0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

145 просмотров19 страницdsds

May 11, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

dsds

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

145 просмотров19 страницdsds

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

Modified Black Oil PVT Properties Correlations for Volatile Oil and Gas

Condensate Reservoirs

Ibrahim S. Nassar, GUPCO, Ahmed H. El-Banbi, and Mohamed H. Sayyouh, Cairo University

This paper was prepared for presentation at the North Africa Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Cairo, Egypt, 1517 April 2013.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been

reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers,

or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is

restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract

This work presents new Modified Black Oil (MBO) PVT properties (Rs, Rv, Bo, and Bg) correlations for volatile oil and

gas condensate reservoir fluids. These new correlations do not require the use of fluid samples or EOS calculations. The

correlations have the advantage of taking into consideration the effect of surface separator configuration (two and three

stages) and conditions (separators pressures and temperatures).

The correlations were developed using fourteen actual reservoir fluid samples (7 gas condensates, 3 near critical fluids,

and 4 volatile oils) spanning a wide range of fluid behavior and characteristics. Whitson and Torp method was used to

generate Modified Black Oil (MBO) PVT properties that were used as a data set for correlations development.

The MBO PVT properties data points were generated by extracting the PVT properties of each sample using commercial

PVT software program at twelve different separator conditions spanning a wide range of surface separator configuration and

conditions to generate twelve curves for each sample. A statistical approach using a statistical software program (SPSS) was

used to develop the new correlations models.

The results of the new models show reasonable agreement between Modified Black Oil PVT properties generated from the

new correlations and the MBO properties extracted using Whitson and Torp method. The average absolute error in the

correlations was 8.5% for volatile oils and 17.5% for gas condensates.

These correlations were also validated by comparing the results of modified black oil simulation using MBO PVT

properties generated from these correlations to the results of full equation of state (EOS) compositional simulation. Also, the

generalized material balance equation (GMBE) was used to calculate the initial oil/gas in place (IOIP/GIIP) for many

simulated cases using PVT data generated from the new correlations and data generated from EOS models. The advantage of

the new correlations comes from being the first in the industry (to the best of our knowledge) that explicitly take into

consideration the effects of surface separators configurations (two or three stages) and conditions. Also, all input parameters

in the correlations are readily available from field production data. These correlations do not require elaborate calculation

procedures or PVT reports.

Introduction

It was clear since 1920's that the engineering of oil reservoirs require the knowledge of how much gas was dissolved in the

oil at reservoir conditions and how much the oil would shrink and gas would expand when it was brought to surface. Three

properties (Rs, Bo, and Bg) serve these purposes and constitute the traditional (conventional) black oil PVT formulation7.

However, it has been known for many years that volatile oil and gas condensate reservoirs cannot be modeled accurately with

conventional black oil technique but require Modified Black Oil (MBO) approach. The MBO approach assumes that the stock

tank liquid can exist in both liquid and gas phases in reservoir condition.

Gas condensate and volatile oil petroleum reservoir fluids are simulated frequently with fully compositional models but

can also be efficiently modeled with a Modified Black Oil (MBO) approach15. A few authors have addressed the question of

how to best generate the MBO PVT properties including the new function, condensate gas ratio (Rv) which represents the

vaporized oil in gas.

SPE 164712

Whitson and Torp3 in 1983 used data derived from CVD experiments to calculate modified black oil PVT properties for

volatile oil and gas condensate reservoirs. Perhaps the most useful application of CVD data is the calculation of liquid

composition, which together with measured vapor composition yield high pressure K-values. At each depletion step,

individual phase compositions (measured or calculated) are flashed using a set of appropriate K-values (ex.: Standings Kvalues Correlation) through a multistage separator simulator representing field conditions to calculate MBO PVT properties

(Bo, Bg, Rs, Rv).

Coats4 in 1985 developed a different approach from Whitson and Torp to calculate the modified black oil PVT properties

for gas condensate reservoirs only. In his approach, oil-gas ratio (Rv) is obtained by flashing the equilibrium gas at each stage

through the specified surface separator configuration while the remaining parameters are calculated using a material balance

procedure.

McVay2 in 1994 extended Coats work to include volatile oil reservoirs. He modified Coats procedure in a completely

analogues manner to generate MBO PVT properties for volatile oil reservoirs.

Walsh and Towler5 in 1994 suggested a simple method to compute the black oil PVT properties of gas condensate

reservoirs. The authors used the data available from standard CVD experiments and developed an algorithm to compute the

black-oil PVT properties of gas condensate without the requirement of K-value model or equation of state (EOS) calculations.

The method is rigorous, direct and simple and is ideally suited for spreadsheet applications. However, it depends on how

many pressure steps are taken in the CVD laboratory experiments.

