Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
This paper compares the output of several available empirical
black oil model correlations against compositional model
results. In this process, the limitations of these models became
apparent.
Even acknowledging the imperfections of black model
implementation, it is possible to improve the quality of the
outputs by means of making the definitions consistent and
coherent across the prediction ranges.
A new method is outlined in order to extend the validity of the
models in predicting both reservoir and multiphase flow
simulations.
This new method is presented here and will be extended in a
separated paper.
Introduction
The behavior of black oil fluid is commonly inferred from two
PVT laboratory procedures: flash (or separator test) and
differential liberation. Oil formation volume factor and gas
solution ratios are calculated as explained by McCain1. On
the other hand, given a particular EOS is possible to obtain
PVT fluid parameters by simulating the same laboratory
procedures or making direct flash calculations at any
particular condition.
The traditional calculation method outlined in 1 can be
modified in a simple way to extend the validity of black oil
model correlations by accounting the dew point curve.
Negative gas solution ratios indicate liquid vaporization, and
need not to be masked by any correction method. If we follow
definitions literally, Rs diminish towards dew point and
reaches a constant negative minimum at dew point and inside
monophasic gas area. Oil formation volume factor can be
lower than unity and in fact should be zero at dew point.
As modern calculations take into account both reservoir and
multiphase wellbore and pipeline calculations, is of paramount
SPE 106855
Pressure
(psia)
3000
VoFv =
( GOR Rs ) Bg
( GOR Rs ) Bg + Bo
(6)
Bubble VoF=0%
2400
1800
VoF=25%
1200
Retrograde
VoF=50%
Pressure
(psia)
4000
600
VoF=75%
Dew VoF=100%
0
0
200
400
600
3200
800
Temperature (F)
VoFv=25%
Bubble VoFv=0%
2400
VoFv 50%
1600
VoFv=75%
800
Dew VoFv=100%
0
0
(1)
(2)
Vgas ( P, T )
Vgas ( P, T ) + Voil ( P, T )
600
900
1200
Temperature (F)
5
4000
VoFv =
300
(3)
3200
VoFv=25%
Bubble VoFv=0%
2400
Pressure
(psia)
VoFv 50%
3000
1600
Bubble VoFv=0%
Dew VoFv=100%
VoFv=25%
1800
VoFv=75%
800
2400
0
0
300
600
900
1200
Temperature (F)
VoFv=50%
1200
Retrograde
VoFv=75%
Pressure
(psia)
600
4150
Dew VoFv=100%
0
0
200
400
600
800
Temperature (F)
VoFv=25%
3300
Bubble VoFv=0%
VoFv 50%
Voil ( P, T ) = Bo
VoFv=75%
750
Dew VoFv=100%
(4)
(5)
-100
0
300
600
900
Temperature (F)
7
1200
SPE 106855
Pressure
(psia)
Bo#0
4150
1.350
DensityOil#0
(g/cm3)
1.000
1.280
3300
0.920
Bo Real
Bubble VoFv=0%
Rs Real (ft3/bbl)
1.210
0.840
1.140
0.760
VoFv=25%
2450
VoFv 50%
1600
1.070
VoFv=75%
0.680
750
Dew VoFv=100%
1.000
0
1000
-100
0
300
600
900
0.600
4000
3000
Pressure (psia)
1200
Temperature (F)
2000
4150
3300
Bubble VoFv=0%
VoFv=25%
2450
VoFv 50%
VoFv=75%
750
Dew VoFv=100%
-100
0
300
600
900
1200
Temperature (F)
4000
3200
Bo#01
VoFv=25%
Bubble VoFv=0%
3.00
2400
VoFv 50%
Bubble Point
2.40
1600
Bo
1.80
VoFv=75%
800
Dew VoFv=100%
1.20
0
0
300
600
900
1200
Temperature (F)
0.60
10
0.00
Main Discrepancies
Any of the empirical models plotted above can be adjusted to
reproduce PVT experiments at a given temperature as shown
in Figure 9.
However, it is evident that each of the models has a limited
range of validity.
