SPE 92828

A Pseudo-Black-Oil Method for Simulating Gas Condensate Reservoirs

S.-W. Wang, SPE, and I. Harmawan, SPE, Unocal Indonesia Co.
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and
Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 5 7 April 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
A method was developed to estimate the composition of heavy
end by matching MDT pressure gradient when downhole
sample or reliable recombined surface sample is not available.
After adjusting the heavy end or C7+ composition, an
equation-of-state was used to match (1) MDT pressure
gradient from calculated gas density, (2) dew point, (3) surface
condensate yield, and (4) API gravity of condensate. The fine
tuned equation-of-state was then converted into a pseudo
black oil PVT table. This method allows reservoir engineers
to study production from retrograde gas condensate reservoirs
without using equation-of-state to handle complex phase
behavior and commingled production from multiple
reservoirs.
Three examples are included to illustrate the proposed
method. The first two examples give detailed description of
step by step procedures. The third example incorporates a 3D
reservoir simulation model and a pipeline to form an
integrated model. The reservoir model consists of two
separate reservoirs to be produced by two subsea wells, which
are linked to a surface pipeline tied back to West Seno FPU.
The advantages and disadvantage of this method are discussed
at the end of this paper.
Introduction
This paper presents a method which tries to estimate liquid
yield and phase behavior when there is lack of good downhole
sample but good MDT pressure gradient is available. If we
have good downhole sample or good recombined surface
sample, the fluid composition and phase behavior can be
determined in laboratory. However, if downhole sample is not
available or only the composition of separator gas is available,
then the true reservoir fluid composition can not be accurately
determined.
The main difference between a downhole sample and a
separator gas sample is the missing of heavy end or

condensate in separator gas. The mole fraction of C7+ in a

good downhole sample, assuming no contamination, is known
with certainty and should not be adjusted during regression of
equation-of-state (EOS). On the contrary, separator gas is
devoid of heavy end or C7+. Therefore, the main objective of
this method is to estimate the mole fraction and/or molecular
weight of the heavy end, C7+, so that the adjusted
composition will yield a gas density at reservoir condition to
match MDT pressure gradient.
The adjusted fluid
composition is considered to represent the true composition at
initial reservoir condition.
Algorithm
The general principle of the proposed algorithm is
summarized as follows:
(1) Adjust composition and/or molecular weight of C7+
so that the gas density, , matches MDT pressure
gradient, P/h, at reservoir temperature and pressure as
shown in equation (1).
g = P/h = MDT pressure gradient

(1)

where is gas density, g is gravity constant, P is

initial reservoir pressure, and h is subsea vertical
depth.
(2) Based on adjusted C7+, calculate non-ideal gas
factor, Z, to satisfy MDT gradient in equation-1 and
gas PVT in equation-2 simultaneously.
P*Mw = ZRT

(2)

where Mw is gas molecular weight, Z is nonideal gas deviation factor, T is reservoir

temperature, and R is universal gas constant.
(3) Select appropriate parameters from a chosen
equation-of-state (EOS) and tune EOS to match (a)
gas density corresponding to MDT pressure gradient,
(b) estimated dew point, and (c) condensate yield and
API gravity at surface condition.
(4) If the result in (3) is not satisfactory, then the EOS in
step (3) is saved and reloaded back to the previous
EOS as a new starting point for further fine tuning
with a new set of parameters. This step is called
successive substitution.

