No. 1998.

206

Crude Oil Characterization and PVT Studies on Prudhoe Bay Heavy Oil/Tar Mat
Raj Srivastava and Arden Strycker, BDM Petroleum Technology, Bartlesville, Oklahoma, USA; and Richard Charles, PENCOR Group of Companies, Broussard, Louisiana, USA

Abstract
The Prudhoe Bay eld, located at north coast of Alaska, is characterized by a variable thickness heavy oil/tar (HOT) zone lying just above the water-oil contact and below the light oil column. Oil-in-place for the HOT zone is estimated at over 1.5 billion reservoir barrels. A joint industry study has been undertaken with the goal of developing a suitable recovery process for the HOT zone. In order to develop an economically viable process, the characterization of the oil and simulation of the candidate recovery process are essential steps. However, the actual data on rock and uid properties for HOT are scarce. There is also potential to use enriched gas injection for oil recovery from the HOT zone. Since the overlain light oil column is undergoing tertiary gas injection, a source of enriched hydrocarbon gas is available for the purpose. To assess the suitability of gas injection process, PVT data on oil-injection gas systems are required. This paper discusses oil characterization and PVT data generated using bottom hole samples of live oil and surface samples collected from the reservoir. The results of PVT studies conducted with the live oil and an enriched injection gas are also presented. The studies conducted on the various oil samples obtained from the Prudhoe Bay HOT zone indicated that the viscosity of the live oil at the reservoir temperature and pressure conditions was surprisingly low and was comparable to oil found in the light oil column. The asphaltene content was high as expected. Since the hydrocarbons in the zone were thought to have been relatively immobile based on previous logs, the research focus is being shifted to the uid analysis of extracted core plug samples.

Introduction
The Prudhoe Bay oil eld is located about 250 miles (402 km) north of the Arctic circle on the north coast of Alaska. The eld was discovered in 1968 and is known to be the largest oil eld in North America.1 Over 95% of the eld reserves are found in the Ivishak Sandstone Formation of the Sadlerochit Group.2 For this reason it is also referred to as the Sadlerochit Reservoir or Sadlerochit Sandstone or the Main area. Other

intervals include Sag River Formation and Shublik formation or Eileen area.1 The Sadlerochit formation is a uvial-deltaic sequence of sediments consisting of sandstones, conglomerates and shales with an average thickness of 550 ft.3,4,5 At discovery, the reservoir had a large gas cap in contact with the oil zone covering approximately two thirds of the column. The gas-oil contact in the Main area was found to occur at a subsea depth of about 8,578 ft. The oil-water contact was found irregular and slightly titled ranging between 8,990 and 9,050 ft. The Main area contained over 22 billion stock tank barrels of oil and 40 trillion standard cubic foot of gas originally in place.1 The oil zone is considered to consist of a light-oil column (LOC) overlying a relatively low API gravity crude oil zone. This zone is termed the heavy-oil/tar (HOT) zone. The maximum oil thickness in the Main area was 465 ft versus 205 ft in the West End. The maximum thickness of LOC in the eld exceeded 400 ft. The reservoir original pressure was approximately 4,400 psi at 8,800 ft. HOT interval occurs throughout the Main area immediately above the water contact. The thickness of the zone varies from 2080 ft. HOT zone is pillow shaped with an irregular base varying from 8,9699,069 ft subsea. It is lacking in the west end where oil-water contact is generally 5060 ft shallower than the Main area. The accumulation is thickest where the oil column is deepest. The thinner areas are generally found in the southeastern one-third of the eld. The zone is separated from the LOC by shale complexes having limited vertical permeability. The shale areas exhibit low to moderate continuity. HOT zone is estimated to contain 1.5 billion reservoir barrels of hydrocarbons. It is considered to be largely immobile with low oil saturation. It plays an important role in reservoir performance by acting as a partial barrier to water inux.1 There is a very large associated aquifer at the bottom of the oil rim. The rock quality in the aquifer is poorer than in the hydrocarbon column. The formation water has an average salinity of about 18,000 ppm NaCl.

