You are on page 1of 42

t: +44 (0) 7771 881182 e: info@petrophase.

com
www.petrophase.com


Reservoir Fluid (PVT) Analysis - Value to
Appraisal / Field Development Planning

Brian Moffatt




PVT Information Key for all
areas of Field Development

Exploration
Composition for economics

Appraisal
Contaminants
Flow Assurance

Development
Phase Behaviour for
Reservoir Simulation

Production
Composition monitoring

PVT Information
How to Maximise the Value of PVT
Information?
Issues from Linkedin PVT Forum Questions Value of PVT
Introduction - PVT Concerns
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Understanding PVT Data
EOS Modelling Methods
PVT and Reservoir Behaviour
Equipment
Sampling
QC Methods
Training
Questions
Forum replies focus on:

Data QC Methods
Sampling






Introduction PVT Concerns
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Understanding PVT Data
EOS Modelling Methods
PVT and Reservoir Behaviour
Equipment
Sampling
QC Methods
Training
Questions Replies/Question
How to Maximise the Value of PVT Information?
PVT Data QC
Uncertainties from Sampling
Storage Issues
Uncertainties from PVT Lab Measurements
Understand the Data in Context

Modelling Key Information
Focus on Matching Key Data
Correct handling MWs
Poor EOS performance for oil compressibility and viscosity
Mapping reservoir simulation results to a surface model

Which PVT uncertainties can most affect Development?

This Presentation
PVT Data QC
Maximising the Value of PVT Data
PVT Data QC
PVT DATA
QC
Traditional
QC
Sampling
Conditions
Well
Characteristics
Field GOR vs
Lab data
Sample
Quality
Air /OBM
Contamination
Opening
Pressures of
Samples
Sample
Compositions
Equilibrium
Plots
Data trends
Lab
Measurements
Consistency
Material
Balance
Equilibrium
Plots
Context /
Application
Agreement
with Field
Data
Sampling
Bottomhole-two phase flow into sampler
Formation tester-OBM Contamination
Separator-Reservoir two phase flow,
Recombination GOR, Liquid Carryover

Storage
Contaminant absorbtion

Measurement Errors
Sample handling-loss of heavy ends from gas
samples


Where do PVT Data Errors Arise ?
QC for Sampling Errors
Maximising the Value of PVT Information


Problem Areas

Bottomhole-two
phase flow into
sampler
Commingled flow
from different
intervals

QC: Bottomhole Flowing Samples
Information Obtained
Formation pressure and
pressure gradient (fluid type)
Estimate formation
permeability.
Sample compositions

Possible Problems
Two phase flow from poor
probe contact
OMB contamination


QC: Formation Tester
QC FT: OBM Contamination
GC trend analysis: hump in the compositional analysis, especially observed in
the carbon number range of the oil based mud components (C15-C20).
QC FT: Poor Compositions
9950
10000
10050
10100
10150
10200
10250
10300
10350
10400
5550 5600 5650 5700
T
V
D

S
S

f
t
Pressure (psi a)
Data PVT Report Oil
Use sample composition in an EOS
Analysis to compare predicted and
measured values for
Surface GOR
Phase Behaviour




Compare PVT Lab Densities with
Densities from Pressure Gradients


QC: Surface Sampling
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
1
4
0
1
5
0
1
6
0
1
7
0
1
8
0
30 C
50 C
Separator
GOR is highly
dependent on
surface
conditions.



Should not
affect
recombined
fluid.


QC: Surface Sampling
Pressure, Bar
bbl/MMscf
One lean condensate at different conditions
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0 500 1000 1500 2000
G
O
R

M
s
c
f
/
b
b
l
WHP psia
CGR vs Sep Press

What causes CGR scatter?


Conditions?

Wellstream?

QC: Surface Sampling
C
O
2
N
2
C
1
C
2
C
3
i
C
4
n
C
4
i
C
5
n
C
5
C
6
B
e
n
z
C
7
T
o
l
C
8
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
-2 0 2 4 6
L
o
g
1
0
(
K
*
P
)
Temp Function
Hoffmann-Hocott Equi l i bri um Pl ot
Data
Theory
QC: Surface Sampling
Equilibrium Plot
Between Surface Liquid
and Gas Compositions.
Identifies

Liquid Carry-over
Sample Handling
Loss of heavy ends
Poor Temperature/
Pressure Readings





Trend for Carryover
Trend for Heavy
end Losses
Slide 19
What if after QC of Surface and BH samples, there are no
obvious errors but the Compositions Disagree AGAIN!

QC Data in Context: Strange GC
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
%

M
O
L
BHS1 BHS2 BHS3 Separator
Slide 20
Initial GOR was steady at
around 8,000 scf/bbl and
samples gave a typical
Gas Condensate
behaviour
However recombined
Separator Sample gives
P
sat
> P
res

This was a low
Permeability Formation
with high drawdown



0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
G
O
R

s
c
f
/
b
b
l
Flow Period
P
res
QC Data in Context: Strange GC
Slide 21
At lower rates and lower
drawdowns the tested
GOR reduced
The API and Liquid
colour suggested the
fluid maybe a Volatile oil
An EOS analysis giving a
fluid with P
sat
= P
res
gas a
Volatile Oil with GOR
value of 2000 scf/bbl
FLUID IS VOLATILE OIL!
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
0 2 4 6 8
G
O
R

s
c
f
/
b
b
l
Gas Rate mmscf/d
QC Data in Context: Strange GC
QC for Sample Storage and PVT
Measurements
Maximise the Value of PVT Information
Pressures of Sample Bottles drop during storage due to cooling
Where groups of samples available the highest pressure sample is
less likely to have suffered leakage and compositional changes
With pressure drop can get deposition of asphaltenes/ sometimes
reversible
Contaminant absorbtion a problem in non conditioned bottles



QC:Sample Storage
Consistency Checks used for Common Lab Measurements
CVD/DL Material Balance
EOS Modelling for reality checks
Consistency Checks routinely carried out by PVT labs, data quality now
generally excellent. However historical data and data from unknown labs
can still have errors.