More detailed description of the proposed methodology is

presented in the following examples.
Example-1
In this example, downhole sample is not available, nor is the
composition of recombined surface sample. However, MDT
pressure gradient, separator gas composition, and separator
liquid yield at surface condition are available. MDT gradient
is shown in Figure-1, which yields a pressure gradient of
0.1094 psia/ft.
Table-1 shows the initial compositions of three separator
gas samples from Bangka Upper Channel reservoir. Reservoir
temperature is 1640F and initial reservoir pressure is 4415
psia. Liquid yield at surface separator is approximately 29
B/MMSCF and 500 API gravity.
In order to fine tune gas composition, we have to estimate
the true composition of the heavy end or C7+ since
recombined oil and gas sample is not available.
Step-1: The first step is to calculate average gas
composition from three surface gas samples, which have been
stripped of condensate as shown in columns 3 though 6 of
Table-1.
Step-2 is to substitute calculated average gas composition
into an EOS such as Peng-Robinson EOS to calculate gas
density at prevailing reservoir temperature and pressure. This
process usually will not match MDT pressure gradient right
away without further adjustment of C7+, which is lost in the
gas phase.
Adjustment of C7+ mole fraction and/or its molecular
weight is a trial-and-error process. The molecular weight of
C7+ usually is reported in the gas composition analysis. If it
is not available, C7+ molecular weight can be estimated from
condensate API through correlations. When C7+ mole% is
adjusted, the mole% of the rest components needs to be
adjusted accordingly in order to maintain the total mixtures
composition equal to 100% as shown in the last column of
Table-1.
We then substitute adjusted overall gas composition into
an EOS to calculate gas density at reservoir condition, which
can be converted into MDT gradient according to equation-1.
Strictly speaking, an EOS may not be necessary at this step
since all it takes is to calculate a new Z-factor for the adjusted
gas composition. Any appropriate Z-factor correlation or
program should do equally well. Note precise matching of gas
density is not absolutely necessary since all we need is a good
approximation in the first pass so that we can proceed to step3.
Step-3 requires integrating all pertinent data together,
which includes estimated dew point, separator conditions,
condensate yield ratio, API gravity of condensate, and gas
density back calculated from MDT pressure gradient via
equation-1. Dew point pressure can be determined from the
intersection of MDT pressure gradients. If the intersection
point is not available, then dew point needs to be estimated by
analogy or from other published literature.
Step-4 is fine-tuning EOS parameters in order to match all
observed data as listed in step-3. Further adjustment of C7+
mole% and its molecular weight would depend on the
matching results of gas density, separator API gravity, and
condensate yield. For instance, if API is too low, which

SPE 92828

means the fluid density is high, and then C7+ mole fraction
and/or molecular weight may have to be reduced.
Step-5 is extension of step-4. A major limitation of step-4
is the number of EOS parameters which can be adjusted each
time must be less than or equal to the number of data points.
One way to overcome this limitation is to use successive
substitution. For instance, if A and B are chosen for
regression in step-4, we can load their values after first
iteration back into the original EOS as new initial values of A
and B, and regress them again in second interaction until
satisfactory result is obtained. Or we can select different EOS
parameters such as binary coefficient, Tc, Pc, or accentric
factor in second iteration until satisfactory result is obtained.
Step-6 converts EOS parameters into pseudo black oil
PVT by means of Rv to represent retrograde gas condensate
behavior. Rv represents the amount of vaporized oil molecules
present in the gas phase.
In example-1, Peng-Robinson EOS was selected to match
MDT pressure gradient. The fine tuned Peng-Robinson EOS
predicts a gas density of 0.2547 g/cc for Upper Channel
reservoir at 164 0F and 4400 psig. The predicted gas density
yields an equivalent pressure gradient of 0.11037 psi/ft for
Upper Channel reservoir, which is in excellent agreement with
MDT gradient, 0.1094 psi/ft, the slope of pressure gradient
shown in the left hand side of Figure 1.
Tables-2 and 3 show the key parameters and binary
interaction coefficient of Peng-Robinson EOS, respectively.
Table 3 only shows half of the binary interaction coefficients
because of symmetry. Table-4 shows comparison between
predicted values by this method and the observed MDT
pressure gradient (via gas density), dew point, condensate
yield and API gravity. If the agreement is satisfactory, then
the information in tables 2 and 3 are used to generate black oil
PVT as shown in Table-5 for Upper Channel reservoir.
Notice that the conversion process generates a small
difference in dew point and condensate yield between EOS
and pseudo black oil conversion as shown in Tables 4 and 5.
For instance, the dew point and condensate yield are predicted
to be 4437 psia and 26.3 B/MMSCF, respectively by EOS as
opposed to 4434 psia and 26.6 B/MMSCF by pseudo black oil
PVT.
Example 2
Example-2 is similar to example-1, where downhole sample is
not available, nor is the composition of recombined surface
sample. However, MDT pressure gradient, separator gas
composition, and separator liquid yield at surface condition
are available. MDT gradient is shown in the right hand side of
Figure-1, which yields a pressure gradient of 0.1173 psia/ft or
an equivalent gas density of 0.2707 g/cc.
Table-6 shows the initial compositions of two surface gas
samples from Bangka Lower Channel reservoir. Reservoir
temperature is 1700F and initial reservoir pressure is 4850
psia. Liquid yield at surface separator is approximately 36
B/MMSCF and 500 API gravity.
Following the same procedures as outlined in example-1,
the predicted gas density is 0.2715 g/cc, which yields an
equivalent pressure gradient of 0.1177 psi/ft for Lower
Channel. The equivalent pressure gradient is in excellent

