High pressure gas reservoir waxing problem

Hi everybody,

I have a question I'd like to ask opinions from the professionals here.

A high pressure gas reservoir (90 MPa) is experiencing a well plugging issue.
Specifically, some waxing is coming out of the reservoir fluid and sticking to
the tubing. We have the chemicals that can be used to dissolve the waxing,
however the technical challenge is that, with such a high reservoir pressure it
is extremely difficult to inject the chemicals to the well. So the question is, how
to manage to get the chemicals down to the well?

The reservoir is ~6000m below the surface, and the waxing problem happens
from ~3000m and above. Fluid in the well is comprised of both gas and liquid
(mostly gas).

Has anybody heard of similar cases? Any idea that can possibly remove the
waxing is highly appreciated!

Comments
Abderrahmane DADA Ke.
There exist some conventional wax-removal treatments in flowing and gas lift
wells that use slickline units equipped with a gauge cutter to cut wax from the
tubing walls every 4 to 7 days (Not economically viable).
To supplement this with the use of the waxophobic nanochemical treatment,
activated oil is injected into the formation for additional wax removal and
control, which can extend wax-free production time for weeks.

In a 12,250-ft well on gas lift in Turkmenistan, 110 gal of the activator was
injected into the formation, resulting in 13 weeks of wax-free production and
treatment cost recovery in 11 days.

See the article in the link below to get an answer for your issue:
http://www.spe.org/jpt/article/7788-technology-update-1-7/

Ahmed Ali Hassan if i were in your place, i would check temperature

modelling of the well using Prosper for example.

if I can reduce drawdown by enhancing productivity by fracturing or so and

use bigger tubing and higher gas flow rates so the tubing head temperature
would be above the wax appearance temperature, that would be good.
this solution will be good till the reservoir pressure declines, and you are able
to inject the dewaxing chemicals.

Rohaizad Norpiah 1) Analyse condy properties for wax (HTGC for n-paraffin,
Wax appearance temp, pour point temperature, viscosity-shear sweep and
yield stress)
2) Simulate wax P-T envelope for live condy and reservoir gas. Include pour
point P-T envelope.
3) Simulate well thermo-hydraulic behaviour
4) Map well P-T data against wax P-T envelope.
5) Determine if the problem is caused by wax deposit or high viscosity condy.
Viscous water-wax data should be analysed.
6) Send condy samples to chemical vendors for pour point and wax
deposition tests with chemicals.
7) Simulate well with wax deposition model (CALSEP NOVA, FLOWax, OLGA
or LEDAFLOW. The wax model has be tuned using lab wax deposition model
8) Simulate well. Some tuning of the wax results may be needed to match
measured well DP.
9) Assuming chemicals are used, their effects on wax deposition or viscosity
can also be included in the wax model. 10) Chemicals application : Evaluate
continuous or batch service. Note PPD requires fluid temp > WAT

Guillermo Sanchez
Guillermo Sanchez Here in the southeast of Mexico, in a gas condensate
reservoir (6000 m, 182°C, 66 MPa) , we use to remove waxing, mainly Xylene
(alternated with other products) but its necessary to keep closed the well
during 8- 12 hours to achieve xylene reaction to dilue the wax, later the well is
open, this operation is every 6- 8 months. Please check the wellservices
companies available in your country. I hope this comment help you, greetings.

Mohamed Elshehabi Hi all

I suggest that to have a kind of down hole jet valve so called EJector and to
be installed along the production string at the depth of 3200 m below the 3000
m where the wax formed . This kind of valve allow us to inject the chemical at
low pressure commingled with the high pressure gas flow.
Regards

The effect of having unmatched GORd on miscible gas flooding using

compositional simulator
What is the effect of unmatched GORd by 12% AAE (Average abselute Error)
on the performance of EOS during miscble flooding using compositional
simulator. (Assuming that all other experiments are matched perfectly
including CCE, DLE, swelling tests, etc). Free despersion simulation results
shows comparable MMP results with slimtube experiment at res cond. so
same miscibility can be garanteed by this EOS model.

What are the consequences of this EOS GORd on the miscible process ?

Alexey Sokolov OK. Since there is good match in other tests and reasonable
MMP is observed in slimtube I suppose you might claim there is little effect of
this mismatch on overall EOS performance. From practical point of view I
suppose those 12% of gas to be chopped off the injected would mean nothing
in terms of PV's needed for EUR - who cares of 10 if it is 9 really. Since your
EOS matches MMP it is alright. Good luck!

Tarek Ahmed GOR=Rs+(krg/Kro)*[Uo*Bo/Ug*Bg] if you have a good match

with all PVT data, the problem is then Krg/Kro... I don't think the 12% error
resulting from EOS; must be related on how you characterized and described
rock properties in your geological model,...etc.

compositional consistency (gas condesate PVT sample)

The PVT laboratory reports(gas condensate ) can be evaluated by assessing

the consistency of fluid composition. techniques used for evaluation are ;mass
balance polt,Hoffman plot ,and Buckley plot.
Mass balance test (yi/zi)vs.(xi/zi) gives straight line ,the slope and intercept
use to calculate GOR.
when we compared with the measured one in the report was higher than by
4% is this acceptable ?
in Hoffman plot the C6 is not on the straight line and away from the line . in
your opinion what are the reason (surface sample, recombined )or the points
should be checked?

regards

Brian Moffatt For your Hoffmann plot is it just C6 that is out of trend or other
heavier components as well? Are there duplicate analyses from the same flow
period you can compare with? One point would be anomalous, several
suggest something wrong.

The Hoffmann plot in Figure 2 in the often quoted paper “Quality Assessment
and Consistency Evaluation of Hydrocarbon PVT Data” IPTC 13784
(Lawrence & Gupta 2009) is presented as an example of a trend without data
issues. However it shows a divergence from the theoretical trend with
increasing carbon number from C6 consistent with the gas being insufficiently
heated before analysis. This also may be the cause of your problem?
(continued)
As engineers we focus on these tests to QC surface samples for PVT, but this
is just one link in a chain of potential errors from sample collection to our fluid
model (SPE 49067). All the tests you mention at best only confirm the internal
consistency of lab analysis and handling of the wellstream fluid. The tests say
nothing about how representative the wellstream composition is to the
reservoir fluid nor the accuracy of the CGR as measured by the welltest
separator; there is no independent check on that.

What is the variation in CGR with time and across the sampling flow rate and
other flow rates? Surveying a wider range of welltest flow rate data will give
you a better understanding of uncertainty in later production CGR than
focusing in on just one sample, see SPE-164887.

Is the 4% relative or absolute deviation? In general, mass balances should

agree within 2%. However components that have small concentrations have
larger measurement uncertainties when using a GC. Compositional
measurements are made using GPA or ASTM standards. Refer to these
standards on the expected deviations.