All the methods for generating modified black oil PVT properties presented in the literature need a combination of lab

experiments (PVT reports) and elaborate calculation procedures. Recently, a new oil-gas ratio (Rv) correlation was developed

by Abdel Fattah.9 This correlation doesnt require the use of fluid samples or elaborate EOS calculations. In practical use of

this new correlation, difficulties were noticed from the use of the surface gas gravity parameter (it is assumed to be

volumetric average between gas gravity in different separators, while gas gravity from low pressure separators may not be

available in many field operations). Therefore, the surface gas gravity used by the correlation14 probably needs advanced

knowledge in PVT to be calculated. Also, the effect of the surface separator configuration and conditions are not explicitly

represented in the correlation. Separator conditions were implicitly represented in the specific gravity term. It was found that

separator conditions would have significant impact on PVT properties for volatile oil and gas condensate reservoirs16.

In this work, we developed new MBO PVT correlations that combine the advantages of the previously published

correlations9,14 and explicitly use separator configurations and conditions.

Fourteen reservoir fluid samples are used in this study representing different fluid composition and phase behavior for the

extraction of modified black oil (MBO) PVT properties (7 gas condensates, 3 near critical fluids, and 4 volatile oils).

Table 1 summarizes the major properties for the fluid samples including the fluid type, heptanes plus mole fraction (C7+),

reservoir temperature, saturation pressure and initial gas oil ratio for each sample. Fig. 1 shows a graph for heptanes plus

mole fraction (C7+) for each sample to illustrate that the samples span a large variation of fluids. We can see that a 12.5% C7+

can be considered as a distinguishing value between volatile oil and gas as proposed by McCain6.

Equation of State (EOS) models were created using commercial EOS PVT Software for each sample and tuned with the

available lab experiments (Constant Composition Expansion, Differential Liberation, and Constant Volume Depletion). The

EOS characterization was conducted following Coats and Smart14 procedure. The EOS Models were developed using the (PR

EOS) or (SRK EOS). We first split the heptanes plus component and then we regressed on OMEGA A and OMEGA B

parameters for the heavy pseudo-components and methane. Also, the Binary Interaction Coefficients (BICs) between methane

and the heavy pseudo-components were used as regression parameters when needed. The regression is conducted by

minimizing an objective function which quantifies the difference between the measured and calculated PVT properties.

Tuned EOS Models were used generate MBO data set that we used to develop the correlations of this work. They were also

used to output EOS parameters in compositional simulation format for validation purposes.

Figs.2 through 6 show the EOS results after tuning with the measured data from the available lab experiments for one of

the samples (Volatile Oil 1) as an example. Fig.2 presents the phase envelop calculated from the tuned EOS for fluid VO1.

Fig. 3 presents the match for Constant Composition Expansion experiment showing an excellent agreement between the

relative volume values calculated from the tuned EOS model and the observed value from the constant composition

expansion experiment. Figs. 4 through 6 present the match for the Constant Volume Depletion experiment observations

(vapor z-factor, liquid dropout, and number of moles produced). EOS models for other fluid samples were developed in a

similar way.

SPE 164712

Approach

Extracting the modified black oil (MBO) PVT properties for each sample from the tuned equation of state (EOS) using

Whitson and Torp method generated at twelve different separator conditions was performed. The data set included 1,488

points for the 4 PVT curves from volatile oil samples, 1,212 points from near critical samples, and 2,280 points from the gas

condensate samples.

A statistical software program (SPSS) was used to develop the new correlations models by fitting the data sets extracted

above. In selecting the independent parameters for the 4 PVT properties curves, we selected parameters that are readily

available and also have strong correlation with the dependent variables (Rs, Rv, Bo, and Bg). The new correlations do not

require data from experimental fluid analysis (PVT reports), nor elaborate calculations with EOS models, and all the

parameters are easily obtained from field production data.

After developing those correlations, we evaluated them by comparing the results of the modified black oil simulation

using these PVT properties extracted from the new correlations to the results of full Equation of State (EOS) compositional

simulation. Also, the generalized material balance equation was used to calculate the Initial Oil/Gas in Place (IOIP/GIIP).

The first step in our work to develop the models was to select the independent parameters affecting the MBO properties

which are (reservoir pressure, reservoir temperature, stock tank oil gravity, surface gas gravity, separator configuration,

separator pressure and temperature, and saturation pressure), while the dependent parameters are the Modified Black Oil

(MBO) PVT properties.

A question arises here about dependence of MBO properties on surface gas gravity term which was a point of confusion in

the previous correlation.14 Therefore; in the development of the correlations of this work, we considered the surface gas

gravity of first stage separator and second stage separator as independent model parameters. Surface gas gravity of the stock

tank was not considered because it is usually not easily available in field operation.

The independent parameters with plotted with the dependent parameters to provide us with the initial guess for the model

shape and a trial and error procedure was used to arrive at an appropriate model shape. Non-linear regression was then used to

find the model constants that minimize the difference between observed data points (extracted from the EOS model) and the

calculated points. For models validation, we drew cross-plots between observed and calculated values and calculated the least

mean square error (R2) and the average absolute error given by the following equation:

Error

.................................................................................(1)

Another step was performed to complete the work for the extraction of MBO PVT properties so those correlations can be

applied for any field case. Because saturation pressure may not be known in some cases, new saturation pressure correlations

were developed. The saturation pressure correlations depend on the same parameters and the calculated saturation pressure

will be used to divide the MBO curves to the saturated and the under-saturated parts. To account for the cases where

saturation pressure may be available from other sources, all correlations were presented for two cases: (1) known saturation

pressure, and (2) unknown saturation pressure. The following presents the new correlations models and their results. First, the

saturation pressure correlations are presented followed by the saturated curve correlations for the 4 PVT parameters, and

finally the under-saturated curves.