Fluid Properties Fluid properties are fairly well established for the light-oil column but are still uncertain in the HOT zone. Oil gravity in LOC of the Main area varies from about 30 API at the gas-oil contact to about 26API immediately above the HOT zone. It decreases rapidly below this value in the HOT interval to less than 15 API.6 The oil viscosity in LOC ranges from 0.51.2 cP at the reservoir conditions and the solution gas-oil ratio (GOR) varies from about 900650 scf/stb (162117 sm3/m3). Initial reservoir pressure in the Main area ranges from 4,335 psi at the gas-oil contact to about 4,480 psi at the water-oil contact. The reservoir temperature varies both arealy and laterally and ranges from about 185240F.1 Table 1 summarizes the uid properties for the Prudhoe Bay reservoir HOT zone.

Experimental
Phase behavior studies on the surface and bottom hole samples received from Prudhoe Bay reservoir HOT zone were conducted in a PVT apparatus. Figure 1 depicts the set up. The unit is equipped with a PVT cell connected to a capillary tube viscometer and an on-line densitometer for measurements. The experimental apparatus consists of a mercury-free variable volume high pressure cell housed in an oven and connected to a dual piston Temco pump. The PVT system is currently rated to 10,000 psi maximum working pressure at 250F. The apparatus allows visual observation of the content and interface location through a glass viewing window located at the uid end with the help of a cathetometer. A linear transducer (LVDT) is attached to the front face of the piston for accurate volume measurement. There are provisions to measure the cell temperature at two locations deep in the body. A pressure transducer mounted on the cell measures the uid pressure. The cell can be rocked with the help of a motor assembly for mixing the cell contents. An inlet port located at the bottom of the cell can be used to sample the aqueous phase. Another port located at the top can be used to sample the vapor phase. The cell can be tilted to aid in sampling any phase, if required. The PVT cell was connected on-line to a Anton Paar model DMA 512 densitometer and to a capillary tube viscometer for measuring density and viscosity of the phases. To minimize pressure effects during viscosity measurement, the capillary coil was inserted in a 3/8 diameter stainless steel tube. The interior of this tube was lled with a pressure medium and was maintained at the pressure of measurement. These units were located in the oven for measurement at the temperature and various pressures of interest. Standard procedures were used to calibrate these units, PVT cell and LVDT. A unit required for a ash of the pressurized oil sample and the measurement of gas-oil ratio (GOR) was also constructed. This allowed separation of a pressurized uid sample into atmospheric gas and liquid phases for chromatographic analysis. The purpose of the unit was to obtain as close as possible a C6- gas phase and a C7+ liquid phase. This unit was modied to accommodate the extremely foamy oil we encountered during the rst ash of the uid from well F17A which is from Prudhoe Bays heavy oil zone.

Objective Since the discovery of the reservoir, LOC has been the target of oil recovery. Waterooding of the reservoir followed by CO2 miscible ooding is being utilized for the enhanced oil recovery. As the light oil production and resource declines, alternate targets are being investigated to enhance production and reserve. A cooperative work between BP Exploration, Inc. (BPX) and BDM-Oklahoma was initiated to develop a recovery process for the heavy oil resident above the oil-water contact and beneath the LOC at Prudhoe Bay. Primary production and waterooding recovery factor for HOT has been estimated to be quite low, about 23.5% of the original heavy oil in place. Approximately 7.5 Bscfd of gas is currently being coproduced, processed, and reinjected at Prudhoe Bay. Hence, gas injection appears to be a suitable alternative. Several gas injection processes will need to be evaluated for improving the heavy oil recovery. Oil characterization and simulation of candidate recovery processes will form essential steps in developing a viable economic system to implement the heavy oil recovery. Heavy oil viscosity is expected to be the most important parameter affecting the heavy oil recovery. Viscosity affects the heavy oil mobility, injectivity, and well productivity. The rst goal of this project is to design and conduct laboratory pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) experiments and to develop an equation-of-state (EOS) model for predicting and correlating the heavy oil phase behavior and PVT properties. The second goal of this work is to validate the phase behavior model by conducting laboratory coreood experiments and performing compositional simulations. The phase behavior model will then be used in compositional simulations to evaluate various heavy oil recovery processes. An economically viable candidate recovery method would be evaluated in a eld pilot test. This presentation focuses on the rst goal.