PVT in MBAL

Hello,
I have a question concerning pvt. In MBAL software. i have a reservoir with 2
layers so 2 pvt models.
My question is : in witch conditions use we oil and gas gravities, reservoir
conditions or std conditions?
Patrick Sykes

Patrick Sykes Souad,

If I'm understanding your question correctly, you are essentially asking which
streams (FWS, separator gas, accumulated vapour, etc.) the various PVT
inputs in a black oil MBal model should be based on. The density inputs you
mention are inputs to the chosen black oil equation which generally call for the
first stage separator gas gravity, and the stock tank API gravity (depending on
which correlation you are using, check McCain which I think discusses this for
some of the more commonly used equations). If you have fluid sample/lab
data available, then the black oil equation should also be adjusted to better
honour your reservoir fluid (most packages that use BO equations should
have the ability to do this). This is how I've populated those inputs anyway,
would be interested to hear if there were other ideas on this (the package I
use is silent on this so I have had this same question in the past).

EOS Matching

I have been trying to match lab PVT result of a gas condensate reservoir to
PR EOS. I have attempted regression on the critical properties of the plus
fractions which was characterized upto C30+, I have also used splitting and
grouping techniques, BIC between the plus fraction and C1, yet a major
challenge is that the EOS % retrograde liquid curve from both CCE and CVD
is not matching to the Lab data. Please can anyone help me on what to do?
Brian Moffatt Have you QC'd the data?
How much liquid are you trying to match; what is the maximum liquid
saturation in your CVD? Do other properties such as surface liquid density
and CGR match?

5mois
ZAKARIYA ABU GRIN

ZAKARIYA ABU GRIN If your data is valid, consider making your matching
process simpler by taking fewer (L% vs Press) points "the most important
point where you have the maximum liquid dropout"

Weights can play a major role here, highest weight should be given to CCE
liquid dropout 45-50 (in PVTP=10) even more than Pd 40 (in PVTP=8-9).
While CVD L% can given medium weight 20 (in PVTP=5).

5mois
ZAKARIYA ABU GRIN

ZAKARIYA ABU GRIN Full EOS tuning procedure was given in PVT modeling
course . I would recommend you to go through it. See my profile.

5mois
Stanley Ibeh
Stanley Ibeh @ Brian, I have QC'd the data. It is Ok. My surface liquid density
matched but the CGR did not. The Max. liquid saturation is 10.5 for CVD and
12.7 for CCE.

5mois
Brian Moffatt

Brian Moffatt How far off from the measured data are your calculations for
liquid saturation and GOR? Is it the shape of the liquid saturation curve that
concerns you or the maximum value?

5mois
Ahmed Aly

Ahmed Aly Which software are you using to match the EOS?

5mois
Ernesto Valbuena

Ernesto Valbuena Hi Stanley,

Have you completed the calibration for saturation pressures? In general, after
performing QC on lab data, saturation pressures match should be the first
step (calibrate critical properties, acentric factor, BIC, etc. of plus fraction and
lumped components).

Once saturation curves match, you can adjust densities and %LiqVolume with
volume translation (shift) parameters. Finally, you can perform viscosity
match.

I hope this helps...

5mois
Jeff Creek

Jeff Creek Hi Stanley,

I suggest the following for matching retrograde liquid volumes in gas

condensate systems.
- first is to match tbe produced liquid density, molecular weight, and GOR as
well as the gas gravity from the flash used for fluid analysis - since you wish to
have PVT properties as a function of composition
- second see if a satisfactory match is obtained with the reservoir fluid density
- thirdly be aware that retrograde liquid volume measurements are difficult,
especially when less than 5% of dew point volume or greater than 30 % when
near critical
- do not force match a dew point since these are frequently inconsistent with
the retrograde liquid data in many lab reports. first see if you can match the
liquid maximum with the existing composition. You may need to recombine
the flashed gas and liquid in a different ratio to get agreement with the
measured liquid. hopefully you have a well test GOR to match and confirm
with the lab sample Jeff (more in a minute)

5mois
Jeff Creek

Jeff Creek lastly the CCE liquid volume should always be greater than or
equal to the CVD liquid volume - regards Jeff

5mois
Mahadhir Hanafiah

Mahadhir Hanafiah Refer to Tarek Ahmed's Equation of State and PVT

Analysis Book pages 440-450.

5mois
Stanley Ibeh

Stanley Ibeh @ Brian; the % difference from measured data is about 20%. I
am concerned with the liquid saturation curve getting closer to the measured
data.

5mois
Stanley Ibeh

Stanley Ibeh @ Ahmed Aly; the software I am using is PVTi

5mois
Ahmed Ali Hassan

Ahmed Ali Hassan what you can do,

1- draw a relationship between sp.gr. and and MW for C7+ components, the
surface liquid density and MW should lie within the correlation
2- if this is the case, change all C7+ components to pesudo components
definition (but with the same composition) , the gives more consistent EOS
calculati
on rather than pure components

3- if separator GOR is still far, change the Pc and Tc correlations consistently

until you have the nearest results of GOR and liquid density.

4- if the liquid dropout is correct, you will see similar trend but not matched to
the EOS calculations... if different trends, there is something wrong

5-match the saturation pressure with binary coefficients only, it will be easily
matched.

6- the dropout should now be very near to lab results, check the GOR and
density again, they should not have changed much

7- the fine tuning would be a multiplier of all Tc and Pc of pseudo

components(less than 1% change) and volume shift for separator results

5mois
Rohaizad Norpiah

Rohaizad Norpiah From the max. 10.5% liquid volume during CVD., the fluid
CGR could be about 70-100 stb/MMscf. I suggest the following approach : 1)
The liquid densities should be matched using volume shift factors. This
method does not affect phase behavior predictions but it does affect
volumetric properties via density. 2) If you have measured CVD STO density
and amount of STO or Bo from res. temp . to 1 atm, 60 deg F. , the CVD liquid
dropout can be checked for material balance consistency. 3) To improve the
CVD liquid drop-out, you can try more using more pseudo-components. At the
onset of dew pt, the heaviest components will condense. Some PVT program
lumps these components in a too wide range eg. C60-C80. Most PVT
program allow users to control the lumping. You can try C70-C80, C60-C70
etc. 4) You may also try weightage factors for different parameters 5)
Changing the recombined GOR can be done as last resort but it should not be
higher than the GOR measurement uncertainty (about 10%).

Mw of plus fraction
Hello everybody,I know for oil sample we use measured Mw of oil at standard
condition to calculate Mw of plus fraction, but what about a gas sample, ex.
plus fraction Mw in each step of CVD experiment? How can we determine it?
Jeff Creek Maryam, typically the molecular weight if measured is determined
on a flashed liquid One must assume molecular weights for the lighter
components to compute a molecular weight for the "plus" cut.
Was you gas analyzed by flashing a single phase sample at ambient
conditions? the measured liquid would then have a molecular weight
determined and the plus computed in the same way as an oil sample. if only
an analysis exists then molecular weights would need to be assigned for the
pseudo components unless a very detailed analysis exists. then the molecular
weight would be computed for any "plus" cut desired (C7+, C10+, C12+, ...)

Bottom Hole Sampling Depth Correction to Mid-Perforations and Impact on

PVT Properties / Compositions.

