Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
Gas condensate liquid dropout can occur in gas reservoirs,
especially near the wellbore when the pressure falls below the
dew point. In near-critical and highly volatile oils, extreme
phase behavior effects can occur, especially near the critical
temperature. Liquid dropout phenomena in these fluids affect
well productivities. To simulate the liquid dropout
phenomenon, as well as the flow of fluids in these reservoirs,
viscosity values of reservoir fluids at high pressures and
temperatures are required. Viscosities of gas condensate and
near-critical fluids at elevated pressures and temperatures are
not measured routinely due to inherent problems associated
with their capture, measurement difficulties, and considerable
time and effort required. Therefore, it is frequently not
possible to obtain measured values, and viscosity values must
be estimated from correlations. Empirical correlations have
been published for determining viscosity as a function of
pressure, temperature, gas-liquid ratio, and gas composition.
Their accuracy for gas condensates and near-critical fluids has
not been evaluated due to lack of data.
This paper presents some new and unique viscosity data
for gas condensate and near-critical systems at elevated
pressures and temperatures. A new, state-of-the-art pressurevolume-temperature, PVT, apparatus was designed and
commissioned to measure the densities and viscosities of
Saudi Arabian gas condensate, near-critical and highly volatile
oils at reservoir conditions. The data include viscosity and
density values above and below the saturation pressure. The
data were used to evaluate existing correlations that are
typically used for predicting viscosity in PVT software.
Introduction
Viscosity is an important fluid property and is required in
reservoir simulation and engineering calculations. In a recent
paper1 it was shown that a 1% error in reservoir fluid viscosity
Viscosity Correlations
The viscosity of hydrocarbon gases and liquids is a function of
pressure, temperature, fluid density, and composition. The
density of these fluids itself is a function of pressure,
temperature, and fluid composition. There has been a clear
link established between the viscosity and in-situ density4.
Several correlations and mechanistic models have been
published in the literature discussing ways of estimating and
predicting viscosities of hydrocarbons fluids at reservoir
conditions4-12. This paper will not discuss the correlations in
great detail as it has been done in earlier studies. Two
common viscosity correlations used in commercial PVT
software were short listed for comparing the experimental data
generated in this study that are described below.
LBC Model5
Lohrenz-Bray-Clark (LBC)5 in 1964 introduced correlation
and procedures to calculate the viscosities of reservoir fluids
using their fluid composition. The LBC correlation is based on
the concept of residual viscosity, defined as the difference
between the viscosity of the fluid at specified pressure and
temperature, to that at low pressure. The residual viscosity is
shown to be a function of density and the viscosity of gases at
low pressure is a function of thermal energy only and can be
predicted from the kinetic theory of gases. This is one of the
most popular methods used in reservoir engineering
calculations, particularly in reservoir simulators. Details are
provided in Reference 5.
CSP Model6
The second most popular method is the corresponding states
principle (CSP), based on the observation that a reduced
property, in this case reduced viscosity, is related to the
reduced state properties, such as reduced pressure and reduced
temperature. The reduced viscosity is defined as the ratio of
the viscosity at prevailing conditions to the viscosity at the
critical point. A simple correlation is the 2-parameter CSP
method based on reduced pressure and reduced temperature.
More complicated methods include 3- or 4-paratmeter
equations that tend to correct the deviations with the simpler
models. In this study, viscosities were calculated using
corresponding state principle option in PVTsimTM, which is
based on the forms suggested by Pedersen et al. (1984, 1987)6.
PVT Apparatus
A special gas condensate PVT apparatus capable of measuring
the viscosity of gases and liquids at reservoir temperature and
elevated pressures was designed and built. A schematic of the
apparatus is shown in Fig. 1. It is a HPHT apparatus and
consists of a variable volume, visual PVT cell retrofitted with
fiber optic light transmission probes to measure fluid
volumetric data. The PVT cell is mounted inside a
temperature-controlled oven and has an effective volume of
110 cc. The windowed PVT cell permits visual observation of
fluids. A variable-volume displacement pump controls the
volume and pressure of the fluid inside the cell. A specially
designed magnetically coupled impeller mixer provides
powerful mixing and maintains equilibrium in the fluid
SPE 108434
SPE 108434
sample charged into the blind mixer cell was variable and
depended on the system being tested. For a lean gas
condensate the amount could be increased to obtain sufficient
quantities of the liquid for viscosity and density
measurements. The minimum amount of liquid dropout
needed for measurement was ~12 cc, which was sufficient to
fill the viscometer and densitometer and the dead volume in
the lines between the PVT cells and the instruments.