QC:PVT Lab Measurements
AT P=0, Z-factor
approaches Unity
Modelling Key Information
Maximising the Value of PVT Information
Which data do you match to? The Best Fit may not match
well in the are of interest, e.g. if the reservoir does not drop
below the saturation pressure








Modelling Key Information
PVT labs measure
volumetrics well, however
EOS can struggle with
compressibilities.



EOS models are particularly
limited in modelling near
critical fluids. Unrealistic
phase envelopes can arise.
Beware of using different
compositions in a well
matched EOS!




Modelling Key Information
0.660
0.670
0.680
0.690
0.700
0.710
0.720
0.730
0.740
0.750
5000 6000 7000 8000
D
e
n
s
i
t
y

g
/
c
c
Pressure (psia)
DATA
SRK
Unlikely
Critical
Behaviour

Conversion difficulties in transferring from reservoir modelling software to
processing modelling software!

Reservoir Engineer's Process Engineers
perspective perspective









Modelling Key Information
Matching viscosity using the LBC correlation is highly
dependent on densities.
Poor densities gives poor viscosities away from control
points, and also for the gas !
PVT Modelling Errors -Viscosities
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
0 200 400 600 800
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

c
p
Rs scf/bbl
B&R
Kartoatmodjo
Kartoatmodjo HO
P&F
Liquid viscosities are not
well predicted by EOS and
so often correlations are
used. For heavy oil the
errors can be >100%.





PVT Modelling Errors - MW
Samples are prepared
Gravimetrically
Response of GC Detectors are
Proportional to Mass
Internal standards are added by
weight

30
Increasing MW
Oil
PVT Modelling Errors - MW
SCN31
Average Molecular Weight for a Fraction not Known
Each Fraction has Complex Mix of Compounds
Different Service Companies may use Different Sets

100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

M
W

Core Labs Petrobras Expro


Volumetrics for economics
Measured GORs
Phase Behaviour for Reservoir Simulation
Contaminants, Flow Assurance Issues
Viscosities
Compositions


Which PVT uncertainties data can
most affect Development?
PVT labs measure reservoir
condition densities to better
than 1%. Insensitive to
compositional errors from
sampling. Errors small
compared to GRV and Sw
errors.

However, surface liquid
volumes and hence STOIIP
strongly influenced by
Separator Conditions.

Volumetrics
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
0
1
4
0
1
5
0
1
6
0
1
7
0
1
8
0
30 C
50 C
CGR vs Sep Press
The GOR is often chosen for modelling from a
single recombined sample! Is this sample
consistent with the rest of the test data? Often
ignore much relevant test data.



GOR
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0 500 1000 1500 2000
G
O
R

M
s
c
f
/
b
b
l
WHP psia
PVT labs measure
volumetrics well, however still
a need to QC particularly old
data



Sampling errors can lead to
unrepresentative phase
behaviour.

Phase Behaviour for Reservoir Simulation
P
res
PVT labs measure/calculate gas viscosities to +/- 1%. Liquid
viscosities to +/- 5%. Unlikely to be important even in tight
formations as permeability errors are larger.
Matching viscosities using the LBC correlation gives values
are highly dependent on densities, poor densities gives poor
viscosities away from control points, and also for the gas !


Viscosities
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
0 200 400 600 800
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

c
p
Rs scf/bbl
B&R
Kartoatmodjo
Kartoatmodjo HO
P&F
Liquid viscosities are not
well predicted by EOS and
so often correlations are
used. For heavy oil the
errors can be >100%,
beware!



Contaminants and flow assurance issues can lead to
costly topsides processing facilities and can constrain
export options. Huge cost implications, cf Buzzard.



Contaminants and Flow Assurance



H2S against Cumulative Gas Production
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Cumulative gas (MMSCF)
H
2
S

(
P
P
M
)
A Surprise!
Contaminants and Flow Assurance
Conditions Classification by
Habitat
Compounds Possible


Biogenic
compounds formed
<70
o
C
Me
3
As, Hg (element) and Me
2
Hg, MeSH, Me
2
S,

Maturation
products formed <
~140
o
C
CO
2
, H
2
O, H
2
S, R-SH, R-S-R, R-S-S-R
Thiophenes, tetrahydrothiophenes, benzothiophenes

(R and R are alkyl groups, methyl, ethyl propyl etc)
Thermally stable
products
>~140
o
C
S(vap), Hg, CO
2
, H
2
S, COS, N
2
, H
2
O (as steam or liquid)
Deeper, hotter &
high pressure
Conclusions
Main Problems!
GOR measurements
Phase behaviour from poor samples
Poor modelling of heavy oil viscosities and compressibilities

Be aware!
Contaminants
Wax, scale and asphaltene deposition
Compositions to indicate compartmentalisation
Small heavy end compositions


Placing the PVT data in context is one of the best methods of Data
QC



Capture the Real Picture!


http: //www.petrophase.com
i nfo@petrophase.com




The End - Thank you!

You might also like