SPE 92828

agreement with MDT gradient, 0.1173 psi/ft, the slope of

pressure gradient shown in the right hand side of Figure 1.
Tables-7 and 8 show the key parameters and binary
interaction coefficient of Peng-Robinson EOS, respectively.
Table-9 shows comparison between calculated and observed
parameters such as MDT pressure gradient (via gas density),
dew point, condensate yield, and API gravity of condensate.
Table-10 shows the converted pseudo black oil PVT for
Lower Channel reservoir.
Example 3
This example uses pseudo PVT properties to estimate liquid
yield of a mixed well stream from two wells. Well-1 has an
initial condensate yield of 30.66 B/MMSCf and well-2 has an
initial condensate yield of 24.1. For instance, if both wells
produce at the same rate, say 50 MM SCF/D, then the mixed
well stream would be 100 MMSCF/D. Reservoir simulation
shows an average daily codensate yield at 27.38 B/MMSCF,
which is equivalent to the weighted average condensate yield
of each contributing well stream. In other words, the
simulated condensate yield is the same as calculated by
(30.66*50 + 24.1*50)/(50 + 50) = 27.38 B/MMSCF. Note
each wells rate needs not be identical as shown in this
example. Pseudo black oil method will predict a mixtures
yield by using linear weighting factor proportional to each
wells rate ratio in a mixture or commingled well stream.
Although the concept of pseudo black oil PVT may not
yield very accurate in predicting the condensate yield of mixed
or commingled well streams, it is considered to be even more
difficult to solve the same problem with an EOS since we
usually do not have laboratory tests based on mixed well
streams. It could also be quite difficult to use a single EOS to
model the phase behavior of multiple well streams from
multiple reservoirs starting at different temperature, pressure,
and condensate yield.
Conclusion
This paper presents a method which can be used to
estimate phase behavior of a retrograde condensate reservoir
when there is lack of downhole or recombined surface sample
to accurately account for the heavy end fraction. This method
attempts to adjust C7+ mole fraction and its estimated
molecular weight so that the gas density at reservoir condition
would yield a pressure gradient which matches MDT pressure
gradient.
Once a reasonable C7+ composition and molecular
weight can be obtained, we can proceed to incorporate other
observed data such as dew point, condensate yield, and
condensate API gravity to tune a selected EOS. If dew point
can not be directly determined from MDT pressure gradient,
an estimated dew point would have to be used.
After successful matching of the observed data with an
EOS, the EOS parameters are converted into pseudo black oil
PVT properties by means of Rv, oil vapor in the gas phase, to
predict condensate yield as a function of reservoir pressure.
This process offers the following advantages over fully
compositional EOS approach: (1) it is very fast in computation
when compared to fully compositional approach, (2) it can be
used to predict yield for commingled production or multiple
wells from multiple reservoirs since it is considered to be quite

difficult to predict the phase behavior of mixed well streams

from multi-reservoirs at different temperature and pressure,
(3) it provides approximate yield in the pipeline as pressure
loss due to friction.
The disadvantages of this method include (1) it can not be
used for gas re-injection operation and (2) it does not have
temperature dependency, which can underestimate liquid drop
out in subsea pipeline.
If downhole or recombined surface sample can be obtained
successfully, then the trial-an-error step to tune C7+ can be
avoided.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Unocal Indonesia Company for
permission to publish this paper.
Nomenclature
Rs: solution gas/oil ratio
A: constant in cubic EOS
B: constant in cubic EOS
: viscosity
: accentric factor

Table-1: Initial and Adjusted Composition, Bangka

Upper Channel Reservoir
Comp

Mol Wt

Mol %

Name

CO2

Sample Sample Sample

After C7+
Average
No. 1
No. 2
No. 3
adj

44.01

N2

28.01

C1
C2
C3
iC4
nC4
iC5
nC5
C6
C7+
Total

16.04
30.07
44.10
58.12
58.12
72.15
72.15
84.00
137.96

Mol %

Mol %

Mol %

Mol %

1.27

1.17

1.31

1.25

1.24

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.01

0.01

86.79 88.57 89.08 88.15

3.77
3.73
3.79
3.76
3.40
2.95
2.72
3.02
0.80
0.61
0.52
0.64
1.36
0.98
0.81
1.05
0.60
0.40
0.30
0.43
0.52
0.34
0.25
0.37
0.58
0.38
0.30
0.42
0.91
0.87
0.89
0.89
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