Dear All,

While collecting a Cased-Hole Bottom Hole Sample, it is not uncommon to

have the sampling depth be above the top of the perforations of your Zone of
interest, which may correspond to an overlaying Zone behind casing.

In turn, those samples undergo standard PVT Experiments such as Routine

studies to obtain the essential fluid properties (Psat, Rs, Bo, Z-Factor,
Density, Gas Gravity, Viscosity, etc.).

To compare aerial and vertical variations in fluid properties / compositions

(e.g. By generating Psat vs. Depth plots), the common practice is to correct
Sampling depths to be across Mid-Perforations depths in order to establish a
fair benchmark of the different properties / compositions in case we have
multiple fluid samples.

My question is, wouldn't this depth correction affect the measurements of the
different fluid properties to begin with knowing that they are pressure
dependent? My belief is that it shouldn't change, since the analyzed fluid
came from the perforations of the zone of interest and hence, shouldn't affect
the measurement values.

Am I right with that assessment?

Aleksandr Borisov Dear Karim! Main idea to take representative Bottomhole
Fluid Sample is to capture that from the single-phase stream which represents
actual reservoir fluid. Unless there was no phase changes due to pressure
and temperature drops your bottomhole sample is representative. Though, in
case of significant water cut in could contain some formation water but this is
another story.

I agree with you that capturing of the sample straight across the perforation
should have less Pressure drop then taking them above the perforation. But
there you could meet another technical problem due to some solids coming
from the formation, especially for newly perforated or re-perforated wells. I
mean those solids sometime could even block the sampler and prevent it from
closing. So, the sample gets lost, or the sampling engineer has to redress the
sampler, RIH again which means at least few hours extended time (usually
between 3 to 12 hours in case of wireline/slickline samplers in a vertical well)
To avoid this risk, usual recommendation is to capture just above the
perforation.

And again, if your sample was captured before any phase changes (Psat) in
the fluid all those measurements would give same results. For representative
sample for asphaltene study your fluid Pressure shouldn't be below
Asphaltene precipitation point before sampling point.

6mois

Chris Batzer I agree w/ Sasha, but just to add a couple more comments... the
other obvious benefit of running the cable-deployed samplers as deep as
possible, but only to the top of the perforated interval, is simply to catch all of
the commingled flow that the perfs are providing to the wellbore. Positioning
the sampler at the mid-point would pose the risk of missing the contributions
of the upper perforated interval. Also, if the samplers are deployed as part and
parcel of the DST string, and being triggered pneumatically, then their position
by default will be above the packer and then your vertical depth shift will be
even more exaggerated. Still though, not an issue if the reservoir fluid is
under-saturated enough. I would stick w/ your original assessment of depth
shifting the sample to the mid-pt of its origin and leave it at that. The depth
correction/shift shouldn't affect the fluid properties, so long as you don't cross
any phase boundaries bet. their origin and their capture pt.

5mois

Alan Nicoll As long as the sample is collected in single phase and the correct
reservoir temperature is used for the PVT study then it should not matter how
far above the perforations the sample is collected.

 5mois

Mickey Pelletier With the sampler string include a pressure & temperature
gauge the length & cost can be minimal, the information is priceless. In many
wells the near perforation zone is very turbulent and can sweep volumes of
the completion fluid up from below the perfs. a little bit of stand off lets this
settle. Working below the tail pipe gives many folks the jitters, a lost or stuck
tool is a nightmare most drilling folks want to avoid, especially late in their
involvement with a well. (new well and DST in a discovery or appraisal
program)

5mois

Denis Zubarev Karim, your sample represents the reservoir section it is

collected from. So, yes you need to correct it to the perf depth. However, if
analysis shows that the Psat sample is close to the pressure at actual
sampling point (i.e. reservoir fluid close/at saturation point), then it is not
reliable with pretty much any correction.

5mois

Abdelkrim Aguenini Hi all, I have a question according this interesting subject:

in case of need correction to mid-perfs, how can I do this using PVTi ?

Flow behavior at the start and after condensate banking occurs in the
reservoir
From simulation result of a gas condensate system, it was observed that at
the inception or start of condensate banking phenomenon to a given point in
time, dew point pressure increased to a maximum and started decreasing with
time. The decrease in Dewpoint pressure after getting to the maximum began
where the average reservoir pressure = the maximum dew point pressure.
Dew point pressure was constant until condensate saturation started
appearing in the reservoir then it started rising until a maximum before falling.
Can anyone help with the explanation of what actually happened?.
Klajdi Mertice It certainly has to do with the retrograde condensation process.
As you mentioned with the beginning of the condensate bank the dew point
pressure got an increase. After that, with the evaporation of the condensate
the dew point pressure will reduce again. This is related to the composition of
the vapour phase fraction because it is the vapour phase for which the dew
point pressure is applicable. During the retrograde process the vapour phase
will drastically change.

6mois

Frans De Wolff What you are observing is the transient part of the retrograde
process, combined with the radial (?) inflow.
When the reservoir is thick enough, there is a dewpoint (density)gradient.
When the flow stabilises the amount of condensate left in the reservoir keeps
increasing till the maximum retrograde point.
The decrease in CGR can amount to 50%, depending on the composition.
All this is dependient on the permeability of the producing matrix part. High
perm gives a fast process and stabilisation, low perm the opposite. Banking is
caused by the pressure decline around the wellbore.
Frans

Gas Cap Gas CGR trend with pressure

Dear All,

While exporting regressed PVT sample to ECLIPSE in PVTO/PVTG format

(wet gas), I observed the trend of Rv (oil-gas ratio or CGR) with pressure. It
showed that the CGR trend is decreasing with depleting pressure. Logically, I
believe that as the pressure in reservoir depletes, the lighter hydrocarbons in
reservoir oil get liberated and enter into the gas cap, making the gas cap gas
heavier. This should ideally lead to increase in CGR of the gas cap gas when
produced on the surface. Hence as the Rv captures the condensation from
the produced gas (along with oil separated), I would expect that CGR should
increase with pressure depletion. But it’s the otherwise in exported PVT result.
Seems not logical to me or I am missing something here!
Would like to get some experts suggestion or opinion, about what is expected
in this and why?

Thanks in advance,
Klajdi Mertice Hello ! This phenomenon is called retrograde condensation. It
means that you actually have the system below the dew point . As the
pressure decreases the condensate will evaporate again and as a result the
CGR will decrease.

6mois
Ravi Prakash Aah, it was that simple! I checked the gas cap gas phase
diagram and it's actually retrograde. I was assuming it dry gas in my mind.
This clearly explains the results. Thanks for the reply!

PVT experiments
Hello guys

why sometimes pvt experiments implemented in temperature different from

temperature at sampling depth?are these experiments reliable?

6mois


Brian Moffatt The studies will be as reliable as any PVT study, I guess
the question is really can they be useful?

The information you need should be appropriate for reservoir

conditions. There are several reasons the temperatures may be
different. The sampler may be a different depth from reservoir (e.g. a
flowing bottom hole sample) or the estimate of reservoir temperature
may have changed since the study was performed. Circulating mud
cools the near wellbore rock and extrapolating to true reservoir
temperature such as by a Horner plot may not be considered initially.
Sometimes properties are needed for changes in operating
temperature, such as from cold water injection or steam flooding.

