Misuse EOS DCA Upscaling

7/2/2017
On the Misuse of
Equations of State, Upscaling & Decline Curve Analysis
Tarek Ahmed, PhD, P.E.

Emeritus Professor of Petroleum Engineering
Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd

25326 Metzler Creek Drive
Houston, Texas 77389
Tahmed@Mtech.edu
www.TarekAhmedAssociates.com
1
7/2/2017
How Do you Define Experience?
1) 5 years
2) 10 Years
3) 15 Years
4) 20 Years
2
7/2/2017
On Equations of State
3
7/2/2017
The van der Waals EOS

RT RT a
Ideal EOS: p p 2
V Vb V
November 23, 1837 March 8, 1923

Dutch
1910 Nobel Prize in Physics
R 2 Tci2 R Tci
ai a & bi b
pci pci
4
7/2/2017
p 2 p
Equations of State [ ]T , p ,V 0 &
V c c c
[ ]T , p ,V 0
V 2 c c c
p = prepulsive - pattractive
EOS prepulsive pattractive ai bi i (T)
idea RT 0 0 0 -
V
vdW RT a R 2 Tc2 R Tc -
a b
V b V 2 pc pc
RK RT a R 2 Tc2.5 R Tc -
a b
V b V (V b ) T pc pc
SRK a (T ) R 2 Tc2 R Tc f(T,Tc,)

RT a b
V b V (V b ) pc pc
PR a (T ) R 2 Tc2 R Tc f(T,Tc,)
RT a b
V b V ( V b ) b (V b ) pc pc
2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
5
7/2/2017
Numerous Applications of:

PV=ZnRT
Imagine:
A grid block in the reservoir:
yi
Ki
xi
6
7/2/2017
Equations of State
Why Tuning ?
7
7/2/2017
Two Major Problems with Any EOS

1. The Plus-Fraction & Lumped Components
2. The Methane Problem
p 2 p
[ ]T , p ,V 0 & [ ]T , p ,V 0
V c c c V 2 c c c
R 2 Tci2 R Tci
ai a & bi b
pci pci
The Cn+ critical& other properties: Tc, Pc;etc.
R 2 (Tc2 ) c 7 R (Tc ) c 7
ac 7 a & bc 7 b
( pc ) c 7 ( pc ) c 7
8
7/2/2017
p 2 p
[ ]T , p ,V 0 & [ ]T , p ,V 0
V c c c V 2 c c c
R 2 (Tc2 ) c 7 R (Tc ) c 7
ac 7 a & bc 7 b
( pc ) c 7 ( pc ) c 7
9
7/2/2017
10
7/2/2017
Experimental PVT Data

1. Saturation Pressure
2. Separator Test
3. Constant Volume Depletion Test CVD
4. Differential Expansion Test DE
5. Constant Composition Expansion CCE
6. Swelling Tests
7. Slim-Tube Test
8. Minimum Miscibility Pressure
9. etc.
11
7/2/2017
Tuning of EOS
Minimize one of the following two objective functions:
W exp pred
min F ( pc , Tc , , BIC , c)
i i i

i iexp

W exp pred
min F ( a , b , , BIC , c)
i i i

i iexp

Where:
Wi = Weight factor
i = PVT data, e.g. pb, pd, Bo,etc
a= EOS parameter
b= EOS parameter
= Acentric factor
12
7/2/2017
Tuning Strategy
W exp pred
i i i

i iexp

1. Conduct several SENSITIVITY RUNS to evaluate the impact of individually shifting EOS
parameters, i.e. pc,Tc, , a, b,etc., on the predicted PVT Data. This step might reveal that
changing pc has no significant impact on the results as compare with adjusting Tc.
2. Proper Selection of the experimental data to match
3. Proper Assigning the Weight Factors Wi to Experimental Data
13
7/2/2017
Mis-selection of Experimental Data to Match

W exp pred
i i i

i exp
i

Assiging Weight on Experimental PVT Data:
1. Saturation Pressure
2. Separator Test
3. Constant Volume Depletion Test CVD
4. Differential Expansion Test DE
5. Constant Composition Expansion CCE
6. Swelling Tests
7. Slim-Tube Test
8. Minimum Miscibility Pressure
14
7/2/2017
Example 1:
CCE & DE Laboratory Data
100 % oil 100 % oil 90 % oil 70% oil 60 % oil

