USMS

019438 Reservoir Engineering Aspects of Bottomk~le Sampling of

Saturated Oils for PVT A“;alysis
B.F. Towler,
—. U. of WyomLng I

Copyright 1990 Society of Petroleum Engineem

Thismanuscriptwasprovidedto theSocietyof PetroleumEngineersfordistribution
andpossiblepublicationin an SPEjournal.The materialis subjectto correction
by the author(s).Permissionto copyis restrictedto an abstractof not morethan
300words.WriteSPEBookOrderDept.,LibraryTechnician,P.O.Box833836,
Richardson,TX 75083-3836U.S.A.Telex730989SPEDAL.
 .I~EC’D
.
iUG28 1989
UNSOLICITED I
SPE
PUBLICATIONS

Resewoir EngineeringAspects of

Sampling of Saturated Oils for

PV? Analysis

by

Elrian F. Towler

Dept Petroleum Engineering

University of Wyoming
P.O. Box 3295
Laramie,WY, 82(371

.-
 -, *E 1$?438
.. . .

SUMMARY

It is shown that whsn a well is conditioned for bottom-hole sampling of

saturated or near saturated reservoirsthe well-bore fluid will usually not be in
equilibrium with the reservoir fluid and this results in under-saturated oil samples
which is unsatisfactory for PVT analysis of the resewoir fluid. Carefullytaken
separator samples early in the reservoir Iiie will likely yield more representative
reservoir fluid samples for PVT analysis.This is illustrated in application to the
Mereenie resemoir in Australia’s Amadeus basin.

..

.
. :-
..-.-....”.
.,
Introduction

Sampling of resewoir fluids for pm analysis is essential for accurate

resewoir management. These data are necessaryfor input into material balance
calculations and resewoir simulations and enables conversion of resewoir fluid
flow calculations into stock tank volume%There are two accepted methods for
sampling of reservoir fluids for laborato~ measurement of PVT prope~ies. The
first is by taking separator samples cdthe wellheadwhere the oil and gas streams
from the separator are recombined in the laboratory at resewoir temperature and
pressure and at the same ratios as their flow .’ateswere measured in the
separator. The second method involves takhg bottom-hole samples in a sampling
chamber lowered on a wire-line to tne perforations. The fluid is transferred to the
PW cell in the laboratory and Pm experiments are then carried out at the
reservoir conditions.
It is generally claimed’&3that, provided the well is properly condtiioned
before sampling, the bottom-hole sampling method is the more accurate although
the more expensive method. However it will be shown in this paper that for a
saturated reservoir the bottom-hole sampling method can not yield a saturated
sample and more accurate PVT results are likely to be obtained from a I
recombiried separator sample.

Saturated Reservoirs

A saturated reservoir is one where the oil at the highest level of the oil
column contains as much gas as can be dissolved at that temperature and
pressure. Hence at this level the bubble point or saturation pressure of the oil is
equal to the resewoir pressure. An oil column in contact with a gas cap will be
saturated at the gas-oil contact (GOC) and thus is termed a saturated reservoir
even though the oil below the gas-oil contact is not saturated. Normally the oil will
have an approximately constant gas-oil ratio (GOR)eve~here throughout the
resewoir. Thermodynamic equilibrium demands that in the absence of a
gravitational field the partial molar Gibbs function (and hence the fugacity) of each
component is constant in each phase, This implies that the composition in each
phase must be constant with depth and areal position. Taking gravity into account
the partial molar Gibbs function of each component actually increases slightly with
depth and hence the gas-oil ratio also increases slightly with depth. This
phenc}menais a fairly small effect but will be examined in more detail in a separate
paper. In terms of more familiar thermodynamic properties when the gas dissolves
in the oil it swells the oil making it less dense. Hence if the oil below the GOC had
more gas dissolved in it there would be lighter oil underneath heavy oil creating a
gravitationally unstable situation.
It is grav’nationallyfeasible to have less gas dissolved in the oil below the
gas oil contact However, over geologic time molecular diffusion and gravity
should cause the fluids in each phase in the reservoir to bxome homogeneous
and hence in ttwmodynamic equilibrium. This means that the GOR will be
approximately constant throughout the resewoir. There are reservoim where thk is
not the case but this is probably because the resetvoir is still in a process of being
charged by the source rock and has not reached thermodynamic (i.e. phase and
molecular) equilibrium.
However even though the oil has a constant GOR and constant density, and
hence a constant bubble point pressure throughout the reservoir, the pressure in
the reservoir increases wtih depth. This means that below the gas-oil contact the
bubble point pressure of the oil will not equal the resewoir pressure. Hence the
reservoir is really only saturated at the gas-oil contact.
It is very rare for a reservoir to be saturated and not have a gas-oil contact.
However it is theoretically possible and the Kupuruk resewoir in Alaska has been
reported to be saturated even though no gas cap has been identified.