Results
Stock Tank Samples from Wells DS 931B and F17A and DS931B Simulated Reservoir Fluid We received initially stock tank oil samples from Prudhoe Bay wells DS 931B and F17A at a depth interval within the heavy oil zone. The samples contained from 448 wt% water. Hence, they were centrifuged at 20,000 RPM to separate water. Compositional analyses and physical property measurements on these samples were completed. The compositional analyses included a detailed hydrocarbon analysis (PIANO) up to C9- and a simulated distillation (ASTM-D 5307) to a C40+. The two were tied together for a complete analysis. Results for the original sample were adjusted for the lighter end components lost in the centrifuge process. The compositional distributions of the two samples are compared in Figure 2, and the physical property measurements are presented in Table 2. Except for the measured viscosity at ambient conditions, the two samples were very similar.

predict the composition of sampled stock tank oil. The predicted stock tank oil composition was used to adjust the measured DS9-31B oil composition for the missing CO2, N2, CH4, and C2H6 components in the surface oil sample. The adjusted, surface oil composition was subjected to a simulation of the reversed sampling procedure to arrive at a reservoir uid composition, using an assumed surface GOR value of 500 scf/bbl. Table 3 presents the model calculated stock tank oil, the adjusted surface oil, and the simulated reservoir uid compositions for the DS931B oil. Finally, the separator gas composition to be used for recombination was determined by subtracting the stock tank oil composition from the reservoir uid composition and is shown in Table 4.

EOS Model and Viscosity Correlation The surface samples were evaluated for use in generating a reservoir uid sample by laboratory recombination with a synthesized separator gas. The purpose was to obtain preliminary estimate of the PB heavy oil properties. The compositional analysis was used to represent the DS931B oil in terms of the EOS pseudocomponents in the Prudhoe Bay uid characterization. The uid characterization was originally developed and extensively validated from the light oil data. British Petroleum Inc. (BPX) has extended the characterization for modeling of the heavy oil phase behavior by adding an asphaltene pseudocomponent. The EOS characterization was applied to predict the density and viscosity of the DS931B sample in order to help evaluate surface samples, design laboratory PVT experiments, and obtain preliminary estimates of the heavy oil uid properties. The shift parameter and the critical z-factor of the asphaltene pseudocomponent were adjusted, respectively, to match the crude oil density and viscosity measurements. EOS predicted density of the oil at 68F was found to be 0.921 g/cm3 against measured 0.926 g/cm3 and viscosity to be 101.8 cP against measured 98.5 cP. The agreement between the measured and predicted values was considered satisfactory and was used to determine the composition of separator gas.

Viscosity Predictions The reservoir uid composition was next subjected to a simulated constant composition expansion experiment at a reservoir temperature of 224.4F. The predicted viscosity with an increase in pressure is plotted in Figure 3. The model calculated a viscosity of 12.2 cP for the DS931B oil at the calculated bubble point pressure of 3,160 psia. For an increase in oil viscosity from 150600 cP at surface condition, the predicted reservoir condition viscosity increased from 12.237.6 cP. This preliminary simulation study suggests that the 21API, Prudhoe Bay heavy oil is 10 40 times more viscous than the light oil, which has a viscosity of about 1 cP at reservoir conditions.

Well F17A Synthetic Reservoir Fluid The surface stock tank oil sample from well F17A was initially evaluated for use in generating a reservoir uid sample by laboratory recombination with a synthesized separator gas and to compare the measured viscosity of the reservoir uid with that obtained using EOS model. The primary concern was whether the water-oil emulsion could be broken and the water successfully removed from the surface sample without altering the hydrocarbon sample. Heat treatment at 150F and 200 psig followed by centrifugation did not completely break the water-oil emulsion. An alternate method of passing the sample over anhydrous calcium sulfate desiccant was tested and was found effective in removing water from the stock tank oil sample. A 600 cm3 sample of water-free stock tank oil was combined with a synthetic gas to a GOR of 500 scf/bbl in the PVT cell for reconstituting the synthetic reservoir uid. The gas composition required for this reservoir uid needed to be simulated by EOS because solution gas from Prudhoe Bay is produced along with lift gas. It was calculated using the method outlined for oil from well DS931B in the last section. A small portion of the reservoir uid was ashed to room conditions and analyzed. The results are listed in Table 2 and compared with the surface oil samples obtained earlier from well F17A. The repeatability for the pentane insoluble exper-

