Sei sulla pagina 1di 7

Petroleum Science and Technology, 32:1168–1174, 2014

Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1091-6466 print / 1532-2459 online DOI: 10.1080/10916466.2011.569811

print / 1532-2459 online DOI: 10.1080/10916466.2011.569811 The Prediction of Bubble-point Pressure and Bubble-point Oil

The Prediction of Bubble-point Pressure and Bubble-point Oil Formation Volume Factor in the Absence of PVT Analysis

S. Elmabrouk, 1 A. Zekri, 2 and E. Shirif 3

1 Faculty of Engineering, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya 2 Faculty of Engineering, United Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates 3 Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Regina, Canada

Up to now, there has not been one specific correlation published to directly estimate the bubble-point pressure in the absence of pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) analysis. Presently, there is just one published correlation available to estimate the bubble-point oil formation volume factor (FVF) directly in the absence of PVT analysis. Multiple regression analysis technique is applied to develop two novel correlations to estimate the bubble-point pressure and the bubble-point oil FVF. The developed correla- tions can be applied in a straightforward manner by using direct field measurement data. Separator gas oil ratio, separator pressure, stock-tank oil gravity, and reservoir temperature are the only key parameters required to predict bubble-point pressure and bubble-point oil FVF.

Keywords : bubble-point correlation, formation volume factor, gas-oil ratio

1. INTRODUCTION

Ideally, reservoir fluid properties are determined from laboratory studies on live oil samples collected from the bottom of the wellbore or from the surface. Standard reservoir pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) fluid studies are designed to simulate the simultaneous fluid flow of oil and gas from the reser- voir to the surface. The production path of reservoir fluids from the reservoir to surface is simulated in the laboratory at reservoir temperature. During this process, the bubble-point pressure ( p b ) is mea- sured. Likewise, the oil volumes and the amount of gas released are measured and used to determine oil formation volume factor (FVF; B o ) and solution gas oil ratio (GOR) ( R s ) as functions of pressure. In the absence of such experimental analysis, empirical PVT correlations can be used to estimate the reservoir fluid properties. Reasons for using empirical PVT correlations could be (a) economic issues, (b) poor sample quality due to nonrepresentative fluid, human error during sampling or field transfers, (c) insufficient sample volume to obtain a complete analysis, or (d) errors in laboratory analysis.

2. LITERATURE SURVEY

Several correlations within the oil and gas industry for obtaining bubble-point pressures (p b ) and bubble-point oil FVF ( B ob ) of reservoir oils already exist. The correlations are essentially based

Address correspondence to S. Elmabrouk, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tripoli, Tripoli, Libya. E-mail:

saber elmabrouk@yahoo.com

Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/lpet.

1168

ABSENCE OF PVT ANALYSIS

1169

on the assumption that p b and B ob are strong functions of the bubble-point solution GOR ( R sb ), the reservoir temperature ( T R ), the gas specific gravity (γ g ), and the stock-tank oil specific gravity (γ oST ). Bubble-point solution GOR can be obtained as the sum of the stock-tank vent GOR ( R ST ; seldom field measurement) and the measured separator gas oil ratio (R SP ). This is valid only if the R SP and R ST are measured while the reservoir pressure is above the p b . Sometimes, the sums of the two producing gas-oil ratios are called flash bubble-point solution GOR (R sFb ) or total GOR. Some correlations used differential bubble-point solution GOR ( R sDb ) rather than R sFb . Among those were Borden and Rzasa (1950), Knopp and Ramsey (1960), Vasquez and Beggs (1980), Al-Marhoun (1988), Dokla and Osman (1992), Elsharkawy and Alikhan (1997), Almehaideb (1997), Hanafy et al. (1997), McCain et al. (1998), Velarde et al. (1999), Boukadi et al. (2002), Gharbi and Elsharkawy (2003), and Mazandarani and Asghari (2007). Others preferred to use flash bubble-point solution GOR (RsFb) as in Standing (1947), Lasater (1958), Tehrani (1967), Glaso (1980), Macary and El-Batanoney (1992), Al-Marhoun (1992), Frashad et al. (1996), Petrosky and Frashad (1998), and Ikiensikimama and Oboja (2009). Moreover, several correlations by Labedi (1990), Rollins et al. (1990), Dokla and Osman (1992), Macary and El-Batanoney (1992), Velarde et al. (1999), Petrosky and Farshad (1998), and McCain et al. (1998) used flash separator gas specific gravity (γ gSP ), while others used total gas specific gravity as in Standing (1947), Borden and Rzasa (1950), Lasater (1958), Elsharkawy and Alikhan (1997), Glaso (1980), and Mazandarani and Asghari (2007). Other correlations used weight average specific gas gravity of the separator and stock-tank vent gas. Among those were Al-Marhoun (1988), Frashad et al. (1996), Al-Marhoun (1997), Al-Shammasi (1999), Hemmati and Kharrat (2007), and Ikiensikimama and Oboja (2009). Few methods required first to adjust gas gravity to separator pressure at 100 psig before being used in the correlations to be correlated as in Vasquez and Beggs (1980). Labedi (1990) proposed a bubble-point pressure correlation based on: separator GOR ( R SP ), separator temperature (T SP ), separator gas specific gravity (γ gSP ), stock-tank API gravity and reser- voir temperature ( T R ). McCain (1991) provided guidance on the application of the PVT correlations. To estimate bubble-point pressure and bubble-point oil FVF, he suggested using Standing (1977) correlations, in conjunction with Rollins et al.’s (1990) stock-tank vent GOR correlation.