Pi> Pb Pb P<Pb P <<Pb P <<<Pb
100 %
Oil Vt Vsat Vt Vt Vt
Hg
Vt
Vrel Notice, reference volume is Vsat
VSat
15
7/2/2017
CCE DE
31 data points 11 data points
(Vt ) p,T
Vrel
(V ) Psat ,T
(Vo ) p,T
Vrel
(V )14.7,60 o
16
7/2/2017
167 oF
17
7/2/2017
170 oF
18
7/2/2017
175 oF
19
7/2/2017
168 oF
20
7/2/2017
Constant Composition Expansion CCE
My Advise: ASSIGN WEIGHT FACTORS=0
Comment:
Why using Vsat; why not Vi ?
Vt (error ) V
Vrel t The problem is the
VSat (error ) VSat reference volume Vsat
21
7/2/2017
Example 2:
Z-Factor Related Laboratory Data
CVD, CCE
22
7/2/2017
Matching Reported Gas Z-Factor
23
7/2/2017
Matching Reported Gas Density, Why !!!
p Ma

ZRT
Perfect match; why?

because you had a perfect match
of Z-Factor
24
7/2/2017
Matching Gas Recovery Factor
RF is a function of Z-factor
p Zi
RF 1 [ ]
Z pi
25
7/2/2017
Lee-Gonzales Gas Viscosity
Why matching results

from a correlation?
26
7/2/2017
Defining Data Weight Factors
27
27
7/2/2017
Wi iexp ipred
F (a, b, , BIC )
i iexp

Property Z-Factor Gas RF Gas Density Gas Vrel

Viscosity
Weight 10 0 0 0 1
Factor
p Zi
RF 1 [ ]
Z pi
( MW ) P
g
Z RT
Lee-Gonzalez Method
(9.4 + 0.02 M a ) T 1.5 0.001494 M p Y
g= exp X a

0.0209 + 0.0019 M a + T Z T
197.2
Y = 1 .7 0.002 M a
T
28
28
7/2/2017
Challenges with Matching

Differential Rs and Bo With EOS
Challenges associated with measuring the liquid volume at reference temperature and
pressure, i.e. stock-tank.
EOS simulation might not replicate the final depletion point of the laboratory process.
29
7/2/2017
Eliminating the Stock-Tank Reference:

To eliminate the propagation of errors and for better match with EOS;
consider using the following conversions:
Rsb Rs
( Rs ) cum Scf/bbl to eliminate the ST:
Cumulative gas solubility is referenced to Bubble point volume
Bob
Bo
Bo bbl/bbl to eliminate the ST:
Bob Dimensionless Bo is referenced to Bubble point volume
30
7/2/2017
Rs
Rsb Rs
( Rs ) cum
Bob
Pressure
2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights

Reserved.
31
7/2/2017
Bo
Bo
Bo
Bob
Pb
Pressure
32
7/2/2017
An Alternative Approach
Instead of:
a, b, and m = f (pC, TC, )c7+
replace with :
a, b, and m = f (MW, sp.gr)C7+
Molecular weight and specific gravity are

measurable properties
33
7/2/2017
SPE Reservoir Engineering Journal

Paper # 18532
3 c4 6 c
a or b [ (ci D i )] [ (ci 7i 4 )] 7 ,
i 0 D i 5 7
M 7
D
7
34
7/2/2017
12
10
Modified EOS
LDO, % 6 Exp. Data
PVTSim
WinProp
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure
CVD for Gas 5
35
7/2/2017
4000
3500
3000
2500
Rsd; 2000
PVTSim
scf/STB
WinProp
Modified EOS
1500
Exp. Data
1000
500
0
0.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 4,000.00 5,000.00
Pressure
DE Rsd for Oil 2 at 176 oF
36
7/2/2017
Comment on Gas Cycling
2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd.

All Rights Reserved.
37
7/2/2017
Nitrogen Injection
% LDO
38
7/2/2017
Lean Injection
% LDO
39
7/2/2017
Understand the impact of:

a) Gas injection volume on vaporizing LDO
b) Gas Composition on vaporizing/reducing LDO
c) Timing of gas cycling; delay suggests more heaving components to vaporize
40
7/2/2017
What is the impact of injecting gas in a PVT cell containg condensate?
1- LDO curve !
2- dewpoint pressure !
41
7/2/2017
North Sea Gas-Condensate System