Saturation Pressure Models

The most widely used correlations for saturation pressure are probably the ones by Standing6, Vasquez and Beggs17, and

Al-Marhoun18. We tried to modify these correlations to account for three stage separation which is commonly used for

volatile oils and gas condensates and found that the modified Al-Marhoun correlation gives the best results with our data

base.

In the following, we present two correlations for saturation pressure: one for volatile oil and the other for gas condensate.

Both correlations have the same form, but for volatile oil it will be function of initial producing solution gas-oil ratio (Rsi)

while for gas condensate, it will be function of initial producing condensate-gas ratio (Rvi).

Volatile Oil Saturation Pressure (Bubble Point) Correlation:

SPE 164712

A R

.......................................(2)

......................................(3)

A R

..............................................................................................................................(4)

...............................................................................................................................(5)

The above correlation parameters are given in Tables 2 and 3 for two-stage and three-stage separation for volatile oils and

gas condensates, respectively. The average absolute error for the correlations is presented in Table 15.

The following sections present the new correlations for the 4 PVT parameters (Rs, Rv, Bo, and Bg) for the saturated curves.

Solution Gas-Oil Ratio Model

a) Known Saturation Pressure

The final form of the modified correlation is:

....................................................................(6)

..............................................................................................................................(7)

.............................................................................................................................(8)

STO ......................................................................................................................(9)

The correlation parameters have been computed by regression and are presented in Table 4 for gas condensate and volatile oil

(for both two-stage and three-stage separators). The average absolute errors and the least mean square errors mentioned

earlier are presented in Table 15.

b) Unknown Saturation Pressure

The final form of the modified correlation is:

.....................................................................(10)

..............................................................................................................................(11)

..............................................................................................................................(12)

SPE 164712

T STO .........................................................................................................................(13)

The new correlation parameters are given in Table 5 for gas condensate and volatile oil for both two-stage and three-stage

separators. The average absolute error for this correlation is presented along with other correlations in Table 15.

a) Known Saturation Pressure

The final form of the correlation is:

..........................................................(14)

STO ....................................................................................................................(15)

STO .....................................................................................................................(16)

T STO

.....................................................................................................................(17)

The oil formation volume factor correlation parameters (when saturation pressure is known) are given in Table 6 for gas

condensate and volatile oil for both two-stage and three-stage separators. The average absolute error for the correlation is

given in Table 15.

b) Unknown Saturation Pressure

The final form of the correlation is:

A P A 10 ^ A X

A Y EXP A V ..................(18)

STO ....................................................................................................................(19)

STO .....................................................................................................................(20)

T STO .........................................................................................................................(21)

Similarly, the new correlation parameters are given in Table 7 for gas condensate and volatile oil for both two-stage and

three-stage separators. The average absolute error is presented in Table 15.

The initial condensate-gas ratio (Rvi) is one of the independent parameters that have a significant effect on the correlation

accuracy. However; in case of volatile oils, this parameter is not available from production data. For volatile oils, this

SPE 164712

parameter is not the reciprocal of the initial producing gas-oil ratio. It is actually the amount of oil (or condensate) vaporized

in the gas coming out of the solution at surface separators. In black oil correlations, the parameter condensate-gas ratio is not

defined as the gas associated with black oil is dry gas19. Therefore, a new correlation for initial condensate-gas ratio (Rvi) will

need to be used first to compute a value we can use for other correlations in volatile oil cases.

The form of the initial condensate-gas ratio, Rvi, correlation is:

A EXP A X

A STO

A STO

................................................................................................................................................(22)

X

SG P

...................................................................................................................(23)

SG P

....................................................................................................................(24)

The new correlation parameters are given in Table 8 for volatile oil only for two-stage and three-stage separators. For gas

condensates, the initial Rvi value can be obtained from production data. Now for the rest of the correlations and for both fluid

types (volatile oils and gas condensates) Rvi values will be available. For gas condensates, it will be available from production

data while for volatile oils, it will be calculated from the new correlation.

The final form of the condensate-gas ration correlation is:

A P

A P

EXP A X

A Y EXP A V R

................................................................................................................................................(25)

X

SG P

..................................................................................................................(26)

SG P

....................................................................................................................(27)

.....................................................................................................................(28)

During the regression process, we found that it was hard to obtain a good curve fit especially for the tail part of the curve in

the condensate-gas ratio model. This was the main reason to explain the higher error percentage in this correlation for gas

condensates than volatile oils. The new correlation parameters are given in Table 9 for gas condensate and volatile oil for both

the two-stage and three-stage separators. The average absolute error is presented in Table 15.

For the unknown saturation pressure case, the average absolute error percentage was about 16% for volatile oil and 25%

for gas condensate. The new correlation parameters are given in Table 10 for gas condensate and volatile oil for both the twostage and three-stage separators. The average absolute error is presented in Table 15.