conditionina The ReservoirFor Bottom-hole Samolinq

To condition a resetvoir for bottom-hole sampling the recommended’~’
procedure is to flow the well at a slow rate for a shoti period( 24 hrs is typical) to
get fresh oil into the well-bore.Then the well is shut in to allow the pressure to
build back up to near reservoir pressure. l%k usually takes from one to three
days. Then the sampling chamber is lowered on the wire-line to take the sample.
While the well is flowing, the oil pressure at some point in the reservoir or the
well-bore will fall below the saturation pressure and some of the gas will come out
of solution. When the well is shut in again to build up the pressure some of this
gas will go back into solution. However the oil near the top of the well-bore will be
at a pressure much lower than resetvoir pressure. Hence the oil will have much
less gas dissolved in it than in the reservoir. During the shut-in period the less
dense oil with more gas dissolved in it at the bottom of the well-bore will rise to
the top of the well-bore column and release some of ‘ksgas. This will cause a gas
cap to form in the well-bore and the oil in the well-bore will settle with a constant
gas oil ratio over the entire length of the well-bore below the gas-oil contact in the
well-bore. This gas oil ratio will be much less than the gas oil ratio in the reservoir.
This will mean the oil in the well-bore is not in equilibrium with the oil in the
reservoir and the well-bore has formed a separate reservoir with a separate gas oil
contact and different gas oil ratio. Since these two systems are in contact through
the perforations the oils would eventuallycome to equiijbrium through the process
of molecular d~sion. During this process some of the resewoir gas would d~se
into the well-bore and gravity would then carry this gas rich oil up to the well-b=
gas oil contact. The extra gas would be released on the way up and the well-bore
gas cap would increase.
Over a long period of time the gas oil contact would slowly move down the
well-bore and the gas oil ratio of the oil in the well-bore would slowly increase.
When the gas oil contact in the well-bore reached the same level as the gas oil
contact in the reservoir the gas oil ratio of the oil in the well-bore would equal that
of the oil in the reservoir. However this would take many years to achieve.
Hence using the conditioning process above, as recommended in the
literature, would result in capturing an u!I sample that is under-saturated as
compared to the reservoir oil. Even oils that are under-saturated in the reservoir
are likely to result in samples in the well-bore that are even more under-saturated
than in the resewoir, using the above arguments. Any well that has a gas cap in
the well-bore is unlikelyto have fluid in the well-bore that is in equilibrium with the
reservoir fluid.

.—
‘1
<>,
R- remended Samdina Procedures

If bottom-hole sampling is likely to result in samples that are more under-

saturated than oil in the resetvoir how does one obtain representativefluid
samples for PVT analysis?
(1) One solution is to use recombined separator samples. lWs method oan
have its own problems because in certain circumstances the producing gas oil
ratio will not equal the reservoir gas oil ratio. However if the samplesare taken
before the reservoir is put on extended produti”on and the well is allowed to settle
down to a constant rate, an accurate reservoir sample will be obtained. If the
reservoir oil is saturated at some point in the reservoir then after the well has
flowed for some time the pressure around the well will ~ to be drawn down and
gas will break out of solution in the formation. During this time the producing gas-
oil ratio will fall slightly. When the gas saturation in the reservoir reaches a oertain
critical saturation, free gas will start to flow along with oil in the resenmir.Then the
producing gas oil ratio of the well will start to rise and will not be the same as the
reservoir oil. This is the reason it is vital that the separator samples be taken early
in the producing life of the reservoir.
(2) If it is known that the reservoir has a gas cap and the pressure at the gas
oil contact is known, the oil at the gas oil oontact is in equilibriumwith the gas
oap. Hence the saturation pressure of the oil must be equal to the pressure at the
gas oil contact and this should be the saturation pressure throughout the
reservoir. Hence if bottom-hole oil samples are obtained their PW data can be
extrapolated to the known saturation pressure. Extrapolating solution gas oil ratios
and formation volume faotors to higher saturation pressures can be accomplished
by making a plot of these parameters versus pressure. However, to extrapolate oil
viscosities to a higher saturation pressure the reciprocal of viscosity (or fluidity)
must be plotted.