750
1500
2250
3000
Pressure (psia)
(7)
SPE 106855
Vgas ( P,T )
Bg
oil ( sc)
gas ( sc )
(10)
(8)
Voil ( sc)
Rs =
Rsmin =
V gas ( P , T ) = (GOR Rs ) Bg
Rs#01
(1/1)
(9)
140
Bubble Point
(11)
90
Rs
(ft3/bbl)
Rs calculated from
Lasater correlation
630
40
Rs
500
-10
370
-60
Dew Point
Temp.PVT= 20 (C)
Temp.PVT= 40 (C)
Temp.PVT= 60 (C)
Temp.PVT= 80 (C)
Temp.PVT= 100 (C)
240
-110
0
750
1500
2250
3000
Pressure (psia)
110
-20
0
700
1400
2100
2800
Pressure (psia)
7
Conclusions
Without need of major modifications is possible improve
significantly the performance of black oil models:
- Enabling the models to accurately reflect PVT flash
experiments.
50
40
30
20
Negative Rs
(SC)
10
DewPoint
0
90
180
270
360
Temperature (F)
450
SPE 106855
Acknowledgments
I want to thank Gastn Fondevila for contributing in multiple
technical and presentation aspects of this paper and adjusting
the correlations. I like to thank Javier Schindler and Matas
Machado for implementing and coding standard PVT
correlations and assisted tuning flash calculations using
compositional models.
I would also like to thank Marcelo Crotti from INLAB for his
constructive and generous help in reviewing and discussing
this work.
Nomenclature
VoF = molar vapor fraction
VoFv = volumetric vapor fraction
moil = molar density of oil
mgas = molar density of gas
Bo = oil volume factor
Bg = gas volume factor
Rs = solution gas oil ratio
GOR = gas oil ratio at sc
oil = density of oil
gas = density of gas
References
1.
SPE 106855
Appendix
A New Black Oil Model Correlation Using Conformal
Mapping Techniques
VoFv =
arctan ( y
( x x0 ) )
(A-2)
Introduction
VoFv= 0.5
VoFv=0.75
VoFv= .25
y
1
Dew VoFv=1
-1
CP
-4
-2
Rs =
(1 VoFv )
Bo
Bg
W = e i
(Z i)
(Z + i)
(A-3)
2.50
2.00
Bubble
VoFv=0
CP
1.50
VoFv=0. 25
1.00
VoFv= 0.5
(A-1)
VoFv=0.75
0.50
Dew
VoFv=1
0.00
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
Bubble VoFv=0
SPE 106855
1.25
W = Z2
(A-4)
Bubble VoFv=0
1.00
0.90
0.75
Bubble
VoFv=0
VoFv= 0.25
y
0.50
VoFv=0. 25
0.65
VoFv= 0.5
VoFv=0. 5
VoFv=0.75
0.25
0.40
VoFv=0. 75
Dew VoFv=1
0.15
Dew VoFv=1
-0.10
-0.60
-0.30
0.00
0.30
0.60
x
Figure A-3. Conformal Mapping 3.
W = Z
(A-5)
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
x
Figure A-5. Conformal Mapping 5.
Bubble
VoFv=0
1.50
Pressure
(psia)
VoFv=0.25
3250
VoFv=0.5
1.00
Bubble VoFv=0%
2550
VoFv=0.75
0.50
Dew VoFv=1
0.00
-0.80
0.00
0.80
1.60
1850
VoFv=25%
1150
VoFv=50%
2.40
450
-250
VoFv=75%
Dew VoFv=100%
-700
-350
350
700
Temperature (F)
Figure A-6. Conformal Mapping vs Compositional Model.
W = arc coth( Z )
(A-6)
SPE 106855
Bo#0
Rs#0
(ft3/bbl)
1.400
750
1.320
600
Rs Real (f t3/bbl)
Bo Real
1.240
450
1.160
300
Density Oil Real (kg/m3)
1.080
150
1.000
0
0
900
1800
2700
Pressure (psia)
3600
SPE 106855