Pd = 6750 psi
T = 280 oF
Max LDO = 21.6%
C1 = 73.19%
C7+ = 8.21%
42
7/2/2017
North Sea Gas Original Liquid Drop Out Curve.
25
20
Liquid Drop Out, %
15
10
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pressure, psig
43
7/2/2017
North Sea Gas - Methane Injection commencing

at 4300 psig.
25
Liquid Drop Out, %
Original
20
500 scf/bbl
15
1000 scf/bbl
10
1500 scf/bbl
2000 scf/bbl
5
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pressure, psig
44
7/2/2017
Comparison of North Sea Injected gas

at 3100 psig (500 scf/bbl).
Original LDO = 21.3%

30
25
20
Liquid Drop Out, %
15
10
5
0
Injected Gas
45
7/2/2017
Comparison of North Sea Injected gas

at 1200 psig (500 scf/bbl).
Original LDO = 19.6%

Liquid Drop Out, %
40
20
0
Original N2/CO2/C1 N2/C1 CO2/C1 N2/CO2 N2 CO2 C1
Injected Gas
46
7/2/2017
EOS must be tuned to match

Hysis Simulation Data
47
7/2/2017
The Nameless Field Schematic of the

Central Processing Facilities
CPF
injection gas line
Stripper Column
(19 distillation trays)
80-250oc
55oc 1500 KPA
Oil Composition !!!
1st Stage 250oc
80oc 1300 KPA Stock-Tank
2nd Stage Boiler Furnace

(Tray-20) Gradual changes in the
temperature in the flow line
48
7/2/2017
Treatment of the Temperature Profile of the

Distillation Column
injection gas line
Temp profile is
Described
by single value of
150oc
150oc
700 KPA
55oc 1500 KPA
Oil Composition !!!
1st Stage
80oc 1300 KPA Stripper Column Stock-Tank
(19 distillation trays)
2nd Stage
The study suggests that the current treatment of the Column in the FFM
overestimates the liquid shrinkage; i.e. it underestimates STOIP and ST oil
produced
49
7/2/2017
The Eagle Ford Example
The Eagle Ford shale is one of the newest shale plays. Located in S. Texas, it extends over
an area of about 20,000 square miles
6 Hydrocarbon Windows
50
7/2/2017
Industry Fluid Identification Standards
System CGR GOR API

STB/MMscf SCF/STB
Dry Gas - > 100,000 -
Wet Gas 10-15 70,000- > 60
100,000
Retrograde 15-300 3,300-70,000 > 50
Gas
Near Critical >300 > 3,300 > 50
Volatile Oil - 1,000-3,300 > 45

Ordinary Oil - 200-1,000 < 45
Low Shrinkage - < 200 < 20

Oil
51
7/2/2017
C1+N2
A
A- Dry Gas
D
B- Wet Gas
C- Retrograde Gas
D- Near Critical
E- Volatile Oil
F- Ordinary Oil C B
G- Low Shrinkage Oil
C7+ C2-C6+CO2
2006 Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
52
7/2/2017
CGR Condensate Yield Y

Qo Qg
CGR The stream from a
Well or PVT cell
Qg Qo
Qo Qstream CGR
Y Qg
Qstream
Qstream Veq QO (Qg ) sep scf/day Qo
Qo
Y
Veq Qo Qg o
Veq 133,000 ; scf / STB
Hg Mo
CGR
Y
Veq CGR 1
Y < CGR
53
7/2/2017
On Decline Curves Analysis
54
7/2/2017
Traditional Decline Curve Analysis

Arps Decline Curve Methodology
Arps Decline Curve Analysis DCA has been the standard for evaluating the expected ultimate recovery EUR in
conventional gas and oil wells since 1950s.
Arpss equations were developed based on the assumptions that wells are producing under the Boundary
Dominated Flow BDF and past well performance trend will continue in the future .
qi
qt
(1 bDi t ) 1 / b
The curvature of decline b in the production rate vs. time curve can be expressed mathematically by one of
the following three hyperbolic family of equations:
Exponential decline: b=0