Composition of Separator Gas for Recombination Composition of separator gas to be recombined with the DS931B sample was calculated as follows. An estimate of the heavy oil composition at a depth of 8,990 ft subsea was available from a BPX study, which modeled compositional segregation with depth in the Prudhoe Bay eld. This model oil composition was used to simulate the sampling process and

iment is estimated to be four percent. Considering that these samples are uniquely distinct from each other, the match is considered reasonable. The variance in viscosity could be the result of differences in asphaltene content, water content, and density of the two oils. The room temperature bubblepoint of this synthetic sample was measured at 3,312 psig at 74F. Approximately 200 cm3 of the reservoir uid was then charged to the PVT cell at 5,000 psig and the reservoir temperature of 224F and the physical properties were measured and are provided in Table 5. The saturation pressure of the uid was found to be 3,770 psig at 224F. The density and viscosity of the synthetic reservoir uid was measured in the single phase region. These results are depicted in Figures 45. The viscosity of this uid at the reservoir temperature was very low at 1.84 cP. This viscosity is pretty close to the viscosity of reservoir uid from the Prudhoe Bay LOC and does not represent it as a heavy oil. This value is also considerably lower than that obtained for the DS931B simulated reservoir uid using EOS modeling. The composition of the reservoir uids is listed in Table 3. A comparison of the reservoir uid compositions for the two oils showed that the DS931B simulated reservoir uid is richer in lighter hydrocarbons than F17A synthetic reservoir uid. However, the viscosity of the simulated uid was higher than the synthetic uid. This may suggest that the EOS model was possibly not able to predict the viscosity of the reservoir uid satisfactorily or composition segregation with depth provided by BPX needed improvement.

reservoir uid from well F17A. It appears that the bottom hole sample contained more heavier fractions than the synthetic uid. For this reason, density and viscosity of the bottom hole sample (which were not measured) will be expected to be slightly higher than the synthetic uid.

Well F17-A Bottom Hole Samples We also received two bottom hole samples from well F17A. These samples were available in sample cylinders rated to 1,800 psig. An initial quality check was performed on these samples by measuring their room temperature bubblepoint pressure. One of the samples had a bubble point exceeding 1,800 psig and could not be determined. The bubble point of the other sample was determined to be 2,005 psig at room temperature. This sample was selected for further analysis at the reservoir temperature. The saturation pressure of the bottom-hole sample at 224F was found to be approximately 2,600 psig. This value is over 30% lower than that of the synthetic reservoir uid. This suggested that this bottom hole sample was possibly undersaturated and could be the result of the sampling process. A ash of the bottomhole sample from well F17A was performed. The measured GOR of the sample was 507 scf per barrel of residual oil at 60F. Although this GOR was similar to the GOR of the synthetic reservoir uid sample, the mole percent of the lighter components, particularly carbon dioxide, was much less in the bottomhole sample than in the synthetic sample (Table 3). This variation in the light ends of the hydrocarbon composition could account for the difference in the saturation pressure observed. Table 3 compares the composition of the bottomhole sample with that of the synthetic