Application to a Field ExamolQ

These observations were developed during the course of obtaining PVT data
for the Mereenie reservoir in the Amadeus basin in Australia.Some of the reservoir
details have been presented elsewhere but the PVT data will be re-examinedhere
to illustrate the points made above.
The reservoir is a very long (40 kms long) narrow anticline consisting of a
large gas cap with an oil leg. Production comes from the Cambro-Ordovicianage
Pacoota sandstone which is broadly spiii into four major sand groups, the pl, pZ
P3, and P4. There area large number of individual sands, some of which oould be
in communication with each other, but others appear to act as separate
resewoirs. In each indiiduai sand the oil leg appears as a rim around the steeply
dipping anticline.
Tables 2 and 3 show the basic PVT properties of the oil in the main
resemoirs. The oils in other sands vary siighdy, but over ail, the various oiis have
fair!y sirniiar properties as those shown in Tabies 2 and 3. Aii the sands appear to
have the same gas oil oontact across the field at -2130 ft from mean sea
 level(MSL).However, several CMferentoii water contacts have been detected
across the field. For examplethe PI-60 sand on the easternnose of the field has
an oil water contact at -2660ft MSL whilethe oilwater contactin the P3 reservoirs
has been determined at-2450 ft MSLon the eastern nose and at -2360ft MSL in
West Mereenie No.4 in the western P* of the field.Well locations are shown in
Figs 1(a) and 1(b). This difference in the oil water contacts in the P3 reservoirs
may in pad be due to aquifer hydrodynamics causing a titt in the contacts from
west to east along the anticline.Other details of the field are given by Towlerz”.

Bottom hole samples of oil were obtained from six different wells at Mereenieand
analyzed by comprehensive PVTstudies.

Included in this study are four P3 oil samples from EM 4, EM 7, EM 11 and WM 3

and two PI-60 oil samples from EM 6 and EM 8. The two P1 wells are probably
in the same reservoir and EM 4 and EM 7 are definitely in communication. But
EM 11 and WM 3 both appear to be in separate P3 reservoirs.

The Mereeniestructure is known to have recoverable oil in three separate sand

units i.e. the PI, P3, and P4 sands, each of which is over-lair by a large gas cap.
Hence the oil from each of these units is believed to be saturated. However, only
the EM 6 sample was saturated and some of the samples appeared to be as
much as 500 psi under-saturated. This disparity is believedto be due to the
bottom hole sampling techniques but the methods of extrapolatingthe data are
discussed.

The sampling dates and overall resutts for each well are shown in Table 1. These
show that all samples except EM 6 are under-saturated. Moreover, there is a wide
discrepancy h the saturation pressures of each sample. The dtierential liberation
experimental results are shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2 shows the GOR as a function of pressure for all wells sampled. this
shows that three of the P3 wells (EM 7, EM 11 and WM 3) fall almost along the
same line, though their ultimate saturation pressures are somewhat different.
Moreover, the slope of the lines is approximately 0.35 SCF/(STB.psi), which is a
fairly shallow slope. This means that a loss of only 35 SCF of gas per barrel of oil
from the sample (or about 4% of the gas) will decrease the saturation pressure by
100 psi. So it seems obvious that the oil samples appear to be under-saturated
because of fairly small amounts of gas being lost.