87.12
3.72
2.99
0.64
1.04
0.43
0.37
0.42
2.05
100.00

Avg MW

20.92

20.12

19.86

20.30

21.68

SpGr

0.7254

0.6977

0.6887

0.7039

0.7516

Parameter

Unit

This Method

Observed

Gas Density

g/cc

0.2563

0.2525

Dew Point

psia

4437

4415

Yield

b/mmscf

26.3

29

Separator

53.3

50

Separator

API

C7+

NC6

NC5

IC5

NC4

IC4

C3

C2

C1

N2

CO2

Name

COMP

128.00

86.18

72.15

72.15

58.12

58.12

44.10

30.07

16.04

28.01

44.01

679.69

453.70

385.70

369.10

305.70

275.00

206.00

90.10

-116.60

-232.40

87.90

TC
0
F

373.4

436.9

488.6

490.4

550.7

529.1

616.3

707.8

667.8

493.0

1070.9

psia

PC

Table-4: Comparison between Predicted and Observed

Data, Upper Channel Reservoir

Remark

0.457236
0.457236
0.457236
0.457236
0.457236
0.457236
0.457236
0.487208

0.0978
0.1541
0.1840
0.2015
0.2286
0.2524
0.2998
0.4331

0.2850
0.2810
0.2830
0.2740
0.2730
0.2620
0.2640
0.2522

0.074279

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

C7+

NC6

NC5

IC5

NC4

IC4

C3

C2

C1

N2

CO2

CO2

N2
0

Mol Wt

Name

CO2
44.01

N2
28.01
0.08
0.02
0.05
0.05

C1
16.04
89.06
88.27
88.67
87.12

C2
30.07
4.34
4.40
4.37
4.29

C3

44.10

2.81

2.91

2.86

2.81

iC4

58.12

0.48

0.51

0.50

0.49

1.25

Bo

Bg

1.31

71
16

100

136

500
300

321

1000

713

1.0442

1.0704

1.1027

1.1911

1.2789

1.3642

0.9476

0.8246

0.7340

0.5823

0.4853

0.4148

0.3582

0.7358

0.7237

0.7131

0.6909

0.6723

0.6556

0.6396

0.0399

0.1128

0.1788

0.3234

0.4482

0.5584

0.6566

0.7438

0.1742

0.0567

0.0332

0.0158

0.0101

0.0074

0.0059

0.0049

0.0043

2000

1.4513

0.6235

0.8207
922

0.3098

0.6065

2500

1.5459

0.2667
1153

1.6548

1418

rcf/scf

3000

0.8878

Zo

3500

0.5882

g/cc

0.0035
0.2275

cp

0.0038

1.7866

rb/stb

1738

515

C3

0
0

0.12 0.12 0.12

4000

1500

C2

0.15 0.15 0.15

C1

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.12

0.15

IC4

0.0123

0.0125

0.0127

0.0135

0.0148

0.0165

0.0188

0.0216

0.0247

0.0283

0.0318

cp

0.9870

0.9629

0.9407

0.8938

0.8599

0.8394

0.8314

0.8341

0.8455

0.8638

0.8847

Zg

0.0047

0.0143

0.0244

0.0511

0.0799

0.1098

0.1401

0.1703

0.2003

0.2306

0.12

0.15

NC6

Rv

0.01

0.01

26.6

2.2

0.8

0.6

0.8

1.5

2.8

4.9

8.1

12.7

19.1

0.01

0.01

0.02 0.025

0.12

0.15

NC5

stb/mmscf

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.12

0.15

IC5

0.2577

g/cc

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.12

0.15

NC4

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.12

0.15

C7+

Table 3: EOS Binary Interaction Coefficient for Upper Channel Reservoir

Table 5: Pseudo Black Oil PVT for Upper Channel Reservoir

443.3

271

231

231

191

191

151

111

71

35

49.6

PCHOR

4434

scf/stb

0.457236

0.0126

0.2890

0.077796

psia

0.457236

0.0372

0.2910

0.077796

Rs

0.457236

0.2225

0.2742

Comp
P

ZC

Table 2: EOS Parapters for Upper Channel Reservoir

Mw

4
SPE 92828

Table-6: Initial and Adjusted Composition,

Bangka Lower Channel Reservoir

Sample Sample
After
Average
No. 1
No. 2
C7+ adj
Mol %
Mol %
Mol %
Mol %

1.28
1.26

0.53

0.99

0.76

2.49

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