3. NEWLY DEVELOPED CORRELATIONS

The main objective of this study is to overcome the limitations faced by previous correlations by building regression models using direct measured field parameters as input variables to estimate p b and B ob . Two correlations are proposed as a function of four directly measured field parameters ( R SP , P SP , γ oST , and T R ). By using the four parameters, engineers can estimate p b and B ob for crude oil straightforwardly in the absence of PVT analysis. The PVT data used in this study were obtained from two-stage and single-stage flash separation tests. A total of 118 reservoir fluid studies (476 data points) were collected from various Libyan oil fields in the Sirte Basin. The majority of the data points are taken from two-stage flash separation tests (355 data points). In the single-stage separation test, the separator pressure is atmospheric pressure and the stock-tank vent GOR value is equal to zero. In order to study the validity of the proposed correlations, the 476 data points were divided into two groups randomly. Group A includes a total of 413 data points. Group B data (62 data points) were used to test the validity of the newly developed correlations and were not switched.

4. BUBBLE-POINT PRESSURE CORRELATION

Numerous models were tried as regression equations. Equation (1) was found to be very accurate. The natural logarithm of bubble-point pressure was regressed against the natural logarithms of

1170 S. ELMABROUK ET AL.

separator GOR, separator pressure, of stock-tank oil gravity, and reservoir temperature.

(1)

An additional important application of the proposed p b correlation is to check the validity of the bottom-hole PVT samples and to select the most representative sample. Since the representativeness of a PVT study greatly depends on sampling conditions, and the first and most important operation, before running a complete reservoir fluid study, is to check the validity of the samples. The bottom- hole sample, used for PVT study, is selected according to the results obtained during the verification of sample validity.

p b = R 0.683 SP

0.18

P

SP

γ

4.98

oST

0.658

T

R

5. BUBBLE-POINT OIL FVF CORRELATION

Usually, the oil FVF obtained from a differential vaporization test should be adjusted using flash separation oil FVF to properly approximate a combination liberation system. However, at bubble- point pressure, B ob is equal to B oFb . Accordingly, by using a multiple regression analysis technique, the B ob was correlated as a function of P SP , R SP , γ oST , and T R . After trying many models, the following model was found to be a very good prediction equation of bubble-point oil FVF (Eq. [2]).

B ob = 1.6624 + 0.000512R SP + 0.00015P SP 0.802γ oST + 0.000501T R (2)

6. CORRELATION VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

Statistical correlation verification and validation are the most important step in the correlation development process. Both quantitative and graphical analysis of the residual are used to verify the accuracy of the proposed correlations. Quantitative error analysis is determined in terms of correlation coefficient (R 2 ), standard deviation (SD), average percent relative error (ARE), and absolute average percent relative error (AARE). Table 1 summarizes the quantitative statistical error analysis for the proposed correlations. Following the estimation of a regression model, the graphical error analysis was established by analyzing the residuals. The residual distribution for p b and B ob correlations were performed. Both distributions indicated that the error is normally distributed and we can conclude that both correlations satisfy the normality assumption. Figures 1 and 2 present the computed values from the

TABLE 1 Quantitative Statistical Error Analysis

Statistical Criterion

p b Model

B ob Model

R 2 , % SD AE Min. AE Max. AE ARE, % Min ARE, % Max ARE, % AARE, % Min AARE, % Max AARE, %

95.67

96.3

435.6

0.0291

17.72

0.0

2112.8

0.06411

1172.8

0.11087

2.83

0.038

54.37

8.399

120.82

5.255

16.757

1.6874

0.05

0.0122

120.816

8.3989

ABSENCE OF PVT ANALYSIS

1171

ABSENCE OF PVT ANALYSIS 1171 FIGURE 1 A 45 ◦ straight line cross-plot for bubble-point pressure

FIGURE 1

A 45 straight line cross-plot for bubble-point pressure correlation.

regression models versus the experimental values. Both figures show all points are scattered around the y = x line.