Of the PI samples there is a wide discrepancy between the results as plotted in

Figures2 and 3, but the EM 8 sample shows a result fairly close to the previously
mentioned P3 samples. On the other hand, though the EM 6 result is somewhat
higher than the other samples, it is the only saturated sample collected.

me expected saturation pressure is 1774 psig for the P3 samples and 1740 psig
for the PI samples as these are the pressures at their respective gas/oil contacts.
At the gas/oil contact the oil should be saturated with the gas with which it is in
contact. Elsewherein the oil column, to remain in equilibrium,the oil should have
a similar gas/oil ratio as at the contact and hence the saturation pressure shouid

. .
be constant throughout the field.

To condition these wells for sampling each was flowed at a low rate for twenty-
four hours and built-up for fo~-eight hours before the sample was taken. The
well is flowed at a rate as low as possible so that the well bottom hole pressxe is
not drawn down too much. However in tight formations such as these, there is a
certain amount of draw-down which causes gas to be liberated at the bottom.
Because of the well bore hydraulics this gas tends to flow up the hole faster than
the oil, leaving the oil at the bottom partially depleted of gas.

Then after shut-in, the oil at the top of the oil column being at a lower pressure
than the resewoir oil tends to liberate more gas. Oil that has lost gas becomes
denser and tends to sink to the bottom of the well bore. Hence it is not surprising
that oil collected at the bottom of the hole is not gas saturated.

Hence, accepting that the oil samples collected were originally saturated, one can
extrapolate the data shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4 to the appropriate saturation
pressure. To extrapolate the oil viscosity to the known saturation pressure it is
necessary to first plot the data as reciprocal of viscosity (or fluid~) as shown in
Fig 4. After extrapolation the data from EM 7, EM 11 and WM 3 were averaged to
give reasonable fluid property data for P3 oils. This is shown in Table 2, but the
salient reservoir properties are a GOR of 645 SCF/B, a formation volume factor of
1.5 RB/STB and a viscosity of 0.36 cp. A full compositional analysis of the oils is
shown in Tables 4 and 5.

It is postulated that there are at least three separate P3 reservoirs around the
Mereenie anticline. The evidence of this is based on a series of well interference
tests and pressure measurements in various wells. Interference tests between EM
7 and EM 4 established communication between those wells. A similar
interference test established communication between EM 11 and EM 12.
However, the interference test between EM ‘i2 and EM 4 showed that there was
no communication between those wells, suggesting separate resewoirs.
Moreover the build-up analysis from EM 12 revealed the existence of a fault or
similar linear flow barrier close to EM 12 giving further evidence of separate P3
reservoirs in the area. However, the recent pressures in the MO reservoirs appear
to be similar as shown in Table 7.

On the other hand WM 3 has on two occasions (on 4/6/63 and 6/12/63)
exhibited pressures which extrapolateto a value approximately40 psi above the
value at the same datum level in the other P3 wells. This could be indicative of a
third P3 reservoir. However as shown on Table 7 the latest pressure measured in
the well is more similar to the other P3 wells. Hence though the evidence for three
P3 resewoirs is far from conclusive, the possibilii exists that EM 11, EM 7 and
WM 3 are completed in separate P3 reservoirs. Despite this, the oil properties are
very similar, falling c!ose to the same straight line as a function of pressure.

The EM 6 sample was the only saturated sample collected and it is accepted as
being representativeof the P1-60 oil. The saturation pressure measured is
actually higher than the pressure at the gas/oil contact in this reservoir, but this

.,.
 #?E19438 -

could he, becausethe pressurehas beendrawndownin the gas-cap due to gas ~ I

being taken for drilling. The GOR measured 100SSCF/B which is close to the
flowing GOR for tils well measured during the prior conditioning process and is
also similar to the GOR measured in an early flow test on EM 8. Hence using the
EM 6 measurements the P1-80 oil PVTproperties are summarized in Table 4.

The Pm data can be used to determine a resetvoir fluid gradient for the oil
~olumn using the equation

DO = (R, P~/5.61458 + p.)/ (BOX 144)

where

D. = Resewoir Fluid gradient in psi/ft.

R, = Solution Gas/oil ratio in SCF/STB
PQ= Gas dens”@in lb/ft3
pe = Oil density in lb/@
!3. = Formation Volume Factor of the oil in RB/STB

For the P3 oil

p~= 0.0807 lb ~
P. = 48.9 lb/ 4
B. = 1,5 RB/STB
R, = 845 SCF/STB

and this give D. = 0.283 psi/ft. in the P3.