You can either repeat the study at a revised temperature or tune your
model what you have and use it to predict properties at the new
temperature. Modelling will help you see how significant the change will
be.

Brian.

6mois
Hassan Golghanddashti as Brian has comprehensively stated, many times
samplings are performed well above perfroations due to lower borehole size
at the lower parts that may sampling device cannot fit in. But there is no
problem the sample is gathered and experiments are performed at reservoir
temperature . You know that there is a temperature gradient even within the
reservoir then your tunned model at a considered reservoir temperature
should be and is able to capture these changes in temperature as well which
is always the case...

6mois

Mickey Pelletier I’ve worked 3 situations where the intension was not to work
at wireline measured temperatures, the first was nearly 40 F below Res temp
at the time of sampling with apparent condensation near the wellbore. Ran
High temps
2) A near critical point fluid temp was driven high to determine initial
properties of the system then a series of cooler temperatures were attempted
(working with critical point fluids is very difficult and time consuming
(expensive)).
The third was to run at 3 rather widely spaced temperatures to generate the
EOS fit to a surface rather than a point or line. The reservoir had a contiguous
pay over 500 meters, and significant temperature gradients as well.
additionally I've had samples run at "Unit Partners" conditions. to determine if
the collected fluid was part of the "Production Unit", or required special
processing tariffs.

6mois

Maryam Ghasemi Thank you friends,

I m totally confused, I have different samples , in most cases the depth of
sampling lay between perforation depth,(ex. perforation depth: 1152-1316m,
sampling depth:1189) but some of the experiments carried out in higher
temperature than sampling depth temperature and some at lower!
I ll try the Brian comment about modeling but I dont know if such experiments
are originally correct or not!!!

6mois
Brian Moffatt Maryam,
Go back to the source of the information, find out who gave the choice of
temperature and ask them why. Put your petroleum detective hat on and go
sleuthing!

6mois

Hakan Canbaz Maryam,

Check your reservoir bubble point P&T and compare it with the sampling
depth P&T (calculate by using P&T gradient). If you are @single phase(oil),
and changes to two phase(oil and gas) @surface conditions, probably the
company used wrong sampling chambers. Chambers has to be single phase
which uses pressure assistance and keeps your sample at single phase while
taking your sample to surface.

Two/Three Component Condensate Model

I want to simulate the liquid dropout effect of two/three component (eg.
C1/C4/C10) system into PVTi. Results will lead to design lab experiment for
that system. I need to ask that how we can simulate Differential
Condensation, and how can we display its overall and vapor mol fractions of
C4/C10 in comparison with Flash (CCE) PVT simulation?

7mois


Brian Moffatt This can be performed in any PVT software, you simply
tune against the equilibrium flash data and the CCE. In PVTi the flash
corresponds to a separator test. If you are trying to calibrate your fluid
model I would suggest you use equilibrium flashes at pressures of
interest which will give all phase properties and compositions and the
CCE. I don't see how a differential study will give better or more useful
data.

Note Heriot-Watt University performed corefloods with two component

 mixture, the PVT including the IFT was used for relative permeability
interpretation.
PVT model for Heavy Oil (how to match viscosity)
I'm trying to generate a PVT model for a heavy oil using a commercial
simulator. I have some experimental data to use such as viscosity of dead oil
and live oil. The oil viscosity drops significantly when oil is saturated with gas
(e.g. methane, CO2) although the mole fraction of the gas in the oil is lower
than 0.01. Therefore, I am unable to match the viscosity behaviour of the oil. I
appreciate any comments on this topic.
8mois


Seyyed Mehdi Seyyedsar The oil is stock-tank oil. No initial methane in
the dead oil. The oil saturated with methane has less than 1% mole of
methane.
o
8mois

Brian Moffatt What are the equilibrium conditions and the reservoir
conditions? How was the viscosity of the reservoir oil measured?Can you
share the viscosities of the dead and live oil?

8mois

Seyyed Mehdi Seyyedsar The measurements were done using a capillary

tube. Under similar conditions (temperature, pressure, shear rate), dead oil
viscosity is around 260,000 cp and oil saturated with methane has a viscosity
of 12,000 cp.

8mois
Brian Moffatt Were these at the same temperature and pressure? Was the
live oil at reservoir P&T?

8mois

Seyyed Mehdi Seyyedsar Same temperature and pressure but not the
reservoir T&P. However, I have the viscosity data at the reservoir T&P.

8mois

Klajdi Mertice Hello ! You should keep in mind that heavy oils behave
differently in terms of viscosity changes so even when the oil is found under
the bubble pressure the gas does not come out of the solution by defining in
this way another bubble point (pseudo bubble point) . This obscures in some
way the point of separating the dead oil from the live oil.

8mois

Mickey Pelletier Great cautions and care should be taken on the laboratory
side, to make the fluids move, you end up with outrageous pressure gradients
in the capillary tube. In some tubing the dilation of the metal tubing is visible in
the data. I use the average pressure across the tube as the pressure of
record, I try to keep delta P across the tube under 200 psi, and always work 3
to 500 psi above the bubble point of the fluid. We take multiple pressures
points and extrapolate down to the bubble point pressure. Homogeneity of the
fluid is evident if the pressure trace is chart recorded.
And, yes the smallest amount of dissolved gas in the fluid makes a real
difference in the fluids viscosity. This also true for black oils, just the
magnitude of the change is so very much greater in the heavy oils. The more
you play with the data, the more you will appreciate log and semi log plot
presentation of this data.

8mois
Jeff Creek Seyyed,

As Brian and Mickey have pointed out one needs to be sure the experimental
data are reasonable since the determination of viscosity of heavy oil (< 20
API; > 30 cP) are difficult to measure accurately, especially below the bubble
point pressure. you can only match reservoir fluid viscosity with a reservoir
fluid composition. You also need to be able to replicate the fluid density data
to have any chance to model the viscosity from composition. I recommend
checking against relevant correlations so see if the viscosity are reasonable
prior to any EOS match.

Lastly one cannot use LBC to match heavy oil viscosity in general. One gets
best results with Friction Theory, Corresponding States, or other (Yarranton et
al) to get an optimal match.

Regards, Jeff

8mois

Seyyed Mehdi Seyyedsar Thank you all for your useful comments.

8mois

miriam villegas sosa viscosity values measured using

Reliability of measured separator fluid rates

As part of planning for a well test, in my experience, it does not seem to be
standard practice to request the test operator or service company to check the
separator reliability for the operating conditions. For example, liquid carry-over
can be a potential source of error.

After a test, the engineer can valid the validity of the GOR measurements with
the Hoffman plot and ideally correct errors. However, would it not be better
avoiding such an error and requesting that the separator be tested before
being put to use? If so, why isn´t this request made? Or perhaps, I should ask:
Who in the Reservoir PVT forum makes this request?