SPE 164712

A P

A P

EXP A X

A Y EXP A V R

................................................................................................................................................(29)

X

SG P

...................................................................................................................(30)

SG P

...................................................................................................................(31)

..............................................................................................................................(32)

a) Unknown Saturation Pressure

Knowing that the shape of gas formation volume factor, Bg, curve is monotonic increase below the saturation pressure and

sudden increase to very high values at low pressures (approximately below 1000 psi), we first regressed against the entire

curve followed by regression only against part of the curve at pressure greater than 1000 psi to improve the accuracy of the

correlations.

A P

EXP A X

A Y EXP A V

........................(33)

SG P

...................................................................................................................(34)

SG P

....................................................................................................................(35)

STO T ........................................................................................................................(36)

The new correlation parameters are given in Tables 11 and 12 for gas condensate and volatile oil for two-stage and threestage separators. The average absolute error is presented in Table 15. Table 11 is used if we want to calculate Bg values for high

and low pressures. Table 12 is used if we would like to have better accuracy correlation for Bg in the high pressure range (P >

1000 psi).

Under-Saturated Curve Models

The following equations are presented to show how the 4 MBO PVT properties (Rs, Rv, Bo, and Bg) can be calculated for both

volatile oils and gas condensates above the saturation pressure.

Solution Gas Oil Ratio Model

The same model for the saturated curve with the same correlation parameters will be used to calculate the solution gas oil

ratio at the saturation pressure for gas condensate fluids. For volatile oils, it can be obtained from production data as it is

equal to the initial producing gas-oil ratio.

...........................................................................................................................(37)

The average absolute error is presented in Table 15 for both known and unknown Psat.

SPE 164712

Under-saturated Bo is frequently calculated using oil compressibility. Several oil compressibility correlations are available

(e.g. Standing, Vasquez and Beggs, and Laster) for black oil fluids. However, these correlations do not take into consideration

the three-stage separators. The following correlation is presented for MBO fluids and it takes surface separator configurations

and conditions into account.

The new correlation form is:

A P

A V

A P

A B

A X

A Y ...(38)

....................................................................................................................(39)

...................................................................................................................(40)

T STO .........................................................................................................................(41)

The new correlation parameters are given in Table 13 for gas condensate and volatile oil for both two-stage and threestage separators. The average absolute error is presented in Table 15.

The same model for the saturated curve with the same correlation parameters will be used to calculate the initial

condensate-gas ratio (Rvi) at the saturation pressure for volatile oil. The new correlation for Rvi is just used as input for the

saturated curve model. For gas condensates, initial condensate-gas ratio is obtained from production data.

.............................................................................................................................(42)

The average absolute error is presented in Table 15 for both known and un-known Psat.

Gas Formation Volume Factor Model

The value of under-saturated gas formation volume factor, Bg, decreases with increasing pressure, regardless of whether

the pressure is above saturation pressure or not. Therefore, the final form of the new correlation is the same as the saturated

curve model. The average absolute error is presented in Table 15. For volatile oils, under-saturated gas formation volume

factor is not defined and therefore, only gas condensate average absolute error is presented here.

Correlations Validation

The accuracies of the new correlations are evaluated firstly by cross plots between actual values and calculated values and

secondly by calculating the average absolute error. Figs. 7 to 10 show example cross plots between observed and calculated

values for the new correlations models.

For further validation and to estimate the effect of the correlation error on the results of the applications these correlations

will be used for, two more procedures were used in validation:

1. The results of the Modified Black Oil simulation using PVT properties generated from the new correlations were

compared to the results of full compositional Equation-of-State (EOS) simulation.

2. The Generalized Material Balance equation was used to calculate the Initial-Oil/Gas-In Place (IOIP/IGIP) for several

simulated cases.

SPE 164712

In order to examine the effects of MBO PVT Properties, all other potential sources of differences between compositional

and MBO simulation results should be eliminated. First, the same simulator was used for compositional and MBO simulation

runs. Second, the same EOS models that were used for generating MBO PVT properties were also used for compositional

simulation runs.

We used the generalized material balance equation (GMBE) in its straight line form to calculate the Initial-Oil/Gas In

Place using the PVT properties calculated from the new correlations and these values were compared to those calculated from

the compositional simulation models. The procedure to perform this comparison started by running hypothetical

compositional simulation cases to predict reservoir performance for each of the fourteen reservoir fluid samples. These runs

were also used in the simulation comparison between the MBO and compositional models. Then, the GMBE was used in its

straight line form (graphically) to estimate initial oil in place, N, and initial gas in place, G, following Walshs approach. Fig.

11 shows an example of the results of GMBE as a straight line using PVT generated from the new correlations. Table 14

compares between the calculated Initial Oil/Gas In-Place using PVT extracted from the new correlations and compared with

the values of the compositional simulation models. The table shows that the errors of material balance calculation using PVT

from the new correlations range from minimum of 3% up to a maximum of 23%, which represent reasonable accuracy.