For the P1-80 oil

p, = 0.0807 Ib/ft’
P. = 48.9 lb/ft
00 = 1.591 RB/STB
R,= 1009 SCF/STB

which gives D. = 0.277 psi/ft.

These implied gradients in the reservoircan be compared against those

gradientsactuallymeasured in the well-bore. Table 6 shows the pressures and
fluid gradients measurf d in all the oil wells at Mereenie.

it is obvious Mat the theoretical gradients of 0.283 psi/R and 0.277 psi/ft are
seldomseen in the well-bores and quitefrequentlygradients as high as 0.301
psi/ft occur. This meansthat the oil has shrunk and become heavier beoause of
the loss of g?? in the well-bore. From Table 6, gas depleted oil in the well bores is
the usual occurrence.

‘“-/ ‘“
J
 JXnc lusion~
It is concluded that bottom-hole sampling will not give the most
accurate reservoir samples for Pm analysis particularly for saturated reservoirs.
An alternative procedure may be to recombine separator samples before the
reservoir is put on extended production. Bottom-hole sampling of saturated or
near saturated reservoirs will likely result in under-saturated samples. While these
samples can be extrapolated to the saturation pressure, if known, this introduces
an extra source of error and uncertainty. his has been illustrated in application to
an actual field example in the Mereeniefield in Australia. Though this field had a
known large gas cap the bottom-hole samples were in general highly under-
saturated. Moreover, the sample gas-oil ratio was lower than initial producing gas-
oil ratios measured in the field.
. “.”

. ~-7 “-””---
 .

=E 19438

References

1. LP. Dake; “Fundamentals of Reservoir Enaineenng” Elsevier Scientific

Publishing Company, New York, 1978, pp53-57

2. J.W. Amyx, D.M. Bass and R.L Whiting “Petroleum Reservoir Enaineerinq
Phvsical ProoeRieq “ McGraw Hill Book Company. 1960

3. “ phase Rehavior Of Hvdroca rbon Resetvo ir Fluids“ Course Notes from COre
Laboratories Inc. 1983.

4. B.H. Adams; “Stress Sensitive Permeabilitv In A lliah Permeabilitv Sandstone

eservoir - The Kunuruk Field” SPE 11718presented at the 1983 California
Regional Meeting, Ventura, March 23-25, 1983.

5. B.F. Towier; “Resewoir Simulation in Mereenie field”, The Australian

Petroleum Exploration Association Journal VCII26,428-446, 1986

6. B.F. Towler; “WeIITests in a ComgIex Sandstnne Reseweir”, SPE 15420,

Presented at the 61st SPE Annua! Technical Meeting, New Orleans, LA, 5-
8th October, 1986.
,
,, SEEJ943tl
,,
,,

61Q
am
W*
.U

a,

.
-“l
G
k ‘CJ

&-
mm
mm
.*

●
w v!

,
.
.

#-

I
 TA!3LE2 .,
..

P3 Oil Properties’ Extrapolated and Averaged

\

1
.

Oi1 Oil “
Solution Viscosity
Pressure FVF
I psig
GOR
scF/B RB/STfl Cp

I 1.0 1.37
o
o 0.69
1.21
240
200 0.56
1.27
340
400 0.51
1.31
430
600 0.47
1.345
500
800 0.44
1.375
570
1000 0.414
1.405
640
1200 0.388
1.435
710
1400
1 1600
780
1.472
1.50
0.37
0.36
845
1774 ().365
1 2000
845
845
1.496
1.49 0.383
2500 0.396
1.484
I 3000
845
845
1.479
0.414
3500

,:
/
. ..

.“
!
j.
.
.
..
.4;
j

4
.
I.
‘1 TA13LE3
——

I P1-80 Oil Properties, from EM 6

1
I
Oil FVF Oil Viscosity
Pressure Solution GOR
RB/STB Cp
psig sCF/B
I

\ o 1.049 1.197
o
1.243 0.635
200 281
1.284 0.578
I 338 357
1● 343 0.507
600 478
1.398 0.447
900 604
.1 0.402
734 1.456
1200
1.518 0.368
1500 864
\ 1.591 0.339
1800 1009
1.585 0.345
2000 1009
I 1.572 0.355
2500 1009
1.561 0.365
3000 1009
1.550 0.376
1 3500 1009

.
1

. .. .. .
 TABLE4
..

HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OF RESERVOIR FLUID

TO HEXADECANES PLUS IN EM 11

Weight Density ‘API Molecular

Component Mol @ ljo°F Weight
Percent Percent Gm/Gc Q 60°F

0.00 0.00
Hydrogen Sulphide
0.00 0.00
carbon Dioxide
1.56 0.47
Nitrogen
26.47 4.53
Methane
14.48 4.65
Ethane
9.48 4.46
Propane
1.82 1.13
iso-Butane
5.77 3.58
n-Butane
1.35 1.04
jsO-Pentane
2.21 1.70
n-Pentane
4.48 4.10
HexaneS
0.6975 7i.2 94
1.60 1.60
HeptaneS
0.7136 66.6 105
3.32 3.70
Octanes
0.7317 61.7 117
3.39 4.21
Nonanes “ 58.?
0.7452 132
3.22 4.52
Oecanes
. 0.7576 55.1 145
2.69 4.13
Undecanes
0.7713 51.8 160
2.51 4.26
Dodecanes
0.7819 49.3 178
2.48 4.69
Tridecanes
0.7907 47.3 195
1.26 2,61
Tetradecanes
0.7995 45.3 206
1.31 2.85
Pentadecanes
0.8568 33.5 371
10.60 41.77 .
Hexadecanes plus

100.00 100.00

0.8085 43.3 215

Heptanes plus properties

.“
.
. .
 SPE 19438
TABLE 5
..
. .
HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OF RESERVOIR FLUID
TO HEXADEMES PLUS IN EM6

‘API t40~ecular
t)ensi
ty Meiqht
Mol Neight @ 60”F
Q@cc @ 6o°F
Comoonent Percent percent

0.00 0.00
Hydrogen Sulphide 0.05
0.09
I carbon Dioxide
Nitrogen
0.76 0.25

29.71 5.58
Methane 4.95
14.05
Ethane 4.84
9.37
propane
1 jsO.Butane
1.50
5.28
1.02
3.60
n.gutane 1.47
1.74
isO-Pentane
2.42
2.86
n-Pentane 4.02
4.00 74.7 92
Hexanes 3.64 0.6856
3.37 67.1 103
Heptanes 4.64 0.7118
3.84 62.o 117
octanes 4.67 0.7306
3.41 56.3 131
NonaneS 3.87 0.7448
2.52 %.5 145
Decanes 3.78 0.7560
2.23 52.7 160
ljndecanes 0.7675
3.54
1.89 49.9 175
oOdecanes 4.70 0.7798
2.29 47.8 191
Tridecanes 2.90 0.7885
1.30 45.9 206
TetradeCanes 0.7969
3.07 370.
1.27 34.4
pentadecanes 0.8521
8.52 36.99
Hexadecanes plus

100.00 100.00

45*7 200
0.7978
Heptanes ~IuS properties

.
.1 . . . “
 WE 1943$
. .
TABLE 6
pressuresanet
Fluid Gradients at Mereenie

pressure psia Depth

Well Date Pressure Gradent at ft. KB.
Bottom of Oil Column
h Well-bore psi/ft.
1796.13 4700
26/2/~ 0.297 4609
EM4 1782.72
13/3/83 0.295 4700
EM4 1828.59
18/6/83 0.288 4700
EM4 1827.N
30/1 1/84 0.2W 4609
EM4 1798.80
29/6/84 0.294
EM4
1819.04 4805
16/6/83 0.279 4805
EM6 1840.56
21/9/83 0.293 4805
EM6 1850.59
29/11/83 0.279
EM6
1770.20 4540
21/4/83 0.287 4540
EM7 1759.52
3/6/83 0.283 46~
EM7 1783.33
30/9/83 0.284 4400
EM7 1723.12
17/6/83 0.285
EM7
1787.34 4700
19/6/= 0.297 4700
EM8 4855.93
30/9/83 0.297 4700
EM8 1853.80
30/1 1/83 0.298 4620
EM8 1780.26
28/7/84 0.280
EM8
1810.19
7/12/83 0.287 46~
EM1l 1807.55
10/12/33 0.286 4600
EM1l 1806.34
w/3/84 0.284 4600
EM11 1804.64
6/7/84 0,287
EM11
1818.55 4600
19/3/84 0.285 4500
EM12 1782.54
30/6/84 0.286 4600
EM12 1801.82
25/7/84 0.283
EM12
1768.48 4500
3/6/84 0.278 4500
EM14 1778.58
2/7/84 0.288
EM14
1820.91 4600
4/6/83 0.298 4600
WM3 1774.81
12/6/83 0.293 4600
WM3 1784.46
lo/9/83 0.291 4600
WM3 1822.33
6/12/83 0.301 4600
WM3 1780.95
3/7/34 0.283
WM3
1805.~ 4706
19/7/84 0.287
WM5
1772.43
3/9/84 0.289
WM6 1765.64
6/9/84 0.292
WM6
I“,