David Tipping
8mois
 
Brian Moffatt Separator carry over should not be a problem if the
separator is operating within its working range. If it is being thrashed by
very high flow rates then carry over is inevitable, but such flow rate
would be unsuitable for PVT sampling anyway. On multiple rate tests it
is worth looking at the CGRs against several flow conditions, this can
be very revealing and give more information than the snapshot of just
the sampling period. The responsibility for testing lies with the
supervising Pet Eng who should liaise with the testing crew manager to
ensure sampling flows are within the separator spec.

Note also the highly recommended equilibrium plots (e.g. Hoffmann)

are excellent at checking that the separator steams are in equilibrium
at operating conditions. The plot however cannot say anything about
the GOR; you can’t correct a GOR with an equilibrium plot. We have to
rely on meter calibration, meters should be calibrated and the service
company should provide that verification.
Brian.

8mois

Ahmed Dawoud Problems with testing separators are related to metering

calibration, internal corrosion (leak of separated water into the clean oil
compartment and or corroded mist extractor). Such internal problems could
be identified by monitoring data consistency during a long duration testing at
stabilized flow conditions (12 hrs +). The service company should provide
certificates of latest metering calibration and separator maintenance. If
production testing is carried out for well capacity evaluation, then the smallest
production choke would be selected to collect the required samples for PVT
studies conditioned by stable behavior of the produced GOR (and others as
well). Sampling for PVT study should be carried out at smallest practical
choke that could provide stable production performance over the testing
period (ensure that bubble point pressure takes place into the well-bore).
Carry over would be attributed to unstable conditions/oil level control
problems and or corroded mist extractor.

8mois
Rob Haigh My quality control checks include
1. reviewing meter calibration reports - both liquid and gas
2. witnessing orifice plate changes and physically measuring and confirming
the plate dimensions.
3. spot checking the service company gas rate calculations.
4. validating liquid meter readings by filling and gauging a pressurized tank
5. weather the pressurized tank contents to confirm shrinkage
Is PVT Black Oil validation methods applicable to three-phase system
(G-O-W)?
I am reading paper SPE-16351 and It develops that fluid behaviour is a
product of equilibrium between all fluids (gas, oil and water). In addition, it
comment that water of reservoir could contain gas in solution (HC and/or
nonHC gases) and this could be a major impact of PVT values. If we want to
validate a Black Oil three-phase system the methods would be same to Black
Oil two-phase system but using a compositional PVT to describe three-phase
system?
8mois


Brian Moffatt Yes! For oil it makes little difference and for condensates
the presence of water has negligible effect on the hydrocarbon–
hydrocarbon K-values. Use your equilibrium plot with confidence but
exclude water from it.

Water content in gases is well documented. (eg McKetta, Bukacek and

McKetta & Wehe methods) and the excellent GPA paper by John J.
Carroll (2002) that includes sour gas.

Note that although the equilibrium plots can be used both for reservoir
(if you have a gas cap) and separator conditions.

Brian.

8mois
Ahmed Dawoud Presence of gas in bottom water has very low saturation
pressure compared to the reservoir pressure and type of oil and it saturation
pressure. The impact is very remote where that gas could be released
migrating upward and form a small gas pockets or tertiary gas cap. This gas
even would not affect properties of whatever reservoir hydrocarbons subject
for production. you can spend considerable money for such sophisticated type
of research. We are business driven.

8mois

Giancarlo Ciardiello Riera Thanks to all. Mr Brian and Mr Ahmed, I really

appreciate your feedback and useful knowledge.

8mois

Jack Lynn Be careful in discounting the effects of gas partitioned into the
water phase -- Remember that the dissolution of acid gas and methane as a
function of partial pressures are pH controls, and as such are triggers for pH
mediated corrosion and carbonate scaling issues --- Be sure to include their
effects in looking at the full range of production issues caused by systems
with free and/or condensed water phases. The PVT phase diagrams of water
phases are essential to assessing production problems, from the formation to
the disposal wells.

cheers
How to determine CVD STO properties of a Dry Gas sample

Hi everyone, I need help.

I'm currently working on a Recombined Seperator sample (RSS) Dry Gas.
The Lab analyst has done Constant Volume Depletion (CVD) test on the
sample and the data has been passed to me for Analysis. The issue now is
there was no …
9mois

Hamam Yousef

Hamam Yousef Mr.Obafemi,

Based on my humble academic experience, your sample was first either a
volatile oil or gas condensate after it passed the Flash Separation Test 'FST'
for a known stage say three stages, it finally resulted in a dry gas. You want to
find the PVT properties of this sample from the CVD "That is your question".
Answer:
The reported data from the CVD differs significantly form that of FST, so
use only the data for the CVD to determine the properties. On the other hand,
If you want to use the FST data ,well, FST alone would not yield the correct
properties (Rs, Bo) until it is used with Differential Liberation Test "DLT", to
find the correct (Rs,Bo), other properties can be found using correlations
related to Rs and Bo,...etc.

To check your results in Lab, these experiments are normally matched with
an Equation of State model.

Regards,Hamam

9mois
Jeff Creek

Jeff Creek Typically one does not produce a totally depleted liquid in a CVD.
The last stage for abandonment is typically about 500 psia. If it is a gas
reservoir, especially a lean gas reservoir, the CVD assumes no liquid
production. If one wants such data it can be readily estimated through
equation of state simulation where the residual liquid composition at
abandonment can be numerically flashed through production separators to
stock tank

9mois
Aleksandr Borisov

Aleksandr Borisov I agree with Brian and Ahmed. The definition of a dry gas is
"there is no STO liquid produced". So, probably Obafemy made a little
mistake and the fluid from the reservoir is not a really dry gas, otherwise there
should not be significant values of a liquid to make CVD experiments. In case
you have a full CVD-report, so you can use simulating tools to get STO
properties.

9mois
Obafemi Adegoke

Obafemi Adegoke Ok, thank you all. I'm indeed grateful for the replies. I must
say now I'm happy to join this group and I'm aware now that I have a family of
Pet. Engrs. to share problems and solutions with. Having said that please let
me take the response one after the other. First, @Klajdi Mertice I'll likely use
the PVT Pro this morning to simulate, but I dont expect to generate all all
compisitions as the software has that limitation. @Brian Moffatt the reservoir
is a dry gas reservoir from Niger Delta in Nigeria. But as I have discovered, no
dry gas is "SO ABSOLUTELY" dry, it will flash at ambient (may jst be
negligible). I don't have welltest data. I only have a sample taken from the
surface assembly (seperator). which my lab guys has done CCE, CVD and
Multi-stage Seperator test on. My portion is to generate a PVT report based
on what the Lab And GC guys gives me. My field GOR is 160657scf/stb