Finally, we compared the results of the Modified Black Oil simulation using PVT generated from these correlations to the

results of Full Equation of State (EOS) compositional simulation. All simulation runs started from pressure greater than the

saturation pressure and went to pressures significantly below the saturation pressure (no pressure maintenance) up to

abandonment pressure of 500 psi. A commercial simulator program (ECLIPSE) was used for the simulation runs. Figs. 12

and 13 show example comparison results of compositional simulation and MBO simulation. These figures indicate a

reasonable match between reservoir pressure and the producing gas oil ratio calculated from MBO simulation (using PVT

properties calculated from the new correlations) and those calculated from the compositional simulation.

Discussion

The importance of the new correlations comes from the fact that they can generate reasonably accurate PVT properties for

volatile oil and gas condensate fluids without the need for a laboratory report or elaborate EOS calculations. They also take

into consideration the effect of surface separator conditions. Also, all parameters used in the correlations are readily available

especially for the surface gas gravity term that was a point of confusion in previous MBO correlations9,17.

The developed correlations are expected to have wide application in MBO simulations and volatile oil and gas condensate

material balance applications. To highlight the new MBO PVT correlations applicability, we compared the results from the

new correlations to the results of one of the most widely used black oil correlations (Standing correlation)16. The results from

Abdel Fattah9,17 correlations were also compared with the new work. We will consider here the MBO PVT properties

extracted with Whitson and Torp1 method as reference for comparison. Two samples (one volatile oil and one gas

condensate) were used for full comparison between the new correlations, Abdel Fattahs correlations, and Standing

correlations. The two selected samples were not used in developing the new correlations to present unbiased testing. Two sets

of figures (Figs. 14-17 for the new gas condensate sample and Figs. 18-21 for the new volatile oil sample) show the

comparison between the MBO PVT properties calculated by the new correlation, Abdel Fattahs, and Standing versus the

values extracted from the EOS model. The figures show that the new correlations perform much better than the other

correlations especially the one by Standing (which was developed for black-oil fluids).

All volatile oil samples from this work were then used in similar comparison and the error was calculated for the new

correlations, Abdel Fattahs, and Standing. Table 16 provides the average absolute error for all the 4 MBO PVT functions

computed with all correlations. The error was calculated referenced to the Whitson and Torp MBO PVT properties

calculation method. Both the comparison figures and summary table show the superior behavior of the new correlations. One

should also notice that the common black-oil PVT correlations will usually perform badly in volatile oil and gas condensate

fluids. Also, the condensate-gas function (Rv) is not defined for commonly used black-oil PVT correlations.

Conclusions

Fluid samples representing different fluid composition and ranging from volatile oils to near critical fluids and up to gas

condensates were characterized using a commercial EOS PVT software program and new MBO PVT properties (Bo, Rs, Bg and

Rv) correlations were developed. Based on work presented in this paper, the following conclusions were made:

1. The new MBO PVT properties correlations do not require lab experiments or EOS model and they take into consideration

the surface separator configuration and conditions. Separate models were developed for volatile oil and gas condensate

fluids.

2. The obtained results show reasonable agreement between MBO PVT properties generated from the new correlations and

those extracted using Whitson and Torp (W&T) method. The average absolute error is 8.5% for volatile oils and 17.5% for

gas condensates.

3. Application of the new correlations in material balance and reservoir simulation was performed for both validation and for

10

4.

SPE 164712

estimation of error in case of applying those new correlations. The error in calculating the initial fluid in place using the

GMBE ranges from 3% to 23%. Reasonable agreement between MBO simulation using PVT from the new correlations and

fully compositional simulation was also obtained.

For volatile oil fluids, the new correlations are significantly more accurate than commonly used black-oil PVT correlations.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to express their gratitude to both Cairo University and GUPCO for making the programs used in

this research work available.

Nomenclature

BIC

Bg

Bgi

Bo

Boi

Bosat

CCE

C7+

CGR

CVD

DL

EOS

GIIP

GC

GMBE

IOIP

MBE

MBO

PVT

PR

Psat

Psep1

Psep2

Rs

Rsi

Rv

Rvi

STO

SG1

SG2

Tr

VO

= gas formation volume factor, bbl/SCF

= initial gas formation volume factor, bbl/SCF

= oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB

= initial oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB

= Oil formation volume factor at saturation pressure, bbl/STB

= constant composition expansion test

= Heptanes plus components

= condensate yield, STB/MMscf, equal to Rv at

= constant volume depletion test

= differential liberation test

= Equation Of State

= original gas in-place OGIP, SCF

= Gas Condensate

= General Material balance Equation

= Initial oil in place, STB

= Material Balance Equation

= Modified Black Oil

= Pressure Volume - Temperature

= Peng-Robison

= Saturation Pressure

= Separator Pressure at first stage separator, psi

= Separator Pressure at second stage separator, psi

= solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB

= solution gas-oil ratio at initial pressure, scf/STB

= vaporized oil-gas ratio, STB/MMscf

= vaporized oil-gas ratio at initial pressure, STB/MMscf

= Stock Tank Oil Gravity, Fraction

= Gas gravity at first stage separator, Fraction

= Gas gravity at second stage separator, Fraction

= Reservoir Temperature, F

= Volatile Oil

References

1. Whitson, C.H. and Trop, S.B.: Evaluating Constant Volume Depletion Data, Paper SPE 10067, SPE, Richardson, TX.

USA, 1983.