TABLE 7 Extrapolated Pressures in P3wells

pressure at
pressure datum level
Depth
pressure ft. MSL at at -2270 ft.
Mel1 Oate G-o Contact
psia MSL-
at .2130 ft.
MSL .

1831.6
1791.9
.2241 1807.o
1823.25
27/i/83 1767.4
EM 4 .2241 1824.3
1798.80 1784.6
EM 4 29/6/84 -2108
1778.41 1814.4
EM 7 z7/1/83 1774.7
-2098 1815.6
1765.68
Et!7 17/6/83 1775.9
-2251 1810.0
.1810.19
EM 11 7/12/83 1770.4
-2251 1819.1
1804.64
EM 11 6/7/84 1779.5
-2268 1802.4
lg/3/83 1818.55
EM 12 1762.8
-2268 1815.8
1801.82
EM 12 6/7/84 1776.1
.2201 1830.5
1796.24
EM 14 3/6/84 1790.9
-2201 1865.6
1810.99
EM 14 2/7/84 1826.o
-2113 1829.1
1820.91
WI 3 4/6/83 1789.5
-2113 1867.0
1784.46
MN 3 1827.4
-2113 1825.6
1822.33 1786.o
WM3 6/12/83 -2113
1T80.95 1819-7
WM 3 317/84 1780.S
-2221 1831.3
Ieos.83
WM5 Ig/7/84 1791.7
-2149
1797.07
3/9/84

.
,.-
 . ,
..
-,
. ..”
. ._, —. —. —— - .—— - —
1. ‘ .,
. .
..-.,’.;, .“. ’... “i
. . . .

i ‘ . .
. . .\\
{\
...,,.,
“.: ...-
....
... .

.,.

.,. ... .

t’

.,
! ~~
,+
\

!
I
;. . .
..
i
.,. ,
i
I
:

i
,

“....
i
7’
i
I
;’.1.:
:, ,. ‘-
\ !

.!

“i
●
..

.:- .-
...- ..- -— .-.—.
. .
.’
. .
.. . . . . —., . .“’
. . . .
.—. .
.
.. ,. .
.. . . .“
., . . .. .. . . “,”– ..
. ..’. . . .
,. . .
 GAS–OIL RATlO (SCF/STB) A
co a N
N + cm c1 o
0 0 o 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 I 1111111111
00 11111111111[11’’’’’’’’’’’” “ ~w
m?
o mT
1 mm
mm
Zm

\\ -
I

v-
o-
0
“o
0

. . ___
..
.—. —
8SV6t 3il@ 8
 FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR A (RB/STB)
A A
2 A A
of
. . b “* in “b
A L u
n
“o o v
o
1 ..
u I I I 1 I
!,,,
1 1 I II I 1111111111’
I .
— 1111111111 Illlkll 1111111 ill’’’’’’’’’’”” “’’’”

-1

x +0

I
x +0
x +0 II
-1 x +0
x +. o ● I*
-P

“o
o

ads ““
 FLUIDITY (1 /cP)
b.) N
N M N
“m “w 0
0 iw “+
o o o 0
0 o

s Illllllllllilllll’’”” “’’’’’’’”
I 1I I I I Illllllltllllllll’”-

-1

“o
c1
.
CD
-1
o A I
0 El
o
0