9mois
Obafemi Adegoke
Obafemi Adegoke @Ahmed and others..let me reiterate the situation again. A
sub-surface gas sample got to the surface assembly and separated into two
streams of gas and oil. I received the two sep. samples and in my lab and it
was recombined at specified field conditions to get the reservoir fluid back.
Now I'm to analyse this reservoir fluid after I've done some tests on it- CCE
test, CVD test and Sep test. I did CCE test and at the end I flashed to ambient
and I obtained residual oil enough for analysis by the Gas/Liquid Composition
Lab guys using their High Perfomance Liquid Chromatography machine, from
where I can obtain the C1-C30+ components and density and molecular
weight of the residual oil. No same is done for CVD..at the last stage of CVD, I
should get a residual oil which will pass through same process but it is a very
lean sample, residual oil was not gotten but I was shown traces of condensed
liquid on the wall tube of the seperator. Obviously, there no enough STO from
CVD for HPLC to anaylis. Now the buck stops at my table to solve the
problem which is "Generate properties for the CVD residual oil" using either
CVD properties at saturation or CCE STO properties. Remember,
"density@DF" > "density@DLorCVD" > "density@Sep test". @Borisov, well
CVD is strictly for Dry/condensate reservoirs, it is the equivalent test for DL
done on black/volatile oil. I hope I'm able to explain ma problem better. Mr.
Jeff Creek seems to get the problem I'm facing. Please do well to expanciate
on how to get the data using EOS..or please gimme literature source/link I
could read up. Thank you all

9mois
Alexey Sokolov

Alexey Sokolov I would bet on at least 85% condensate recovery given that
Pinit = Pdew. I would be more certain if you confirm Pdew and aromatics and
naphthenes content in your particular sample.

9mois
Brian Moffatt

Brian Moffatt Hi Obafemi,

I fear that if you are after "Generate properties for the CVD residual oil" you
are chasing the wrong target; even if you gained a result it is likely to be
inaccurate and unhelpful. Better to focus on the good information you have,
especially the separator liquid properties and composition.

You are obviously producing liquid at surface so the reservoir cannot, by

definition, be a dry gas; it may be a “wet gas” meaning it produces liquid
hydrocarbon only at surface or a “gas condensate” which additionally deposits
liquid in the reservoir.

There must have been some welltest separator data rates and GORs for the
recombination to have been performed; you need to get these from the
welltest operator. Your Company will have them somewhere, ask for it.

Suggested workflow:
• Check the separator oil and gas compositions at separator conditions in an
equilibrium plot
• QC the samples
• Access the welltest rates to see the trend CGR across time and that the
recombination was correct
• Tune your model using the mathematically recombined composition against
the welltest separator density, welltest CGR (High importance); the CCE and
/or CVD Z factor (medium importance) and the dewpoint (lowest importance in
a lean system.)
• Change your model conditions to anticipated production separator scheme
before you export the black oil model.

Don’t forget, the recombined samples lab study relies on the welltest rate data
and will carry its errors, so it is useful to calibrate against the welltest GORs
directly where you can especially for a lean condensate. I have sent you a
paper on this.

Brian.

9mois
Sylvain J&#39;wardane

Sylvain J'wardane Obafemi,

If I understand correctly,what you require are the properties of "missing" liquid
or the traces of liquid such that you can create the final report from from the
available measured data sets. Here's what you need to do:
1. Perform a mole balance and mass balance starting with your original
reservoir fluid and successively subtract the moles and masses you produce
out at each CVD step. Of course you do this for each component, this is
known as component mole balancing. You can easily do this with Excel, if you
need an example I can send you an excel sheet. This process is simply a
mathematical subtraction technique. Once you have reached to the last stage
you will have calculated the last stage liquid composition, assuming no losses.
2. Use the mathematically obtained liquid composition as input into any EoS
package and compute liquid properties. Again if you do not have one, I can
send you a small routine that I have written in C.
3. State clearly that properties ..

8mois
Obafemi Adegoke

Obafemi Adegoke Sylvain,

Thank you sir. Please do forward the excel sheet and other relevant doc to my
mail box. adegokeobafemi@yahoo.com.

Properties like Residual oil density, specific gravity, molecular weight etc.

8mois
feteh Aoun
Répondre à cette discussion…
Répondre à cette discussion…

Dew point in gas condensate reservoir

Hello,

in a gas condensate reservoir, the original reservoir pressure is the same as

the dew pressure is that means there is an oil rim in a thermodynamic balance
with the gas phase?

9mois


Brian Moffatt The dewpoint at reservoir pressure indicates only that it is
possible. An oil rim is dependent on how the gas condensate was
formed. Two possibilities follow.

• If it was formed from an even richer gas condensate which had

migrated from deeper hotter conditions to cooler shallower depths, then
this would leave a thin trail of condensate along the migration path and
so there will be no oil rim.

• If the condensate was formed from gas migrating into an oil reservoir,
then there will be an oil rim, though this may be thin and no guarantee
it could be produced. You may be lucky though!

Analogous local fields may tip the probability in favour of an oil rim if
they were formed under similar conditions, ask your geologists.

If you have samples from deeper accumulations they may also give
clues; we recently modelled multiple reservoirs comprising an entire oil,
gas and gas condensate reservoir system based on phase behaviour
changes and geochemistry. This explained properties, GORs and
compositions across the migratory system and confirmed an oil rim as
part of the process.

Best confirmation is to drill through it!

Brain.

9mois
Ahmed Dawoud It depends at what depth you sampled your gas, If the dew
point pressure is similar to the reservoir pressure at that specific depth, then
you would be at the critical point of the reservoir fluid and you might have an
oil rim or it could be and oil reservoir with a small gas cap. You should know
from Density-Neutron Log that would clearly show a gas cap and a possible
GOC where you collected your sample. An MDT pressure points would
indicate both oil and gas gradients in the reservoir.

9mois

Alexey Sokolov IF there is an oil rim THEN dew point is often at initial
pressure, NOT always in reverse.

I suggest to look at butane content in your sample composition first. IF iC4 is

at least 10% less than nC4 THEN there is great chance for an oil rim.

Show me the composition and I will tell you more!


9mois

Juan Diego Suarez Fromm Excelent comment Brian. Agree with you.

9mois

Brian Moffatt That is interesting Alexey; any references or experience you can
share?

9mois
Alexey Sokolov This C4-based technique is Soviet staff that dates back to
1950-60s. I think it is possible to find something like that published in English,
some research must have done on the topic outside the Soviet Bloc.

I validated this approach and elaborated it on data I had access to, and it
works reasonably good if applied on proper samples.

As was pointed out before it must also depend on formation and saturation
pressure gradients governed by actual reservoir fluid density whether
equilibrated oil rim has a chance to exist or not.

Hoffman plot Qc
Hi all, in order to check the linearity of the points on the Hoffman plot (log(k*p)
vs F) I make an exponential tendance curve, and the correlation coeff is close
to 1, is that correct ?

9mois


Brian Moffatt You may find it more useful as a diagnostic tool to see
how the plot may deviate from linearity. For instance, does it indicate
loss of heavy ends in gas from a hot separator, or that the temperature
or pressure are inconsistent with equilibrium conditions?

Useful also to plot on the same graph the k-values from an EoS flash of
the wellstream alongside your separator product k-values for
comparison. If then plot over each other you have validated your data.

Brian.

9mois

Hamam Yousef Yes that is correct in case of an exponential model b=1.


9mois
Abdelkrim Aguenini Thx Brian I will try that

9mois

Abdelkrim Aguenini it's not exponential model, I did beacause no model can
behave linear in this case except the exponential model

9mois

Brian Moffatt The plot of Log(k*P) is linear, without the "Log" it is exponential.