MDT

Total
Avg MW

19.37

20.06

19.72

21.78

P @ GOC

SpGr

0.6718

0.6957

0.6837

0.7551

nC4

58.12

0.78

0.84

0.81

0.80

iC5

72.15

0.25

0.29

0.27

0.27

nC5

72.15

0.21

0.24

0.23

0.22

C6

84.00

0.21

0.22

0.22

0.21

C7+

137.96

C7+

NC6

NC5

IC5

NC4

IC4

C3

C2

C1

N2

CO2

Name

COMP

PC

707.80
616.30

488.60
436.90

-116.60
90.10
206.00
275.00
305.70
369.10
385.70
453.70
679.69

16.04
30.07
44.1
58.12
58.12
72.15
72.15
86.18
138.00

Parameter
Unit
This Method
Observed

Gas Density
g/cc
0.2717
0.2707
MDT

Dew Point
psia
4862
4850
P @ GOC

Yield
b/mmscf
34.93
36
Separator

55
50
Separator

API

C7+

NC6

NC5

IC5

NC4

IC4

C3

C2

C1

N2

CO2

0.2522

0.2640

0.2620

0.2730

0.2740

0.2830

0.2810

0.2850

0.2890

0.2910

0.2742

ZC

0.5197

0.2998

0.2524

0.2286

0.2015

0.1840

0.1541

0.0978

0.0126

0.0372

0.2225

0.523664

0.457236

0.457236

0.457236

0.457236

0.457236

0.457236

0.457236

0.457236

0.457236

0.457236

0.081459

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

0.077796

443.3

271

231

231

191

191

151

111

71

35

49.6

PCHOR

CO2

N2

0.12

0.15

C1

0.12

0.15

C2

0.12

0.15

C3

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.12

0.15

IC4

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.12

0.15

NC4

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.12

0.15

IC5

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.12

0.15

NC5

0.01

0.01

0.025

0.12

0.15

NC6

Table 8: EOS Binary Interaction Coefficient for Lower Channel Reservoir

373.35

490.40

550.70

529.10

667.80

493.00

87.90
-232.40

28.01

1070.90

psia

44.01

TC
0
F

Table 7: EOS Parapters for Lower Channel Reservoir

Mw

C7+

0.01

0.01

0.12

0.15

SPE 92828
5

Table-9: Comparison between Predicted and Observed

Data, Lower Channel Reservoir
Remark

Depth, SS ft

Rs
scf/stb

1940
1568
1413
1273
1026
814
623
446
279
121
64

P
psia

-9200
4,300

4875
4500
4000
3750
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
300
1.8629
1.7076
1.6432
1.5853
1.4840
1.3962
1.3168
1.2415
1.1674
1.0949
1.0681

rb/stb

Bo

0.1471
0.1678
0.1785
0.1895
0.2126
0.2376
0.2653
0.2969
0.3340
0.3785
0.3989

cp

0.5677
0.5882
0.5977
0.6067
0.6239
0.6402
0.6563
0.6727
0.6899
0.7090
0.7174

g/cc

0.9835
0.9289
0.8977
0.8638
0.7877
0.7000
0.5995
0.4844
0.3517
0.1950
0.1229

Zo

0.0034
0.0036
0.0039
0.0041
0.0044
0.0050
0.0060
0.0076
0.0104
0.0161
0.0337
0.0574

rcf/scf

Bg

0.0338
0.0307
0.0270
0.0254
0.0238
0.0210
0.0185
0.0164
0.0148
0.0136
0.0128
0.0126

cp

0.9210
0.8997
0.8765
0.8670
0.8591
0.8484
0.8457
0.8527
0.8712
0.9022
0.9453
0.9658

Zg

Table 10: Pseudo Black Oil PVT for Lower Channel Reservoir
g

0.2733
0.2494
0.2195
0.2050
0.1906
0.1621
0.1335
0.1049
0.0765
0.0492
0.0235
0.0139

g/cc

Rv

35.2
26.8
18.4
15.1
12.3
7.9
4.9
2.8
1.6
0.9
0.7
0.9

stb/mmscf

6
SPE 92828

Figure 1: Bangka Field MDT Pressure Data

-8000

Bangka Field by Wells

-8200

Upper Channel:

-8400

Y = -0.1094*X + 3508.3
Lower Channel:

-8600

Y = -0.1173*X + 3508.3

-8800

-9000

4,400

4,500

4,600

Pressure, Psia

4,700

Bangka-1 Bangka-2 Bangka-4 Aton-1 Aton-1ST

4,800

Current Well

4,900

5,000