Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
John Ratulowski
Shell Exploration and Production Technology Company
Houston TX
Outline
400
Normal BP C
known values 300
250
Group contribution techniques used to 200
100
Viscosity model fit to data from 10 C 50
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
to 65 C Number of Carbons
Branched Straight Chain
Methane BIP’s fit to gas solubility data
Petrofree EOS Model Results
Petrofree Density Petrofree Viscosity
0.9 Atmospheric Pressure
12
10
0.85
8
gm/cc
Viscosity cp
6
0.8
4
2
0.75
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0
Pressure psia 0 20 40 60 80 100
T Celcius
75 F 150 F 300 F
Model Data
1000
500
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure psia
100 F 300 F
Escaid Mineral Oil
wt %
10
density
Viscosity model to data between 4 C
and 38 C 1
5 10 15 20
Methane BIP correlation fit to gas Carbon Number
3
2000
2.5
SCF/BBL
1500
Viscosity cp
2 1000
1.5 500
1 0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Temperature F Pressure psia
Methane Solubility in
Novaplus at 200 F
8000
6000
Pressure psia
IsoTeq Viscosity
4000
Avg Error 0.09%
Measured
7
2000
6
0
Viscosity cp
3
Methane Solubility in
2 Novaplus at 250 F
40 50 60 70 80
Temperature F 8000
Pressure psia
4000
Measured
2000
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
GOR SCF/BBL
Other Contaminant Models
• Aquamul
– C20 alkyl ether
– Approach similar to Petrofree esters
– Limited success matching gas solubility data
• Novasol
– Alpha-olefin isomers groups one near C20 the other near C30
– Normal paraffins n-C30 and n-C40
– Viscosity, density, and gas solubility matched adequately
Density of Dead Oil Blends
API Gravity
40
•Variability in base fluid properties
35
caused some error in the Petrofree trace 30
50 35
45 34
API Gravity
API Gravity
40 33
35 32
30 31
25 30
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Mass % Contaminant Mass % Contaminant
Viscosity cp
•Contamination range from 5 to 60 wt % 20
15
•Novasol 3.7 % average error
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
•Aquamul 2.7 % average error Mass % Contaminant
25 25
20
Viscosity cp
Viscosity cp
20
15
15
10
5 10
0 5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Mass % Contaminant Mass % Contaminant
Delta Viscosity cp
0.01
800
0
600
-0.01
400
-0.02
200
-0.03
0
-0.04
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Wt % Escaid Wt % Escaid
Measured 163 F EOS Model 163 F
Measured 130 F EOS Model 130 F Measured EOS Model
Delta Viscosity cp
800
-0.04
600
-0.06
400
-0.08
200
-0.1
0
-0.12
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 2 4 6 8 10
Wt % Escaid
Wt % Escaid
Measured 163 F EOS Model 163 F
Measured 130 F EOS Model 130 F Measured EOS Model
EOS Results for the Black Oil (Flash Data)
Black Oil Flash GOR ESCAID Petrofre Contaminated Black Oil
1350 0
1300 -0.2
-0.4
GOR SCF/BBL
1250
Delta API
-0.6
1200
-0.8
1150
-1
1100 -1.2
1050 -1.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Mass % Contaminant Wt % Escaid
1400
-0.5
1350
GOR SCF/BBL
Delta API
-1
1300
1250 -1.5
1200
-2
1150
1100 -2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Mass % Contaminant Wt % Escaid
1900 1.85
GOR SCF/BBL
Bo RB/STB
1800
1.8
1700
1.75
1600
1500 1.7
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
% NOVSOL % NOVSOL
36
5200
35.5
Psat psia
5100
API
35
5000
34.5
4900
34
4800 33.5
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
% NOVSOL % NOVSOL
12000
•31 API stock tank oil (condensate) Reservoir
11000
•Retrograde behavior at 130 F and 180 F
Pressure psia
confirmed in four experiments at two 10000
laboratories 9000
Critical Point
GOM Near Critical Fluid 180 F CCE GOM Near Critical Fluid 130 F CCE
Phase Diagram Phase Diagram
1 0.05 1 0.03
0 0 0 0
5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Pressure psia Pressure psia
Expt. Uncontaminated Expt.5 wt % Novaplus
EOS Uncontaminated EOS 5 wt% Novaplus Uncontaminated 5 wt % Novaplus
• Single stage flash CGR of 37.8 BBL/MMSCF with a tank gravity of
48.4 API
• Same three contaminants as black oil study
• Two different EOS characterizations were used. Results of the models
are sensitive to the detail of EOS characterization
• Reasonably good agreement for flash data between experiment and
model
• Contaminant-gas binary interaction parameters should be fit in the
retrograde region for accurate prediction of saturation pressure
EOS results for the Lean Condensate
(Live Oil Data)
Escaid Condensate Dewpoint 160 F Escaid Condensate Live Oil Density
9000 psia 163 F
250
0
200 -0.002
150 -0.004
100 -0.006
-0.008
50
-0.01
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 -0.012
Mass % Contaminant 0 5 10 15 20 25
Mass % Contaminant
-0.005
-200
-400 -0.01
-600 -0.015
-800
0 5 10 15 20 25 -0.02
Mass % Contaminant 0 5 10 15 20 25
Mass % Contaminant
-2 0.14
Delta LGR BBL/MMSCF
0.12
-4
0.1
Delta API
-6
0.08
-8
0.06
-10
0.04
-12 0.02
-14 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Mass % Contaminant Mass % Contaminant
-2
3
-6 2
-8
1
-10
-12 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Mass % Contaminant Mass % Contaminant
4-Stage Separator 55 40 32
LGR BBL/M M SCF
Potential Problems 4-Satge Separator
API Gravity
50 49 47
% PV Liquid
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pressure psia
Summary
• EOS models for oil based mud contaminants were constructed using
chemical, physical, and VLE data from the base fluids
• These models do a reasonable job of correcting black and volatile oil
data
• Condensates are difficult to correct. The contaminant model should be
fit to the retrograde region for accurate correction of dew points
• In practice, many things can cause differences between data measured
on bottom-hole samples and production data these include:
– Sample handling and transfer
– Problems in the lab
– Problems with the EOS model
– Areal and vertical variation in fluid properties in the reservoir