7. COMPARISON WITH OTHER CORRELATIONS

The correlations need first to estimate R sb and γ gSP or obtained experimentally. Therefore, none of the published bubble-point correlations were subjected to test its accuracy against the proposed

were subjected to test its accuracy against the proposed FIGURE 2 A 45 ◦ straight line

FIGURE 2

A 45 straight line cross-plots for bubble-point oil FVF correlation.

1172 S. ELMABROUK ET AL.

TABLE 2 Comparison of Proposed Bubble-point Oil FVF Correlation

T his Study Eq. ( 11 )

Labedi 1990 Eq. ( 4 )

Error SD, bb/STB

0.02322

0.02793

AE, bbl/STB

0.00412

0.00418

Max. AE, bbl/STB

0.05286

0.07064

Min. AE, bb/STB

0.05351

0.0589

ARE, %

0.335

0.241

Max. ARE, %

3.635

4.757

Min. ARE, %

3.548

4.4165

A ARE, %

1.412

1.617

Max. AARE, %

3.635

4.757

Min. AARE, %

0.028

0.036

bubble-point correlation in this study. However, the proposed B ob correlation was subjected to evaluation and validation. Its accuracy was tested solely against Labedi’s correlation due to the fact Labedi’s bubble-point oil FVF is presently the only published correlation available in the literature to estimate bubble-point oil FVF directly in the absence of PVT analysis. The Group B data set (62 data points) were used in this test. However, these data points were not switched in the model derivation process. AE, ARE, AARE, SD, and a 45 line cross-plot were used as comparative criteria. Figure 3 compares the behavior of the proposed B ob regression model to Labedi (1990). It shows the produced model in this study provides more reliable results. The majority of the estimated points of the proposed correlation fall very close to the 45 line with less AE, less ARE and less AARE. Table 2 demonstrates the statistical analysis of this comparison.

2 demonstrates the statistical analysis of this comparison. FIGURE 3 Evaluation and validation of bubble-point oil

FIGURE 3

Evaluation and validation of bubble-point oil FVF correlation.

ABSENCE OF PVT ANALYSIS

8. CONCLUSIONS

1173

A correlation to predict the bubble-point pressure and bubble-point FVF in the absence of PVT analysis is developed. The proposed bubble-point pressure correlation can be used to check the validity of the bottom-hole PVT samples in order to select the most representative sample before running the PVT laboratory analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the management of the following oil companies for providing the data and permission to publish this work: AGOCO, Sirte Oil, Waha Oil, Millita Oil and Gas, Repsol Oil, and Harouge Oil.

FUNDING

The authors wholeheartedly thank and appreciate FGSA, University of Regina for their generous financial support.

REFERENCES

Al-Marhoun, M. (1988). PVT correlations for Middle East Crude oils. J. Pet. Technol. 40:650–666. Al-Marhoun, M. A. (1992). New correlations for formation volume factors of oil and gas mixtures. J. Can. Pet. Technol.

31:22–26.

Almehaideb, R. A. (1997). Improved PVT correlations for UAE crude oil. SPE paper no. 37691. Middle East Oil Conference and Exhibition , Manama, Bahrain March 17–20. Al-Shammasi, A. A. (1999). Bubble point pressure and oil formation volume factor correlations. SPE 53185, SPE Middle East Oil Show , Bahrain, February 20–23. Borden, G., and Rzasa, M. J. (1950). Correlation of bottom hole sample data. Trans. AIME 189:345–348. Boukadi, F. H., Bemani, A. S., and Hashmi, A. (2002). PVT empirical models for saturated Omani crude oils. J. Pet. Sci. Technol. 20:89–100. Dokla, M. E., and Osman, M. E. (1992). Correlation of PVT properties for UAE crudes. SPE Form. Eval. 7:41–46. Elsharkawy, A. M., and Alikhan, A. A. (1997). Correlation for predicting solution gas/oil ratio, formation volume factor, and undersaturated oil compressibility. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 17:291–302. Frashad, F., LeBlanc, J. L., Gruber, J. D., and Osorio, J. G. (1966). Empirical PVT correlations for Colombian crude oils. SPE 36105, Fourth Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference , Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, April 23–26. Gharbi, R., and Elsharkawy, A. A. (2003). Predicting the bubble-point pressure and formation-volume-factor of worldwide crude oil systems. Pet. Sci. Technol. 21:53–79. Glaso, O. (1980). Generalized pressure–volume temperature correlations. J. Pet. Technol. 32:785–795. Hanafy, H. H., Macary, S. M., ElNady, Y. M., Bayomi, A. A., and El Batanoney, M. H. (1997). Empirical PVT correlations applied to Egyptian crude oils exemplify significance of using regional correlations. SPE 37295, 1997 SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, Houston, Texas, February 18–20. Hemmati, M. N., and Kharrat, R. (2007). A correlation approach for prediction of crude-oil PVT properties. SPE 104543, 15th SPE Middle East Show and Conference , Bahrain, March 11–14. Ikiensikimama, S. S., and Ogboja, O. (2009). New bubble-point pressure empirical PVT correlation. SPE 128893, Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition , Abuja, Nigeria, August 3–5. Knopp, C. R., and Ramsey, L. A. (1960). Correlation for oil formation volume factor and solution gas-oil ratio. J. Pet. Technol.