Harmonic decline: b=1
Hyperbolic decline: 0<b<1
PROBLEMS: b>1
55
7/2/2017
The Misuse of Arps Equations

o Arps equation has been often misused and applied to model the performance of
oil and gas wells whose flow regimes are in a transient flow. Arps approach is
strictly applicable ONLY when the well is under boundary-dominated flow
conditions
o When b >1; Arps decline curve approach will OVER ESTIMATE RESERVES
56
7/2/2017
Total Time b Di qi
Days Day-1 Mscf/day
qi
0- 365 2.93 0.0164 2025
qt
(1 bDi t ) 1 / b
0-730 3.00 0.0171 2030
0-1095 3.02 0.0173 2031
1825 2.96 0.0164 2023
3650 2.59 0.0114 1945
7300 1.9 0.0045 1675
57
7/2/2017
When b > 1 and why?
It is common in tight and oil and gas wells that the best fit to the production data requires values of
b > 1, beyond the application limit of Arps equation. Main reasons that the best-fit to the observed
data requires a value of b>1 is that:
1. The observed production data are collected under the unsteady-state (transient) flow regime
2. Production is commingled from multilayered formations that are hydraulically fractured with
multiple stages. Lower permeability zones maybe in transient flow, while higher-permeability
zones have established stabilized boundary-dominated flow.
58
7/2/2017
Modern DCA Methodologies

1) Boundary Dominated b
2) Modified Arps Method
3) Duongs Approach
4) Logistic Growth Model
5) Power Law Exponential Decline
6) Simplified Stretched Exponential Production Decline
7) Stretched Exponential Production Decline
59
7/2/2017
Which decline curve you should select?
2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved
60
7/2/2017
Recommended Approach
A. Regress and Match Cumulative Production; i.e. Gp or Np, NOT THE RATE
B. Regress and Match ONLY 80% of Observed Data; keep the 20% for Validation
C. Apply and Compare Different Methodologies to Provide with a Range of Answers
D. Using a Sufficient Sample of Wells that Represent the Field and Develop Type Curves
E. Express Results in Terms of P90, P50, and P10
61
7/2/2017
Boundary Dominated b
Under boundary dominated flow, the best oil or gas flow rate equation is give by:
n
Qo or Qg C p r pwf
2
log p r pwf
2
2 2 1 1
log Qo log C
n n
1 p
2
b (2 n 1) wf
2n pi

For a gas reservoir and based on the dependency of the parameter b on fluid and
production conditions, a model to estimate average b as a best approximation during
boundary-dominated depletion as given by:

( g c g ) i m( pi ) m( pwf )
b 1
2 pi pwf
( )
Z i Z wf
62
7/2/2017
Logistic Growth Model:

The logistic growth model LGM is a mathematical expression that used to forecast growth in numerous
applications, e.g. model population growth.
( EUR ) t n EUR
Np
n
at
N P ( EUR ) n a t n 1
qt
t
a tn
2

63
7/2/2017
Doungs Governing Equations
q a 1 m
N P oMax exp
a
t
1 m

1

N P
t
a 1 m
qo qoMax t m exp
1 m
t

1

qo = oil orate
Np = Cumulative oil
qoMax = Maximum anticipated oil rate
Regression variables:
1) qoMax
2) a (recommended range 0.5< m <6)
3) m (recommended range 1.1< m <4)
2006 Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
64
7/2/2017
Stretched Exponential Production-Decline

SEPD
t
n
qi 1 1 t
n

qt qi exp & Np ,
n n n
Gamma Function (x+1):

1 1 139 571
( x 1) x x e x 2 x 1 2
3
4
12 x 288 x 51840 x 2488320 x
For example, (5) is expressed as (4+1) which means x=4
Incomplete Gamma Function (g,h)):
g 1 ( g 1) ( g 2) ( g 1) ( g 2) ( g 3)
1 h h2

h3
( g , h) h g 1 e h
( g 1) ( g 2) ( g 3) ( g 4)
h4
65
7/2/2017
On Sector Modeling & Upscaling
66
7/2/2017
Nameless Field
67
7/2/2017
Nameless Field
Upper TAGI Formation , Described by Four Zones
1) U4: 10 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
2) U3: 15 Fine scale layers 2 coarse scale layers
3) U2: 5 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale layer
Middle TAGI Formation , Described by Two Zones

1) M2: 5 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
2) M1: 35 Fine scale layers 5 coarse scale layers
Lower TAGI Formation, Described by Three Zones

1) L3: 20 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale Layer
2) L2: 20 Fine scale layers 1 coarse scale layers
3) L1: 40 Fine scale layers 4 coarse scale layers
173 Fine Scale Layers 19 Coarse Scale Layers
68
7/2/2017
69
7/2/2017
Three Major Issues in Upscaling
1)Zonation (Optimum Number of Layers)