Two types of PVT tests were conducted for the gas
condensate sample (Well H) (a) constant composition
expansion (CCE) and (b) constant volume depletion (CVD). In
the CCE test, the pressure was reduced in steps at reservoir
temperature and the change in volume is measured. The dew
point is also measured. At a given pressure above the dew
point pressure, the single-phase fluid is pumped into the
viscometer and the densitometer for viscosity and density
measurements. Once the pressure falls below the dew point
pressure, liquid condensate drops out. If enough amount of
liquid condensate is dropped, it will be pumped to the
viscometer for viscosity measurements and densitometer for
density measurements. At any given pressure below the dew
point, and after the measurements had been made, the liquid
was flushed out of the viscometer and the densitometer,
remixed thoroughly in the blind and PVT cells before the next
step and the next reduction in pressure. The mixing was
accomplished using a synchro-flow option in the PVT
apparatus. During this process the fluid from the PVT cell was
completely flushed out to the blind cell (through the in-line
viscometer and densitometer) and vice versa, at constant
pressure. This is an important step to keep the liquid and vapor
in equilibrium throughout the system.
In the CVD test, the reservoir fluid was kept in the PVT
cell at reservoir temperature and at dew point pressure. The
pressure was reduced in steps during this test. This test started
with the dew point pressure and the volume was measured at
this pressure. The cell volume was then expanded to target the
next step pressure. Vapor was withdrawn at the same stage
pressure and the cell volume reduced back to the saturation
pressure volume. The liquid that drops out was then pumped
into the viscometer and densitometer for measurements. The
liquid was pumped using the synchro-flow option and every
effort was made to keep equilibrium between liquid and vapor.
To ensure that only liquid was filling the viscometer and
densitometer, the values were checked during synchro-flow
until they were stabilized.
Since the near-critical sample (Well T1) exhibited a bubble
point at reservoir temperature, a differential liberation (DL)
test was conducted instead of a CVD test. The reservoir fluid
was kept in the PVT cell at reservoir temperature and at
pressure equal to the bubble point pressure. The pressure was
reduced stepwise and all the liberated gas was displaced and
flashed to standard conditions. This procedure was repeated 610 times. At each stage liquid was pumped to the viscometer
and densitometer for viscosity and density measurements
For the volatile oil sample (Well T2), CCE experiments
were conducted to measure the bubble point, relative volumes,
and mixture densities at different pressures and temperatures,
including the reservoir temperature. Viscosities of the liquids
were measured using a rolling ball viscometer at different
temperatures and pressures.
SPE 108434
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Saudi Aramco for permission to publish this
paper.
References
1. Hernandez, J.C., Vesovic, V., Carter, J.N, and Lopez, E.,
Sensitivity of Reservoir Simulations to Uncertainties in
Viscosities, SPE-75227 paper presented at the SPE/DOE
IOR Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April (2002).
2. Wheaton, R.J. and H.R. Zhang, Condensate Banking
Dynamics in Gas Condensate Fields: Compositional
Changes and Condensate Accumulations Around
Production Wells, SPE-62930 presented at the SPE
ATCE, Dallas, Texas, October (2000).
3. Barnum, R. S., Brinkman, F. P., and Spillette, A. G., Gas
Condensate Reservoir Behaviour: Productivity and
Recovery Reduction Due to Condensation, SPE-30767
paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October (1995)
4. Londono, F.E., Archer, R.A. and Blasingame, T.A.,
Correlations for Hydrocarbon-Gas Viscosity and Gas
Density-Variation and Correlation of Behavior Using a
Large-Scale Database, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and
Engineering, pp. 561-566, December (2005).
5. Lohrenz, J., Bray, B. G., and Clark, C. R., Calculating
Viscosities of Reservoir Fluids from Their Composition,
SPE 915, Oct 11-14, 1964.
6. Pedersen, K.S. and Fredenslund, A., An Improved
Corresponding States Model for Prediction of Oil and Gas
Viscosities and Thermal Conductivities, Chem. Eng.
Sci., 42, pp. 182-186, (1987).
7. Carr, N.L., Kobayashi, R. and Burrows, D.B., Viscosity
of Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure, Trans. AIME,
vol. 201, pp # 264, (1954).
8. Gawish, A. and Al-Homadhi, E., State-of-the-Art
Natural Gases Viscosity Under Reservoir Conditions,
SPE-106326 paper presented at the Technical Symposium
of Saudi Arabia Section, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, May
(2005).
9. Erdogmus, M., Adewumi, M.A. and Ibraheem, S.O.,
Viscosity Prediction of Natural Gases, SPE-39219
paper presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Lexington, Kentucky, October (1997).
10. Giddings, J.G. and Kobaysahi, R., Correlations of the
Viscosity of Light Paraffin Hydrocarbons and Their
Mixtures in the Liquid and Gaseous Regions, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, pp. 679-682, June (1964).
11. Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H. and Eakin, B.E., The
Viscosity of Natural Gases, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, pp. 997-1000, August (1966).
12. Elsharkawy, A.M., Predicting the Properties of Sour
Gases and Condensates: Equations of State and Empirical
Correlations, SPE-74369 paper presented at the SPE
International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition,
Villahermosa, Mexico, February (2002).
13. Al-Meshari, A. A. and McCain W. D., New Strategic
Method to Tune Equation-of-State for Compositional
Simulation, SPE-106332 paper presented at the 2005
SPE Technical Symposium of Saudi Arabia Section,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, May (2005)
SPE 108434
Well H
Well T1
Well T2
243
5720
300
5136
300
4477
Component
N2
CO2
H2S
C1
C2
C3
iC4
nC4
iC5
nC5
C6
C7/C7+
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12+
Total
Mol%
Mol%
7.08
0.62
0.00
71.04
7.57
3.48
0.64
1.43
0.50
0.56
0.75
1.07
1.36
0.86
0.61
0.41
2.02
100
4.39
3.24
0.00
62.49
4.21
2.81
1.00
1.76
0.92
1.09
1.85
2.40
2.77
2.26
1.76
1.25
5.80
100
2.23
1.75
0.00
59.93
4.47
1.87
0.76
1.78
1.33
1.41
3.03
21.47*
Density, g/cc
API
Molecular weight
* C7+
0.84
36.8
240
Pressure
(psi)
7077
6460
6089
5847
5720
5000
4200
3500
2800
2100
1400
800
0
CVD
Viscosity Density
(cP)
(g/cc)
0.3782
0.3734
0.3674
0.3609
0.3575
0.264
0.5233
0.277
0.5654
0.292
0.6121
0.312
0.6349
0.339
0.6652
0.384
0.6784
0.442
0.7208
0.561
0.7635
Pressure
(psi)
Properties of C12+/C7+
0.8247
39.9
232
0.8039*
44.3*
165*
7015
6670
6185
5814
5317
4500
3500
2500
1500
500
0
DL
Viscosity
(cP)
0.223
0.222
0.219
0.218
0.217
0.243
0.273
0.310
0.365
0.508
0.528
Density
(g/cc)
0.4725
0.4707
0.4617
0.4476
0.4372
0.5266
0.5813
0.6282
0.6617
0.6970
0.7259
SPE 108434
Experimental Liquid
Viscosity (cP)
300 F
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.1
0.1
200 F
0.2
0.2
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
100 F
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.3
0.3
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.09
0.11
0.14
0.16
0.19
0.22
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.5
0.17
0.2
0.24
0.27
0.31
0.36
0.42
0.5
0.61
0.64
0.65
0.71
0.28
0.3
0.33
0.37
0.41
0.45
0.51
0.59
0.7
0.86
0.91
0.93
1.1
200 F
36.6
36.3
36.0
35.8
35.5
35.2
34.9
34.6
34.3
34.0
33.6
33.2
33.1
100 F
39.1
38.9
38.7
38.5
38.4
38.2
38.0
37.7
37.5
37.3
37.0
36.8
36.6
31.3
29.4
26.9
23.8
20.1
15.7
10.7
5.1
35.7
34.2
32.2
29.3
25.3
20.1
13.5
6.4
29.3
27.6
25.5
23.0
20.1
16.7
12.9
8.5
3.8
SPE 108434
1.0
18
0.8
16
14
D en sity (g /c c) .
Liquid Dropout - % of
Hydrocarbon Pore Space
20
12
10
8
6
4
2
0.6
0.4
0.2
Exp: DL Liq
Sim: DL Liq
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
0.0
Pressure (psi)
2000
4000
6000
8000
Pressure (psi)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
Viscosity (cP) .
Density (g/cc).
1.0
0.0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Pressure (psi)
0.4
0.3
Exp.
0.2
0.1
0.0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Pressure (psi)
0.7
0.5
10
0.4
0.3
0.2
Viscosity (cP) .
0.6
Exp.
Sim (LBC Model)
0.1
2000
4000
6000
Pressure (psi)
Exp 300 F
Exp 200 F
Exp 100 F
0.1
8000
0.01
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Pressure (psi)
Figure 7: Viscosity data comparison with LBC Model
for Well-T2
10000
SPE 108434
Viscosity (cP)
10
Exp 300 F
Exp 200 F
Exp 100 F
0.1
0.01
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Pressure (psi)
Figure 8: Viscosity data comparison with CSP Model
for Well-T2
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Exp Dens 300 F
Calc Dens 300 F
Exp Dens100 F
Calc Dens 100 F
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
Pressure (psi)
Figure 9: Mixture density data comparison for Well-T2