2. Schilthuis, R.J.: Active Oil and Reservoir Energy, Trans. AIME 1936, 148, pp. 33-52.

3. Walsh, M.P.: A Generalized Approach to Reservoir Material Balance Calculations, paper presented at the International

Technical Conference of Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, Canada, JCPT, May 9-13, 1994.

SPE 164712

11

4. Walsh, M.P., Ansah, J., and Raghavan, R.: The New, Generalized Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight line: Part 1

Applications to Under-Saturated and Volumetric Reservoir, paper SPE 27684 presented at the 1994 SPE Permian Basin

Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, March 16-18, Midland TX.

5. El-Banbi, Ahmed H., Forrest, J.K., Fan, L., and McCain, W.D., Jr.: Producing Rich-Gas-Condensate Reservoirs--Case

History and Comparison Between Compositional and Modified Black-Oil Approaches, paper SPE 58988 presented at the

SPE Fourth International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Villahermosa, Mexico. Feb. 1-3, 2000.

6. Coats, K.H.: Simulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance, Paper SPE 10512, JPT, Oct. 1985, pp. 1870-1886.

7. McVay, D.A.: Generation of PVT Properties for Modified Black Oil Simulation of Volatile Oil and Gas Condensate

Reservoirs, Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University, TX. 1994.

8. Walsh, M.P., and Towler, B.F.: Method computes PVT properties for Gas Condensate, OGJ, July 31, 1994, pp. 83-86.

9. Abdel Fattah, Khalid A.: Volatile Oil and Gas Condensate Fluid Behavior for Material Balance Calculations and Reservoir

Simulation, Ph.D. Thesis, Cairo University, 2005.

10. Ibrahim, M, El-Banbi, Ahmed H., El-Tayeb, S., and Sayyouh, H.: Changing Separator Conditions During Black-Oil and

Modified Black-Oil Simulation Runs, paper SPE 142462 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and

Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 69 March 2011.

11. Coats, K.H., Smart, G.T.: Application of a Regression Based EOS PVT Program to Laboratory Data, SPERE (May 1986)

277-299.

12. McCain, W. Jr.: Analysis of Black Oil PVT Reports Revisited, Paper SPE 77386, Oct. 2002.

13. Vasquez, M. and Beggs, D.: Correlation for Fluid Physical Property Predictions, JPT, June 1989.

14. Al-Marhoun, M.A.: Evaluation of Empirically Derived PVT Properties for Middle East Crude Oils, Journal of Petroleum

Science and Engineering 42 (2004) pp.209-221.

15. McCain, W.D., Jr.: Heavy Components Control Reservoir Fluid Behavior, JPT (September 1994) 746-750.

16. Standing, M. B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems, SPE, AIME, 1977.

17. EL-Banbi, Ahmed H., Abdel Fattah, Khalid A., and Sayyouh, M.H.: New Modified Black Oil Correlations for Gas

Condensate and Volatile Oil Fluids, Paper SPE 102240 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,

San Antonio, TX. Sept. 24-27, 2006.

NO.

SampleName

SampleType

C7+

(%)

Tres

(F)

Psat

(PSIG)

IGOR

(Scf/Stb)

VO1

VolatileOil

19.0

249

4527

1678

VO2

VolatileOil

16.9

176

4460

N/A

VO3

VolatileOil

14.9

246

4821

2000

VO4

VolatileOil

14.2

276

4375

2527

NC1

GasCondensate

12.7

312

5210

3413

NC2

GasCondensate

12.2

286

5410

4279

NC3

GasCondensate

11.7

238

4815

3405

GC1

GasCondensate

8.2

280

6750

5500

GC2

GasCondensate

8.2

215

4952

5403

10

GC3

GasCondensate

6.9

186

4000

5987

11

GC4

GasCondensate

6.5

312

5465

8280

12

GC5

GasCondensate

6.4

260

4525

7203

13

GC6

GasCondensate

5.9

267

4842

N/A

14

GC7

GasCondensate

5.5

240

3360

N/A

12

SPE 164712

C7+Range

20.0

VolatileOil

18.0

16.0

14.0

NearCritical

12.0

10.0

8.0

GasCondensate

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

VO1

VO2

VO3

VO4

NC1

NC2

NC3

GC1

GC2

GC3

GC4

GC5

GC6

GC7

SampleName

5

6000

RelativeVolume

5000

Pressure,psi

4000

3000

2000

1

1000

0

0

1000

2000

3000

0

100

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Rel.Vol.(EOS)

Temperature,F

5000

6000

7000

8000

Rel.Vol.(Obs.)

Fig.3 Comparison between EOS and Observed Relative volume values for VO1

1.5

1.4

0.9

1.3

0.8

1.2

0.7

LiquidDropout,fraction

VaporZFactor

4000

Pressure,psi

900

1.1

1

0.9

0.8

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.7

0.2

0.6

0.1

0.5

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

1000

2000

Pressure,psi

VaporZfactor(EOS)

3000

4000

5000

Pressure,psi

VaporZfactor(Obs.)