2)Averaging Technique
3)Downscaling !
70
7/2/2017
Upscaling Permeability, Porosity,etc.
A. Power Average
B. Arithmetic (Volumetric) Average
C. Root-Mean-Square RMS Average
D. Tensor Averaging
E. Renormalization
Which averaging methodology should we use?
71
7/2/2017
Why not 15? Why Not 30?
72
7/2/2017

4) U1: 23 Fine scale layers3 coarse scale layers
23 layers 3 layers
73
7/2/2017

2) U3: 15 Fine scale layers2 coarse scale layers
15 layers 2 layers
74
7/2/2017
Sector Modeling
75
7/2/2017
76
7/2/2017
Identifying Problem Layers per Zone
77
7/2/2017
Combined Performance of the

Lower TAGI Formation
6Layers Coarse System vs. 80 Layers Fine System
Water cut vs. time
Cumulative oil vs. time
78
7/2/2017
VERDICT
1)19 Layers are Not Sufficient, Downscaling
2)New Geological Model
79
7/2/2017
On Relative Permeability
80
7/2/2017
81
7/2/2017
Reservoir Simulation
2006 Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd.

All Rights Reserved.
82
7/2/2017
83
7/2/2017
84
7/2/2017
Simulator
1) TA (this is the driver program)
2) TAREK (The simulator)
Three Files are needed to run the simulator:

TA.dat (Initialization File)
TA.Sim (Simulation File)
TA.out (Output File)
Be SURE to use Notepad when you open

TA.dat & TA.sim (Remember that PLEASE)
85
7/2/2017
STEPS TO RUN THE MODEL

Step 1: Step 2:
a) Click on the application file: TA a) Click on the application file: TA
b) Select: Initialization Run b) Select: Simulation Run
c) Follow instruction and answer all questions and c) Follow instruction and answer all questions and CLICK
CLICK ON THE ENTER KEY TO CLOSE ON THE ENTER KEY TO CLOSE
d) At the end of step (C); Open TA.dat with Notepad d) Open: TA.sim with Notepad; this file contains wells info
and Enter Missing Reservoir Data.
e) Save and close the file
e) Save and close the file
f) Click on: Tarek.exe to run the simulator (this is a MUST
f) Click on the application file : Tarek (this is a MUST STEP)
STEP); simulator WILL NOT RUN WITHOUT THIS STEP
g) Results of the run are given in TA.OUT as well as other
files
do not go to step 2 until you:

a) answers all questions
b) close the software by pressing the <ENTER> key
c) Open TA.dat with Notepad and enter missing data
d) Clicking on Tarek.exe
e) Observed the reported OOIP or OGIP
f) If you did not see OOIP or OGIP, something wrong in TA.dat
86
7/2/2017
Initialization File: TA.dat

! 3) Reservoir Model Grid Dimensions
! **********************************
100 100 10 ! x,y, and z blocks
! 4) x-direction Grid Block Lengths

! *********************************
Each time you see
! Warning Warning Warning The Warning message;
! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ you must enter some data
! Please, enter below the x-direction grid dimension (length)
! for each grid block. 100 values MUST BE entered :
! *************************************************
100*300 You enter the data
! 5) y-direction Grid Block Lengths
! *********************************
! Warning Warning Warning

! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
! Please, enter below the y-direction grid dimension (length)
! for each grid block. 100 values MUST BE entered :
! *************************************************
100*300 You enter the data
2006 Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
87
7/2/2017
Open the Following Files with EXCEL to Make Plots

(e.g. GasRec.dat, FieldQg.dat,etc)
File Name Contents

-------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
1) Summary.dat > History Matching info.& Well data
2) DailyQ.dat > Field Daily Flow Rates
3) OilRec.dat > Field Oil Recovery Factor
4) GasRec.dat > Field Gas Recovery Factor
5) FieldQg.dat > Field Monthly Flow Rates
6) WellQw.dat > Well Monthly Water Flow Rates
7) GasQ.dat > Field Total Daily Gas Flow Rate
8) WellQg.dat > Monthly Gas Flow Rates/well
9) Pmap.dat > Pressure Map
10) Sgmap.dat > Gas Saturation Map
11) Swmap.dat > Water Saturation Map
12) Layers.dat > Performance of layers, cross flow,etc
13) LayerRate.dat > Production/injection rate/layer
88
7/2/2017
The Big Saigon Gas Field