12:27–29.

Labedi, R. M. (1990). Use of production data to estimate the saturation pressure, solution GOR, and chemical composition of reservoir fluids. SPE 21164, SPE Latin American Petroleum Conference , Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 14–19. Lasater, J. A. (1958). Bubble-point pressure correlation. Trans. AIME 231:379–381.

1174 S. ELMABROUK ET AL.

Macary, S. M., and El-Batanoney, M. H. (1992). Derivation of PVT correlations for the Gulf of Suez crude oils. EGPC 11th Petroleum Exploration and Production Conference. Mazandarani, M. T., and Asghari, S. M. (2007). Correlations for predicting solution gas-oil ratio, bubble-point pressure and oil formation volume factor at bubble-point of Iran crude oils. European Congress of Chemical Engineering (ECCE-6) , Copenhagen, Denmark, September 16–20. McCain, Jr., W. D. (1991). Reservoir fluid properties correlations: State of the art. SPE Res. Eng.266–270. McCain, Jr., W. D., Soto, R. B., Valko, P. P., and Blasingame, T. A. (1998). Correlations of bubble pressures for reservoir oil—A comparative study. Paper no. SPE 51086. SPE Eastern Regional Conference and Exhibition , Pittsburgh, PA, November 9–11. Petrosky, G. E., and Farshad, F. F. (1998). Pressure–volume–temperature correlations for Gulf of Mexico crude oils. SPE Res. Eval. Eng. 1:416–420. Rollins, J. B., McCain, W. D. Jr., and Creager, J. T. (1990). Estimation of the solution GOR of black oils. J. Pet. Technol.

42:92–94.

Standing, M. B. (1947). A pressure–volume–temperature correlation for mixtures of California oils and gases. Drill. Prod.

Pract.275–287.

Standing, M. B. (1977). Volumetric and phase behaviour of oil field hydrocarbon systems. Richardson, TX: SPE. Tehrani, H. D. (1968). Bubble-point pressure correlation for reservoir fluids of Southwest Iran. Second AIME Regional Technical Symposium , Saudi Arabia, March 27–29. Vasquez, M., and Biggs, H. D. (1980). Correlation for fluid physical property prediction. J. Pet. Technol. 32:968–970. Velarde, J., Blasingame, T. A., and McCain, W. D. Jr. (1999). Correlation of black oil properties at pressures below bubble point pressure—a new approach. J. Can. Pet. Technol., Spec. Ed. 38:62–68.

NOMENCLATURE

AE

average error

ARE

average relative error, %

AARE

absolute average relative error, %

SD

standard division

S

standard error of estimate

p b bubble-point pressure, psia T R reservoir temperature, F B o oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB B ob bubble-point oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB B oFb flash bubble-point oil formation vol- ume factor, bbl/STB

B oDb differential bubble-point oil forma- tion volume factor, bbl/STB R s solution gas oil ratio, Scf/STB

R sb bubble-point solution gas oil ratio, Scf/STB R sFb flash bubble-point solution gas oil ra- tio, Scf/STB

R sDb differential bubble-point solution gas oil ratio, Scf/STB

R

R

stock-tank vent gas oil ratio, scf/STB separator pressure, psia

P SP

T SP

API stock tank oil gravity stock-tank oil specific gravity, water = 1 gas specific gravity, air = 1

γ gSP

γ oST

SP

ST

API

separator gas oil ratio, scf/STB

separator temperature, F

γ gTotal total gas specific gravity, air = 1