Liq.Sat.(EOS)

Liq.Sat.(Obs.)

Fig.4 Comparison between EOS and Observed Vapor Z-Factor values for VO1 Fig.5 Comparison between EOS and Observed Liquid Dropout values for VO1

SPE 164712

13

1

0.9

MolesRecovered,fraction

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Pressure,psi

EOS

Obs

Fig.6 Comparison between EOS and Observed Moles Recovered values for VO1

Fluid

SeparatorStages

A0

A1

A2

A3

A4

VO

2Stages

0.064

1.00

0.005

5.77

1.73

VO

3Stages

0.033

1.06

0.004

6.22

1.83

Fluid

SeparatorStages

A0

A1

A2

A3

A4

GC

2Stages

729

0.06

0.007

0.97

0.38

GC

3Stages

762

0.06

0.017

0.96

0.38

Fluid

SeparatorStages

A0

A1

A2

A3

GC

2Stages

1.51E04

1.06

43.99

6.24

GC

3Stages

1.78E04

1.13

36.44

774.33

VO

2Stages

4.88E04

0.63

407.53

8.32

VO

3Stages

4.26E04

0.55

356.32

1200.33

A4

A5

10.10

332.73

9.15

3.48

524.59

4.00

Fluid

SeparatorStages

A0

A1

A2

A3

GC

2Stages

1.5E08

6.47E04

0.12

4.94

GC

3Stages

1.1E08

6.94E04

0.12

1597.13

VO

2Stages

1.0E07

1.42E04

0.08

7.80

VO

3Stages

9.2E08

1.27E04

0.07

988.22

A4

A5

0.0007

698

0.001

0.001

433

0.001

Fluid

SeparatorStages

A0

A1

A2

A3

GC

2Stages

5.55E05

0.721

3193

1.6E05

GC

3Stages

7.25E05

0.690

3396

3.0E05

VO

2Stages

1.81E04

0.294

4382

1.6E05

VO

3Stages

1.82E04

0.268

4444

1.1E05

A4

A5

0.0022

6.6E05

0.0020

0.0007

4.7E05

0.0006

14

SPE 164712

Fluid

SeparatorStages

A0

A1

A2

A3

A4

GC

2Stages

2.1E08

3.7E04

1.00

9.4E06

GC

3Stages

1.9E08

3.6E04

1.05

4.0E05

VO

2Stages

3.8E08

7.4E05

0.97

1.4E05

VO

3Stages

3.8E08

6.8E05

0.98

1.2E05

A5

6.5E05

7.0E05

3.8E05

6.3E04

4.3E05

5.8E04

Fluid

SeparatorStages

A0

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

VO

2Stages

1.6E23

6.7E02

52.94

93.72

40.36

4.7E03

VO

3Stages

9.9E27

4.8E02

63.82

112.41

48.25

5.3E03

Fluid

SeparatorStages

A0

A1

A2

A3

GC

2Stages

8.6E08

1.9E04

0.606

1.2E05

GC

3Stages

8.7E08

2.0E04

0.634

1.2E04

VO

2Stages

3.1E07

9.3E04

1.493

3.8E04

VO

3Stages

3.0E07

9.4E04

1.554

1.7E03

A4

A5

5.0E02

2.2E04

4.9E02

7.4E02

2.3E03

7.2E02

Fluid

SeparatorStages

A0

A1

A2

A3

GC

2Stages

4.6E09

2.5E04

2.6E01

8.5E06

GC

3Stages

2.0E09

2.3E04

2.9E01

1.4E03

VO

2Stages

4.7E07

1.4E03

2.3E+00

3.7E04

VO

3Stages

4.6E07

1.4E03

2.4E+00

1.7E03

A4

A5

2.4E+02

2.4E03

2.3E+02

4.6E+02

2.3E03

4.5E+02

Table 11- Gas Formation Volume Factor (Unknown Psat) Correlation 1 Parameters

Fluid

SeparatorStages

A0

A1

A2

GC

2Stages

3626

1.07

3.1E05

GC

3Stages

3695

1.08

1.4E04

VO

2Stages

3015

1.07

8.9E05

VO

3Stages

2988

1.07

1.7E04

A3

A4

0.0021

1.8E04

0.0022

0.0027

1.5E04

0.0029

Table 12- Gas Formation Volume Factor (Unknown Psat) Correlation 2 Parameters

Fluid

SeparatorStages

A0

A1

A2

GC

2Stages

349

.78

8.9E06

GC

3Stages

343

.77

3.3E05

VO

2Stages

449

.81

2.7E05

VO

3Stages

435

.81

9.4E07

A3

A4

0.0020

7.5E05

0.0020

0.0020

5.2E05

0.0020

SPE 164712

15

Fluid

SeparatorStages

A0

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

GC

2Stages

1.4E04

6.1E06

1.4E04

0.997

8.1E08

GC

3Stages

1.3E04

6.1E06

1.4E04

0.997

8.0E07

VO

2Stages

7.1E05

8.6E05

1.0E04

0.952

1.3E06

VO

3Stages

7.0E05

8.8E05

1.0E04

0.951

5.4E06

1.2E06

1.4E05

5

4.5

3.5

4

2

R =0.9661

R2=0.915

Bo(Calc),rbbl/Stb

Rs(Calc),Mscf/Stb

3.5

3

2.5

2

2.5

2

1.5

1

1.5

0.5

0

1