9mois

Abdelkrim Aguenini If you log(y) vs x you need the exponentiel trend to get
linear behave, that's what I mean Brian, is this ok ?

9mois

Brian Moffatt See the original paper, SPE-000219. I will send you a graph too!
Brian.

9mois
Brian Moffatt Simpler and easier to use the EoS generated k-values instead of
the Standing correlation so your model is consistent throughout.

Brian,
Grouping of compositions in PVTi
I tried different grouping for my components and i never get similar phase plot
when i super imposed with un grouped phase plot, what reasons could be
behind that? Any advises to overcome this issue?

Steve Furnival Hi Imad

You are working with a mathematical model in which the Equation of
State (EoS) parameters are functions of pressure, temperature,
composition and component properties such as critical temperature,
critical pressure, acentric factor and binary interaction parameters.
When you group components, you are creating new components
whose properties are some "average" of the members of the group.
You are also changing the composition. Hence when your software
assembles the EoS parameters, you would expect some differences.
If your phase plots are changing substantially between ungrouped and
grouped definitions, I would suggest your grouping is sub-optimal.
As ever, I'd recommend you read the SPE Phase Behavior Monograph
by Whitson & Brule. They discuss a technique called stepwise
regression that can (and should?) be used when pseudoising a fluid
description, say for use in a compositional reservoir simulator.
Regards

Selecting PVT data to match

Hello,

What is the minimum data to input for regression in PVT analysis and what is
the appropriate weighting to allocate to them?

Thank you.

10mois


Brian Moffatt Do you have any PVT studies, any measured data?
o
10mois
Nnaemeka Nsude Hello Brian,

Yes....I have CCE, DL, Viscosity and Single stage separator test data.

10mois

Brian Moffatt Good; you have enough! QC the data as appropriate, create
your fluid model and make it do what you want.

Remember Bo, Bg and Rs are a function of both reservoir and process

conditions. Oil viscosity and density are functions of reservoir conditions only.
When you tune your model make sure the same conditions from reservoir and
surface and the route between them are identical for Bo, Bg and Rs.

If you are modelling production and have good separator rates calibrate or
check against those too.

Brian.

10mois

Nnaemeka Nsude Hello Brian,

Thank you for your insights. I am grateful.


10mois

Tarek Ahmed When dealing with condensate systems; don't assign too large
regression weight values on relative volume, or matching fluid properties that
are inter-related, i.e. if you match Z-factor then don't place high regression
weights on RF, gas density, gas viscosity (never measured); focus on LDO,
condensate yield,.etc.

Dr. Tarek Ahmed


10mois

Brian Moffatt I agree with Tarek about related properties but I take the
opposite view of the importance of the relative volume versus liquid dropout.

The relative volume from a CCE conserves mass and is accurately controlled
volumetrically. Assuming …

10mois

Tarek Ahmed Brian, Thanks for your comment...The relative volume from the
CCE test is very misleading to match; it gives you the feeling that EOS
perfectly tuned. The reason for that is the reference volume in the ratio is Vsat
as expressed at the SAME TEMPERTAURE and High Pressure as VL, i.e.
(VL)/Vsat, there is an error with each but somehow they cancel out. If you
tune EOS to match the CCE rel vol it will give almost same results without
tuning.
You will notice when dealing with oil, Bo and Rs are expressed in reference to
ST, that is different T and P and perhaps will take more iterations to match
that rel vol
Regarding RF from CVD, notice that RF = 1 -(Zd P/ Z Pd) and density
M P/ZRT, I feel matching Z will automatically achieve good match with others
inter-related properties.
Regarding Z-2phase = Zd P/[Pd (1-RF)], again matching the z-factor has a lot
of benefits...

One more comment, engineers have to be sure that they are matching
condensate yield not condensate-gas ratio

Thanks

Tarek

10mois
Mohamed Adly if it is a simple black oil model and this seems to be the case
based on your fluid API., you may dont have to spend time to build EOS
model and you just need to build simple fluid model using the avialble
correlations and regress the measured PVT data to it. once matched export it
to whatever surface conditions you have.

10mois

Alan Stephen The question as posed assumes that there is a simple answer
that covers all eos applications. What type of fluid are you working on?
Gas/gas condensate/ volatile oil/ black oll/ viscous oil? What process are you
modelling? Primary depletion? Dry gas injection? Water injection? Miscible
gas injection? In the reservoir? Well Bore? Flow Line? Facility?

The better you describe the problem the better and more relevant the
response you will get.

10mois

Nnaemeka Nsude @Alan Stephen....thank you for your response....i am trying

to model a 38.7API oil for primary depletion. Thank you.

Splitting Pseudocomponents in PVT Analysis
Hi,

I observe that after automatching to modify the pseudocomponent properties

in order to match density at standard conditions, I notice that separator GOR
and density at STD are close. However, after splitting the pseudocomponents,
the saturation pressure achieves a very close match to reported values but
separator GOR and density at STD becomes way above the reported values.
This could mean that I need to restore pseudocomponent and repeat the
splitting process. Are there better ways of performing the splitting process so
as to achieve separator GOR and density at STD much closer to reported
values?
Thank you.
10mois


Jeff Creek if "automatch" used is this with PVTp? If yes ask Petroleum
Experts why this is not working. You might use "automatch" after
splitting and see how that works. The splitting may remove the
characterization achieved during "automatch."

good luck,

Jeff
o
10mois

Nnaemeka Nsude Thank you very much for the replies. Would attempt
splitting pseudocomponent first before automatching and see how that works
out.
Tuning EoS: ranges for the Tc, Pc, AF and VS multipliers applied on
pseudo-components
Are there any recommendations for the multiplier ranges applied on pseudo-
components, while tuning an EoS?
I have seen that 10-20% are acceptable for Tc and Pc . But, for the volume
shift (VS) apparently less changes has to be applied, <5%; otherwise EoS
might have a limited predictability.
Is it valid? If the VS multiplier, which gives a perfect match, is "-2". Does it
signify an over-tuned and skewed EoS?
10mois


Brian Moffatt Hi Maksim,

Do you find this with all your pseudo-components or just the heaviest?

If the latter, how much Cn+ is there and what is n?

Brian.
o
10mois
Ahmed Dawoud You are within the acceptable ranges. However there is no
unique match that can tell you have the real EoS that represents your
reservoir oil. The level of uncertainties has forced the industry to accept the
best match you can achieve for the number of PVT data. More data from PVT
studies for sure would make your tuned EoS more representative.

10mois

Jeff Creek Maksim

the choice of parameter range should be governed by remembering one is

setting parameters for the total oil or condensate. There should be a
systematic trend with boiling point. 'the molecular weight and density vary
systematically with increasing boiling point. One can correlate Tc, Pc, and
acentric factor as a function of any two of the pseudo component boiling point,
molecular weight, or density. therefore the range of variation should be
dictated by maintaining a systematic trend of primary properties as a function
of carbon number which is effectively a boiling point. this also avoids
distributing all the functional error in a single component and creating
nonphysical values

10mois

Maksim Faizullin Sorry, I thought I have posted my reply.

