of processing to wet gas and stabilized condensate. Early estimates of R SG for other gas/condensate fields offshore Norway have also proved to be too pessimistic because of
an unrealistic process description.
In the PVT laboratory, B O and R S for reservoir oil can be
measured at approximate process conditions in multistage separator tests, which have been experienced to give reliable results for
reservoir oils with a low content of volatile liquid components C3
to C7. Typical uncertainties in the laboratory measurements for
such oils are 1% for B O and 3% for R S examples, The Gullfaks,
Troll, and Heidrun fields1,2.
For multistage separator tests of oils with higher contents of C3
to C7, the uncertainties have been experienced to be somewhat
greater. Examples, for reservoir oil from the Statfjord and Veslefrikk fields,1,2 deviations of 3% in B O and 10% in R S between
different laboratories have not been unusual. Furthermore, the R S
values from simulated separator tests are systematically 2 to 5%
higher than for the complete process simulations, because the processing plant contains gas scrubbers which are not represented in
the laboratory experiment. Multistage separator tests for reservoir
gas are usually not performed, because the results would deviate
even more from actual processing data.
The process description in the reservoir model is, therefore,
usually based on simulations and not on laboratory measurements,
as soon as a realistic process simulation study has been performed
as a part of the development planning.
What Should Be Done to Reduce the Uncertaities? The acceptable levels of uncertainty are, in principle, the levels where a
cost/benefit estimate of further efforts to reduce the uncertainty
would give a negative result. These levels vary from field to field,
depending on the need and cost for reducing the uncertainties. The
importance of reliable reservoir fluid data is often greatest during
development planning and process design for expensive offshore
field developments.
The cost of offshore drilling and testing of exploration wells is
generally much higher than the cost of sampling, laboratory studKeith Sawdon, BP, U.K., personal communication, 1996.

434

K.K. Meisingset: Reservoir Fluid Description

Fig. 2Illustration of the total uncertainty in modeling of average fluid parameters for gas condensate above and reservoir
oil below.

ies, and data evaluation. Extensive routines for wireline and surface sampling and evaluation of test separator gas-oil ratio measurements, PVT sample representativity, and PVT analysis results
have thus proved to be cost effective. A full PVT analysis program should usually not be performed unless the reservoir fluid
samples are judged to be representative; PVT simulation based on
the composition may give equally reliable results when the sample
representativity is questionable.
The results from uncertainty analysis should be used in the
planning of further data acquisition. The need of a reduction of the
uncertainties in fluid parameters is, for instance, often a strong
argument for drilling an exploration well or performing a drillstem test.
Timing and combined use with other types of data should also
be evaluated in relation to cost. If, for instance, a well test including PVT sampling can be postponed until the field is on production, the cost may be strongly reduced. Detailed compositional
results from the PVT analysis are often used together with
geochemical data in the mapping of probable barriers in the reservoirs. Test separator gas-oil ratio measurements and stock-tank
analysis results may also contribute to the mapping of the variations in PVT data over the field.
Summary
Estimates of the uncertainties in the reservoir fluid description
may have an impact on important economical decisions regarding
development of oil and gas condensate fields.
Lack of representative samples from important reservoir zones,
and possible variations in fluid parameters over the reservoirs, are
usually identified as dominating uncertainty factors in the exploration phase. The uncertainty with regard to the representativity of
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 5, October 1999

TABLE 2 TYPICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE UNCERTAINTY

OF RELEVANT FLUID PARAMETERS
Typical Contributions to the Uncertainty in Fluid Parameters From:

Fluid Parameter

Variations
Over the Field

Rs
BO
O
R SG
BG
G
Salinity of
Formation Water

2
1
5
5
2
5
1

to
to
to
to
to
to
to

20%
10%
30%
30%
10%
30%
20%

Fluid Samples of
Normal Quality
From Well Testing

Uncertainty in
PVT Laboratory
Measurements

Uncertainties
in The Process
Description

1 to 10%
0.5 to 3%
2 to 10%
5 to 10%
2 to 4%
5 to 10%
2 to 20%

3 to 10%
1 to 3%
10 to 30%
5 to 15%
1 to 4%
10 to 30%
2%

2 to 10%
1 to 3%

wireline samples or PVT samples from drill-stem tests with questionable sampling conditions, is often significant. The same is the
case for measured and calculated viscosities. Uncertainties in the
description of the processing plant for gas condensate fields may
contribute significantly to the uncertainty in the condensate-gas
ratio, until the processing concept has been chosen.
The uncertainties in the reservoir fluid description are usually
reduced significantly during the production phase Figs. 1 and 2,
not only due to additional PVT sampling and laboratory analysis,
but also on the basis of test separator gas-oil ratio measurements
for each production well, and measurements of product streams
from the field. Estimated ranges for the contribution from different sources to the total uncertainty for relevant fluid parameters,
are shown in Table 2.
Nomenclature
B O oil formation volume factor, defined as the ratio of
the oil volume at reservoir conditions and the oil volume at standard conditions after the processing plant
B G gas formation volume factor, defined as the ratio of
the gas volume at reservoir conditions and the gas
volume at standard conditions after the processing
plant, not including condensed liquid
B W formation water volume factor, defined as the ratio of
the water volumes at reservoir and standard conditions
R S solution gas-oil ratio, defined as the ratio of the gas
and oil volumes at standard conditions after the processing plant
R SG condensate-gas ratio, defined as the ratio of the condensate and gas volumes at standard conditions after
the processing plant
O oil viscosity at reservoir conditions
G gas viscosity at reservoir conditions
W formation water viscosity at reservoir conditions

5 to 50%
2 to 15%

References
1. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate: Annual report 1996 Stavanger,
1997. ISBN 82-7257-526-4.
2. Geology of the Norwegian Oil and Gas Fields, Norwegian Petroleum
Society, A.M. Spencer et al. ed., Graham & Trotman, Ltd., U.K.
1987 ISBN 08-6010-908-9.
3. Caldwell, R.H. and Heather, D.I.: How To Evaluate Hard-ToEvaluate Reserves, JPT August 1991 998.
4. Kingston, P.E. and Niko, H.: Development Planning of the Brent
Field, JPT October 1975 1190.
5. Schulte, A.M.: Compositional Variations Within a Hydrocarbon
Column Due to Gravity, paper SPE 9235 presented at the Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2124 September
1980.
6. Chen, H.K., Robinson, T., Harker, S.D., and Mayer, C.E.: The Main
Area Claymore Reservoir, a Review of Geology and Reservoir Management, SPEFE June 1989 231; Trans., AIME, 287.
7. Dixon, L.A.: The Importance of Sampling and Analysis of Natural
Gas for the Design of Production and Downstream Facilities, in
Proceedings of the 10th Annual Convention of the Indonesian Petroleum Association, Jakarta, May 1981, pp. 495500.
8. Osjord, E.H., Rnningsen, H.P., and Tau, L.: Distribution of
Weight, Density and Molecular Weight in Crude Oil Derived from
Computerized Capillary GC Analysis, J. High Res. Chrom. Chrom.
Commun. 1985 8, 683.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

bar 1.0*
cp 1.0*
*Conversion factors are exact.

E05 Pa
E03 Pa s
SPEREE

Knut Kristian Meisingset is a technical advisor for compositional reservoir simulation at Statoil, where he has worked with
PVT simulation and evaluation of reservoir fluid data since
1983. He holds an MS degree in biophysics from the U. of Oslo.

Acknowledgments
I thank Statoil for the permission to publish this paper, Ann Lisbeth Blilie for providing formation-water field examples, and Jan
Ole Aasen and Adolfo Henriquez for advice and encouragement.

K.K. Meisingset: Reservoir Fluid Description

SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng., Vol. 2, No. 5, October 1999

435