Grid dimensions= 30 x 30 x 3
Reservoir dimensions= X=300 ft, Y=300 ft, Z=20 ft
Initial # of wells= 3 wells
Depth to top= 5000 ft
Start date= Jan 1, 1990
Total Thickness = 100 ft
Temperature 200 oF
Initial Pressure 4000 psi @ 5020 ft
Sgi= 0.70
Simulation time= 7200 days
89
7/2/2017
The Texas Oil Field

Grid dimensions= 30 x 30 x 5
Reservoir dimensions= X=300 ft, Y=300 ft, Z=20 ft
Initial # of wells= 8 wells
Depth to top= 5000 ft
Start date= Jan 1, 1990
Total Thickness = 100 ft
Soi= 0.70
Simulation time= 7200 days
90
7/2/2017
Initial Pressure =4500 psia

35o API
Temperature 200 oF
Gas gravity=0.75
GOR=500 scf/STB
Model will calculate Pb
Pressure at 5020 ft =4500 psi
Minimum Pwf = 300 psi
91
7/2/2017
Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Layer 4 Layer 5

Kx, md 20 15 35 12 10
Ky, md 15 12 30 10 5
Kz, md 1.7 1.3 3.0 1.0 0.7
0.25 0.20 0.30 0.15 0.12
h, ft 20 20 20 20 20
Z, ft 20 20 20 20 20
1 x-direction (columns) 30
1 z=20 ft
y-direction (rows)
30 z=20 ft
1 z=20 ft 100 ft
z=20 ft
z=20 ft
92
7/2/2017
Objectives:
1) Maximize Oil Recovery
2) Open Summary.dat to exam the performance of each layer and where the injected water is going
3) Important that you open Sgmap.dat , Swmap.dat & Pmap.dat with Excel
4) Open with Excel: Oilrec.dat to to plot RF & average P vs. time
5) Open with Excel: WellQg.dat, WellQo.dat & WellQw.dat to plot well rates vs. time
6) Open with Excel: WellGOR.dat & WellWOR.dat to plot well rates vs. time
7) Compare Water Injection with Gas Injection
8) Balance Production-Injection rate VRR
9) Drill Horizontal injectors /producers and:
test completion in Layer 1,2,3,4, and 5
Effect of horizontal well orientation
document the difference in RF
10) Stimulate Wells
11) Miscible Displacement
12) Document your Team Results Graphically
13) Team Presentation
93

Misuse EOS DCA Upscaling

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Misuse EOS DCA Upscaling

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

7/2/2017

Tarek Ahmed, PhD, P.E.

Tarek Ahmed & Associates Ltd

How Do you Define Experience?

The van der Waals EOS

November 23, 1837 March 8, 1923

EOS prepulsive pattractive ai bi i (T)

SRK a (T ) R 2 Tc2 R Tc f(T,Tc,)

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Numerous Applications of:

Two Major Problems with Any EOS

The Cn+ critical& other properties: Tc, Pc;etc.

Experimental PVT Data

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

2. Proper Selection of the experimental data to match

3. Proper Assigning the Weight Factors Wi to Experimental Data

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Mis-selection of Experimental Data to Match

Assiging Weight on Experimental PVT Data:

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

100 % oil 100 % oil 90 % oil 70% oil 60 % oil

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Constant Composition Expansion CCE

My Advise: ASSIGN WEIGHT FACTORS=0

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Matching Reported Gas Z-Factor

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Matching Reported Gas Density, Why !!!

Perfect match; why?

Matching Gas Recovery Factor

Lee-Gonzales Gas Viscosity

Why matching results

Defining Data Weight Factors

Property Z-Factor Gas RF Gas Density Gas Vrel

Challenges with Matching

Eliminating the Stock-Tank Reference:

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Molecular weight and specific gravity are

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SPE Reservoir Engineering Journal

DE Rsd for Oil 2 at 176 oF

Comment on Gas Cycling

2006Tarek Ahmed & Associates, Ltd.

Understand the impact of:

What is the impact of injecting gas in a PVT cell containg condensate?

North Sea Gas-Condensate System

North Sea Gas Original Liquid Drop Out Curve.

North Sea Gas - Methane Injection commencing

Comparison of North Sea Injected gas

Original LDO = 21.3%

Comparison of North Sea Injected gas

Original LDO = 19.6%

EOS must be tuned to match

The Nameless Field Schematic of the

injection gas line

2nd Stage Boiler Furnace

Treatment of the Temperature Profile of the

injection gas line

The Eagle Ford Example