Well B36 Bottom Hole and Surface Samples We also received a surface sample from Prudhoe Bays HOT zone well B36. The API gravity of the stock tank oil was approximately 21.1, however the water content was over 47%. Because of the high water content, viscosity and asphaltene content of the surface sample was not determined (Table 2). Two bottom hole samples from well B36 were also received for analysis. The room temperature bubblepoint of both bottomhole samples was measured at 76F. Fluid in cylinder 1 had a saturation pressure of 2,084 psig and the uid in cylinder 2 had a saturation pressure of 2,138 psig. Bottomhole reservoir uid from cylinder 2 having a higher saturation pressure was used in subsequent analyses. A separator ash was performed on this bottomhole sample from well B36. The stock tank uid recovered from the separator ash was used to determine the water content, asphaltene content, viscosity, API gravity, and SARA analysis. Table 6 lists the results of the separator ash and Table 7 provides the SARA analysis results. The two sample cylinders were maintained in a vertical position for a period of one week. A check for free water produced 75 cc of water from cylinder 1 and approximately 17 cc of water from cylinder 2. The cylinders were then placed inside an oven and heat treated for an additional week. No additional water was found. Initial test involved the measurement of the bubblepoint pressure of the uids at room temperature of 76F. This indicated that the samples remained essentially unchanged since sampling as the measured values were in good agreement (2,084 psig from cylinder 1 and 2,138 psig from cylinder 2). Before we attempted to measure the phase behavior properties of these bottomhole samples from Prudhoe Bays HOT, we needed to restore the uids, as much as possible, to native state. The cylinders were pressurized to the maximum cylinder rating of 5,000 psig and agitated for a period of two weeks. This process disperses the asphaltenes, as much as possible, back to their original state. Once the restoration process was complete, several small portions of hydrocarbon sample from cylinder 2 were displaced for compositional analysis, SARA analysis, and for a separator ash test. The oil had an API gravity of 22.5 and an asphaltene content of 10 wt%. A small portion of the reservoir uid from cylinder number 2 was then charged to a high pressure, PVT cell which was at room temperature. The sample was then thermally expanded to the reservoir temperature of 207F and the system equilibrated. A pressure-volume rela-

tions experiment was performed on this sample and the saturation pressure was determined to be 2,748 psig at 207F. The density, viscosity, and formation volume factor of the uid were measured. These measured physical properties of the reservoir uid are listed in Table 4 and compared with the F 17A reservoir uid.

Solubility-Swelling Tests with F17A Bottom Hole Samples Since miscible injectant gas available at the reservoir site could be a possible recovery candidate, a solubility-swelling experiment using this gas was performed on the bottomhole sample from well F17A. Particular attention was paid to the appearance of precipitated asphaltenes. The composition of the miscible injectant gas can be found in Table 8. Using the measured miscible injectant gas composition supplied by BPX, a sufcient quantity of gas was synthesized for this experiment. In order to perform phase behavior experiments using this miscible injectant gas, the compressibility- or Z factor of this gas mixture at reservoir temperature needed to be determined. The miscible injectant gas was transferred from the original manufacturers cylinder into a high pressure storage cylinder and maintained at laboratory temperature and 5,000 psig. It is interesting to note that at these conditions the injectant gas exists as a liquid. A small portion of the miscible injectant was charged into the PVT cell and heated to the reservoir temperature of 220F. The gas-phase compressibility factor of the injectant was determined over the pressure range of 5,000 and 1,000 psig. The results are graphically presented in Figure 5. Due to the small inconsistencies of the LVDT and the sensitivities of the Zfactor calculation, it was decided that another approach was needed to verify our results. Room temperature density and grams per standard cubic centimeter measurements were obtained. These measurements were repeatable and veried our Zfactor data from the PVT cell. The solubility-swelling experiments covered the injection range from 1070 mole percent gas per original oil from 6,5002,000 psig. Variation in the saturation pressure of the mixture with an increase in injectant gas concentration is displayed in Figure 6. Phase volume measurements and saturation pressure determinations were conducted at each injection stage. The completed solubility-swelling experiment is presented graphically in Figure 7 . The viscosity and density measurements for a 70 mol% mixture could not be determined as this mixture was two-phase at 7000 psig. There is a possibility that asphaltenes might be precipitated at 30 mole percent injectant. This observation might be conrmed by asphaltene occulation onset experiments using near-infrared technology by separate experiments.