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

1.5

Rs(Obs),Mscf/Stb

2.5

3.5

Bo(Obs),rbbl/Stb

o

0.4

0.35

1.75

R2=0.9726

R2=0.9724

Bg(Calc),rbbl/Mscf

Rv(Calc),Stb/Mscf

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

1.5

1.25

1

0.1

0.75

0.05

0.5

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Rv(Obs),Stb/Mscf

0.4

0.5

0.75

1.25

1.5

1.75

Bg(Obs),rbbl/Mscf

Fig. 10- Bg Cross Plot for VO (Entire P. Range) (Three Stage Separator)

16

SPE 164712

200E+6

180E+6

160E+6

y=17447371.084x

R2=0.993

140E+6

F,bbl

120E+6

100E+6

80E+6

60E+6

40E+6

20E+6

000E+0

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Eo,bbl/STB

Sample

Name

SampleType

EOS_STOIIP

(STB)

MBal_STOIIP

(STB)

ERROR

(%)

VO1

VolatileOil

15110447

17828640

18

VO2

VolatileOil

14361290

15373341

VO3

VolatileOil

11714572

12684897

VO4

VolatileOil

12663336

15610385

23

Sample

Name

SampleType

EOS_GIIP

MSCF

MBal_GIIP

MSCF

ERROR

%

NC1

NearCritical

38712208

36317597

NC2

NearCritical

37197692

32884012

12

NC3

NearCritical

39709708

35588587

10

GC1

GasCondensate

50497036

44672755

12

GC2

GasCondensate

45546884

43311130

GC3

GasCondensate

48092008

43808088

GC4

GasCondensate

42919356

41842871

GC5

GasCondensate

44155820

41464689

GC6

GasCondensate

46457824

43642928

GC7

GasCondensate

50783260

46557199

SPE 164712

17

Pr_Models

PGOR_Models

Pr_W&T

PGOR_W&T

50

7000

45

6000

40

ProducingGOR,MScf/Stb

ReservoirPressure,psi

5000

4000

3000

2000

35

30

25

20

15

10

1000

5

0

0

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

500000

1000000

CumOilProduction,STB

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

CumOilProduction,STB

Fig. 12- Reservoir Pressure for MBO and Comp. Simulation for VO1

Fig. 13- Producing Gas Oil Ratio for MBO and Comp. Simulation for VO1

RSquare

SaturationPressureCorrelation

SolutionGasOilRatioCorrelation

(KnownPsat)

SolutionGasOilRatioCorrelation(Un

KnownPsat)

OilFormationVolumeFactor

Correlation(KnownPsat)

OilFormationVolumeFactor

Correlation(UnKnownPsat)

CondensateGasRatioCorrelation

(KnownPsat)

CondensateGasRatioCorrelation(Un

KnownPsat)

GasFormationVolumeFactor

Correlation(Model1)

GasFormationVolumeFactor

Correlation(Model2)

UnderSaturatedSolutionGasOil

RatioCorrelation(KnownPsat)

UnderSaturatedSolutionGasOil

RatioCorrelation(UnKnownPsat)

UnderSaturatedOilFormation

VolumeFactorCorrelation

UnderSaturatedCondensateGas

RatioCorrelation(KnownPsat)

UnderSaturatedCondensateGas

RatioCorrelation(UnKnownPsat)

UnderSaturatedGasFormation

VolumeFactorCorrelation

2StageSeparator

3StagesSeparator

VO

VO

GC

Avg.Error

RSquare

3%

Avg.Error

RSquare

12%

GC

Avg.Error

RSquare

3%

Avg.Error

12%

96%

12%

88%

21%

97%

11%

89%

19%

97%

11%

78%

28%

97%

11%

79%

26%

92%

6%

82%

10%

92%

6%

81%

10%

96%

4%

70%

11%

96%

4%

70%

11%

96%

15%

85%

22%

97%

15%

85%

22%

96%

16%

80%

25%

97%

15%

80%

25%

100%

9%

100%

13%

100%

9%

100%

13%

98%

11%

98%

16%

98%

12%

99%

16%

8%

14%

10%

15%

9%

25%

10%

27%

1%

1%

1%

1%

9%

16%

11%

16%

12%

24%

14%

26%

35%

36%

18

SPE 164712

Table 16 Error Comparison Between This Work, Abdel Fattahs and Standing Correlations for All Volatile Oil Samples Combined

Method

Rs

Rv

Bo

Bg

New Correlation

26.8

1.8

0.5

Abdel Fattah

Correlation

33.2

42

5.3

7.6

Standing

Correlation

62.5

N/A

18.9

64

SPE 164712

19