Brian, preudos in this case represent: C6, C7, C8, C9 and C10+. It is not a
perfect grouping, but as I understood was used to save some time.

10mois

Maksim Faizullin Jeff, I see. Yes, the common trends and sense has to be
preserved, for sure.

10mois
Abdelkrim Aguenini For C6 you let it alone, and group the other component
and try again

QUESTION ABOUT GOR MATCHING IN PVTi

hi all ..... during the matching of my pvt model ..... which GOR observation i
must focus in the matching . DL GOR or SEPARATORS GOR ?? in case that
i can't match both exactly

11mois


Brian Moffatt You are unlikely to match both exactly! If you have
surface rate data look at those and check consistency against
drawdown pressure and separator conditions and use those as well.
o
11mois

Amine BELHADJ MAHAMMED thanks Mr Brian ..... i will chek my data a gain

11mois

Ahmed Dawoud Since your input is mainly composition of the reservoir fluid at
standard conditions, you would be matching Gas In Solution and Formation
Volume Factors from the DL experiment that should have been corrected to
the flash experiment i.e. you need to correct Gas in solution and Formation
Volume Factors in the DL to the separation test of the same study and use it
tom match in PVTi or PVTsim

11mois

Amine BELHADJ MAHAMMED thanks Mr.Ahmed


11mois
abdallah youssef As you know we've to correct GOR from Dl to Sep
conditions
so, first we must match DL GOR
then if the corrected GOR is not matched with Sep GOR we've to correct
RSbf(GOR @ Pb from sep test)

11mois

Amine BELHADJ MAHAMMED thanks Mr abdellah .... Good , it 's the work i
did .... and i got a good matching as result .... thanks for the answer
PVTI regression problem
Hi everyone ..... i can't find the parameters that i need to regress the Oil rel
Volume "Bo" ?????

11mois


Abdulmagid M A Bugazia Its really a slow process you have to try, also
it varies from type of fluid to another.
o
11mois

Abdulmagid M A Bugazia In my short knowledge, alterations on volume shifts

parameters can can make a noticeable change on Bo, just make sure to
monitor the changes that will consequently accure in GOR, Bo and Liquid
density trends.

11mois
Amine BELHADJ MAHAMMED thanks for the wide information Mr.Magid

Hi everyone .... request PVTi tutorials
hi everyone ..... i am a fresh user of PVTi ..... and i need so exercices to
practice it .... not the same found in eclipse manual plz


11mois

Répondre à cette discussion…Répondre à cette discussion…

Imad Ahmed
Junior Reservoir Engineer at SOPCO

Under Saturated Oil

for a live oil reservoir that is initially under saturated, why do we have different
initial solution gas oil ratio and so different tables as simulation input
generated by PVTi.

11mois


Azza Hashim Is it the same pressure and temperature .. ???

Ihope iam correct in saying that .

If you want to discuss the gas and oil behaviour you need to generate
the phase diagram
 Phase diagram for each pressure under constant temp .. will varry
according to your gas specification .. even in dead oil you will notice
this situation under and above the pb
So the state of constant at .. in every literature review is not completely
agreed on ..
..

11mois

Imad Ahmed Thanks Azza

Actually more than one table is generated with different Pb for each, that is
what i exactly want to understand!!

11mois

Brian Moffatt Hi Imad,

It is the same for all PVT software and it is to cover all eventualities without
annoying the user with error messages caused by extrapolating to unknown
PVT space.

Suppose for instance you depleted your reservoir below the bubblepoint,
formed a gas cap then repressurised with water injection to increase
production rates. This would dissolve the gas cap back into the oil and locally
form an oil with higher Rs than you started with. By extending the black oil
tables to such a range of solution gas the reservoir simulation can continue
without extrapolation errors.

Probably it won’t be needed, but it is there in case without troubling you for
more information.

Brian.

11mois
Ahmed Dawoud Imad, I hope I picked your concern correctly. Under-saturated
oil with different tables that would have different initial gas in solutions and
different saturation pressures should be based on actual PVT studies for
different samples collected from different wells in the same reservoir. These
different tables in modeling a reservoir would be attributed to lateral and
vertical variations in reservoir fluid samples that worth to mimic to understand
why such variation should exist. Such is common in heterogeneous reservoirs
with gas cap. The critical point of such reservoir should represent equal
values for Bubble Point and Dew Point as well as Reservoir Pressure at the
gas oil contact depth. Samples collected bellow the gas oil contact would
have different values of gas in solutions and saturation pressures but not
characterized as Under-saturated oil reservoir.
how much phase diagram is important working with gas condensate in
PVTi?
hello all,
I used PVTi for my gas condensate data, I had to reduce the number of
components and this disturbed the dewpoint match. After some regression (
on plus fraction omega A, and BIC) dewpoint and all graphs are in good
match with experiment but the problem is in phase diagram now. I have
convergence problem with bubble point line and critical point, an interrupted
bubble line,
how important is this problem? and what should I do?
Thank you all
1an


Alexey Sokolov Maryam,

There is great chance that what you see is just a visualization bug. Try
to check missing points with flash or with dedicated CVD test to
understand actual phase behavior.
o
1an

Zohrab Dastkhan This behavior happens because of BIC's effect on flash

calculations where nv reaches 0. Using another PVT package most likely
resolves it. Usually it's not important as initial reservoir P and T and pressure
changes during production are far from bubble point curve, I mean they fall on
the right side of the critical point.

1an

Maryam Ghasemi Thank you


1an

Jeff Creek Maryam,

A few points on your questions:

* "After some regression ( on plus fraction omega A, and BIC) dewpoint and
all graphs are in good match with experiment but the problem is in phase
diagram now. I have convergence problem with bubble point line and critical
point, an interrupted bubble line" adjusting Omega A and BIC are both
primarily adjusting the Aij pair potential. I suggest Omega A and Omega B
instead.

* I agree with the previous comment on clarity regarding convergence. Try the
flash routine to find whether or not roots exist or perhaps a stability routine if
available. The flash routine is the most robust of all simulation options.

* "how important is this problem?" the problem is only important at reservoir

temperature if you are doing reservoir simulation. It is important at reservoir
and lower temperatures for flow assurance and facilities simulations.

* "and what should I do?" check both retrograde liquid curve from CCE or
CVD with simulation vs experiment. This should show the liquid phase
performance and lead to the dew point at zero liquid. Also verify that density
and viscosity predictions are correct since these are most important

Cheers, Jeff

1an

Brian Moffatt Further to Jeff's comments, I would not advise matching to the
gas condensate viscosity unless it has been measured.

PVT reports tabulate the viscosity of gas condensates above dewpoint from
correlations unless the client specifically asks for it to be measured. However
the viscosity prediction in commercial PVT software is usually better than the
correlations used by the labs; the Pedersen method for instance works well
for gas condensates especially when the EoS also predicts the single phase
density well.

So unless it has been measured, I would not recommend matching to

viscosity from correlation.

Brian.