Physical Properties of HOT Zone Fluid The viscosity and density of the bottom hole samples from well B36 and synthetic uid F17A at reservoir conditions are noted to be nearly the same at about 2 cP and 0.77 g/cm3. The viscosity of this uid is close to that observed for LOC uid which varies from 0.51.2 cP.1 The measured formation volume factor for B36 uid was 1.32 vol/vol and is similar to that obtained for LOC uid which varies from 1.31.4 with an average value of 1.36.1 These measurements indicate that the oil produced from the HOT zone is similar to the LOC uid except for slightly higher asphaltene content. Asphaltene content of the LOC uid is < 5 wt% whereas it varied for the HOT zone uid from 1015 wt% (Table 2). It is noted that the viscosity of the produced uids from HOT interval is low and does not represent a heavy oil. It would be expected that this oil should be easy to produce. However, log data and laboratory tests conducted with HOT core samples have shown that the oil in the zone is relatively immobile and the effective permeability to water through the HOT interval is about 1 mD.6 This poses serious questions on the reasons for poor mobility of the HOT zone. It has been observed that there is considerable difference in the uid produced from the HOT interval and the oil found in the core samples obtained from the HOT zone. If the HOT zone hydrocarbons are immobile as the past studies6 indicate, the produced uid from HOT interval most likely either does not represent or poorly represents the oil from the zone. The bottom hole samples collected from the HOT interval, in all likelihood, represent only the mobile fraction of the hydrocarbons in the reservoir. Our results indicate at least two possibilities: 1. The HOT zone actually consists of three sections (see Table 1) as has been suggested by some researchers. The section at the top of the HOT interval represents a relatively lighter mobile oil than the rest of the interval. This oil is produced and collected as the bottom hole sample. The characteristics of this produced uid represent the transition zone oil from the HOT interval. Our current study has been then with this transition zone oil. In this case, it will be believed that the oil sample is only representative of the upper mobile section of the zone. 2. The sampled uid essentially comes from the LOC Even though the sample is collected from the HOT interval. The uid owing from LOC to the wellbore picks up some asphaltene from the asphaltenic HOT interval and mixes somewhat with the heavy oil of the interval before being produced. It thus becomes slightly heavy compared to the LOC uid. In this case the sampled uid poorly represents the HOT zone oil.

To test the validity of these plausible explanations, the bottom hole samples can be collected at increasing depths in the HOT interval. Below certain depth, the production will cease when the immobile zone is encountered. Alternatively, core plugs can be drilled covering the whole depth of the HOT zone and the core uids analyzed for the purpose. The future studies on the HOT zone are aimed at the latter. Only when the HOT zone oil is characterized well from the above studies, a suitable recovery process for the interval can be investigated.

Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank the Department of Energy and British Petroleum Inc. for funding and supporting this CRADA project. Thanks are also due to Robert Fishback for his contribution in the experimental work and to British Petroleum Inc. for providing oil samples.

References
1. Wadman, D.H., Lamprecht, D.E., and Mrosovsky, I. Joint Geologic/Engineering Analysis of the Sadlerochit Reservoir, Prudhoe Bay Field, JPT, 933940, July 1979. Szabo, D.J., and Meyers, K.O. Prudhoe Bay: Development History and Future Potential, SPE 26053 presented at the 1983 Western Regional Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, May 2628. Bradley, M.E., Mayson, H.J., and Wilkins, K.L. An Integrated Approach to Rening Reservoir Description Through Monitoring Fluid Movements in the Prudhoe Bay Reservoir, SPE 15567 presented at the 1986 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, October 58. Erickson, J.W. and Sneider, R.M. Structural and Hydrocarbon Histories of the Ivishak (Sadlerochit) Reservoir, Prudhoe Bay Field, SPE 28574 presented at the 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, September 2528, 1994. Sneider, R.M. and Erickson, J.W. Rock Types, Depositional History, and Diagenetic Effects: Sadlerochit Reservoir, Prudhoe Bay Field, SPE 28575 presented at the 69th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, September 2528, 1994. Haldorsen, H.H., Mayson, H.J., and Howarth, S.M. The Heavy Oil/Tar Mat in the Prudhoe Bay Field, Alaska Characterization and Impacts on Reservoir Performance, paper presented at 3rd International UNITAR Conference, Long Beach, California, July 2231, 1985.

Conclusions
1. Several surface and bottom hole samples were collected from the Prudhoe Bay HOT zone. The analysis on these oils showed that the uid samples were similar to the oil from the LOC with an increase in asphaltene content and a slight increase in viscosity. The oil characteristics determined for the bottom hole samples could not explain the reason for relative immobility of the HOT zone oil. It was believed to be either transition oil from upper section of the HOT zone or light oil slightly mixed with the heavy oil of the zone. In either case, the sampled bottom hole uid did not truly represent the HOT zone oil. More studies are required to properly characterize the HOT zone oil. Only then a suitable recovery technique for the HOT interval can be investigated. 2.

3.

2.

4.

5.

6.

Property Depth, ft Reservoir Temperature, F API gravity Viscosity, cP Porosity, % Oil Saturation, % PV Other Information

Value 8950 - 9070 185 - 240 ~10-15 40-140 (estimated) ~21 30-70

Property Payzone Thickness, ft Initial Pressure, psi Gas-oil ratio, scf/bbl Asphaltene Content, wt.% Air Permeability, mD

Value 10-80 4,315 at 8,8 subsea ~350-550 10-35 1-1000

Oil-in-place, Billion 1.5 - 1.6 bbl HOT zone is generally thought of consisting of three parts: immob at bottom, viscous mobile heavy oil in the middle containing h asphaltene content, and transition zone oil essentially mixture of and light oil (API gravity near 22)
Table 1: Prudhoe Bay HOT (Heavy Oil/Tar) Zone Characteristics

Well location

Sample Type

Asphaltene Density Viscosity Water Content at 60F at 77F Content (wt.%) (cP) (wt.%) (g/cm 3 ) 12.6 13.5 10.8 13.1 11.6 10.0 15.2 12.5 0.925 0.948 0.936 0.930 0.919 0.936 0.928 0.936 0.924 98.5 276.7 146.5 67.9 303.5 303.5 109.3 48.4 31.8 13.9 1.2 <0.001 0.20 47.3 0.03 1.34

DS9-31B F-17A

B-36 G-10A G-12

Surface 1 Surface 2 Surface 1 Surface 2 BHS BHS Surface BHS Surface

Table 2: Physical Properties of Stock Tank Oils

Well Location Oil Type Component CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11-13 C14-19 C20-26 C27-35 C36+

DS913B mol % Stock Tank Oil 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.12 1.15 3.49 6.64 6.95 5.48 6.02 5.76 15.02 20.01 12.49 8.40 8.45

DS913B mol % Model Stock Tank 0.19 0.00 0.25 0.27 0.80 2.05 2.31 2.53 5.32 6.87 5.59 4.83 12.26 17.49 14.38 10.93 13.93

DS9F-17A 13B mol % mol % Simulate Syntheti d Res. c Res. Fl. Fl. 7.66 0.38 45.11 4.37 0.41 1.06 2.10 3.21 3.14 2.30 2.45 2.31 5.99 7.91 4.94 3.32 3.34 7.04 0.35 43.90 4.06 0.68 0.78 1.22 2.30 2.84 3.02 3.05 2.82 7.44 10.24 7.20 11.07 -

F-17A mol % BHS Res. Fl.

B-36 mol % BHS Res. Fl.

2.16 0.35 41.50 3.08 2.50 1.71 1.09 1.04 2.58 2.45 2.04 2.59 7.59 12.85 7.88 13.08 3.40

6.57 0.34 31.34 4.18 2.64 1.61 0.95 0.76 3.00 3.66 3.60 3.35 8.78 13.32 8.17 5.17 2.53

Table 3: Composition of Stock Tank Oils and Reservoir Fluids

Component mol %

CO2 12.66

N2 0.63

C1 74.59

C2 7.22

C3 0.60

C4 1.01

C5 1.18

C6+ 2.11

Table 4:Composition of the Simulated Solution Gas for Oil from Well DS9-31B

Properties
Reservoir temperature (F) Bubblepoint pressure (psi) Gas-oil ratio (scf/bbl) Viscosity (cP) Density (g/cm3) Formation Volume Factor* (vol/vol) Thermal expansion at 5000 psig Compressibility of liquid phase (vol/vol/psi) 5000 - 4528 psi 4528 - 4009 psi 4009 - 3544 psi 3544 - 2980 psi

F-17A (Synthetic)F-17A (BHS) 224 224 3770 2600 500 507 1.84 0.778 -

B-36 207 2748 489 1.98 0.766 1.316 1.101

2980 - 2748 psi

9.0E-06 9.9E-06 1.4E-06 -

8.4E-06 9.4E-06 9.6E-06 9.9E-06 1.0E-05

Table 5: Physical Properties of the Prudhoe Bay Reservoir Fluids

Separator Separator Gas-Oil Tank Oil Formation Gas Pressure Temeperature Ratio* Gravity Volume Gravity (air=1) psig scf/bbl Factor** API vol/vol F 0 62 489 22.5 1.316 0.8522 per barrel stock tank oil at 60 * Gas-oil ratio is in cubic feet of gas at 14.7 psi and 60 F F ** Formation volume factor is barrels of oil at saturation pressure and reservoir temperature F per barrel of stock tank oil at 60
Table 6: Separator Flash of Reservoir Fluid from Well B-36

Components Saturates Aromatics Resins Asphaltene

wt % 25.6 25.2 13.7 35.6

Table 7: SARA Analysis on B-36 Flashed Oil

Component mol %

CO2 19.11

N2 0.14

C1 34.91

C2 19.05

C3 21.51

i-C4 1.99

n-C4 3.21

i-C5 0.05

n-C5 0.03

Table 8: Composition of Prudhoe Bay Miscible Injectant Gas

PVT Cell:
Temco Inc. 918/835-2193 Serial WC20-500-2 No. 10,000 psig at 350F. 500 cc volume

Transducer:
0 - 10000 psig range 250F working temp. low volume - flush mount 316 SS wetted parts

Densitometer:
Anton Paar model DMA 512 6,000psigworkingpressure 224Fworkingtemperature

P Transducer:
0 -12500 psig line pressure 0 - 125 psid differential 250Fworkingtemperature 410 SS wetted parts

Piston Cylinder:
Stainless steel, 316 100 cc volume 10,000psig working pressure 224Fworkingtemperature Teflon seals

PISTON

Tubing:
P

1/8" OD, 0.035 wall 316 stainless steel 10,000psiworkingpressure 224Fworkingtemperature

Mixing Ring:
316 stainless steel Grooved and perforated

Oven:
24 cuft capacity Temperature to 224F 0.25% temperature control 316 SS interior

Relief Valve:
316 stainless steel 30,000 psig workingpressure adjustable, set at 5,500 psig Liquid service

Temco Pump:
Dual opposed, independently operated 10,000psigworkingpressure 100 cc volume minimum 316 SS wetted parts

Capillary Coils Viscosity:

1/8" SS tubing, 0.03" ID 0.048" wall, 10 feet long 12" diameter coil 10,000 psig at 224F

Valves:
Two-waystraightvalves 316 stainless steel 10,000psiworkingpressure at 224F Regulatingstem

Figure 1: Schematic of the PVT Measurement Apparatus

Figure 2: Comparison of Compositional Analysis of Samples F17-A and DS-31B

10

Figure 3: Predicted Viscosity for DS9-31B Fluid at Reservoir Conditions

0.86

0.84

DENSITY, g/cm3

F17-A (Synthetic Fluid) B-36 (Bottom Hole Fluid)

0.82

0.80

0.78

0.76 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

PRESSURE, psi

Figure 4: Variation in Density of Prudhoe Bay Reservoir Fluids With Pressure

11

7.0 6.0

VISCOSITY, cP

F17-A (Synthetic Fluid) B-36 (Bottom Hole Fluid)

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

PRESSURE, psi

Figure 5: Viscosity of Prudhoe Bay Reservoir Fluids With Pressure

1.00

0.950 PV Z 0.900 MeasuredZ

Z FACTOR

0.850

0.800

0.750

0.700 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

PRESSURE,psig
Figure 6: Z Factor of Miscible Injectant (MI) Gas at Reservoir Temperature

12

4500

BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURE, psig

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

MI GAS CONCENTRATION, mol %

Figure 7: Variation in Bubblepoint Pressure of F17-A Bottom Hole Sample With MI Gas

100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 1500 Original Reservoir Fluid 10 Mole Percent Mix 20 Mole Percent Mix 30 Mole Percent Mix 40 Mole Percent Mix 50 Mole Percent Mix 70 Mole Percent Mix 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

LIQUID VOLUME, %

PRESSURE,psig
Figure 8: Solubility-Swelling Data on F17-A Bottom Hole Sample With MI Gas Mixtures

13

14