Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Modified Black Oil PVT Properties Correlations for Volatile Oil and Gas
Condensate Reservoirs
Ibrahim S. Nassar, GUPCO, Ahmed H. El-Banbi, and Mohamed H. Sayyouh, Cairo University
Abstract
This work presents new Modified Black Oil (MBO) PVT properties (Rs, Rv, Bo, and Bg) correlations for volatile oil and
gas condensate reservoir fluids. These new correlations do not require the use of fluid samples or EOS calculations. The
correlations have the advantage of taking into consideration the effect of surface separator configuration (two and three
stages) and conditions (separators pressures and temperatures).
The correlations were developed using fourteen actual reservoir fluid samples (7 gas condensates, 3 near critical fluids,
and 4 volatile oils) spanning a wide range of fluid behavior and characteristics. Whitson and Torp method was used to
generate Modified Black Oil (MBO) PVT properties that were used as a data set for correlations development.
The MBO PVT properties data points were generated by extracting the PVT properties of each sample using commercial
PVT software program at twelve different separator conditions spanning a wide range of surface separator configuration and
conditions to generate twelve curves for each sample. A statistical approach using a statistical software program (SPSS) was
used to develop the new correlations models.
The results of the new models show reasonable agreement between Modified Black Oil PVT properties generated from the
new correlations and the MBO properties extracted using Whitson and Torp method. The average absolute error in the
correlations was 8.5% for volatile oils and 17.5% for gas condensates.
These correlations were also validated by comparing the results of modified black oil simulation using MBO PVT
properties generated from these correlations to the results of full equation of state (EOS) compositional simulation. Also, the
generalized material balance equation (GMBE) was used to calculate the initial oil/gas in place (IOIP/GIIP) for many
simulated cases using PVT data generated from the new correlations and data generated from EOS models. The advantage of
the new correlations comes from being the first in the industry (to the best of our knowledge) that explicitly take into
consideration the effects of surface separators configurations (two or three stages) and conditions. Also, all input parameters
in the correlations are readily available from field production data. These correlations do not require elaborate calculation
procedures or PVT reports.
Introduction
It was clear since 1920's that the engineering of oil reservoirs require the knowledge of how much gas was dissolved in the
oil at reservoir conditions and how much the oil would shrink and gas would expand when it was brought to surface. Three
properties (Rs, Bo, and Bg) serve these purposes and constitute the traditional (conventional) black oil PVT formulation7.
However, it has been known for many years that volatile oil and gas condensate reservoirs cannot be modeled accurately with
conventional black oil technique but require Modified Black Oil (MBO) approach. The MBO approach assumes that the stock
tank liquid can exist in both liquid and gas phases in reservoir condition.
Gas condensate and volatile oil petroleum reservoir fluids are simulated frequently with fully compositional models but
can also be efficiently modeled with a Modified Black Oil (MBO) approach15. A few authors have addressed the question of
how to best generate the MBO PVT properties including the new function, condensate gas ratio (Rv) which represents the
vaporized oil in gas.
SPE 164712
Whitson and Torp3 in 1983 used data derived from CVD experiments to calculate modified black oil PVT properties for
volatile oil and gas condensate reservoirs. Perhaps the most useful application of CVD data is the calculation of liquid
composition, which together with measured vapor composition yield high pressure K-values. At each depletion step,
individual phase compositions (measured or calculated) are flashed using a set of appropriate K-values (ex.: Standings Kvalues Correlation) through a multistage separator simulator representing field conditions to calculate MBO PVT properties
(Bo, Bg, Rs, Rv).
Coats4 in 1985 developed a different approach from Whitson and Torp to calculate the modified black oil PVT properties
for gas condensate reservoirs only. In his approach, oil-gas ratio (Rv) is obtained by flashing the equilibrium gas at each stage
through the specified surface separator configuration while the remaining parameters are calculated using a material balance
procedure.
McVay2 in 1994 extended Coats work to include volatile oil reservoirs. He modified Coats procedure in a completely
analogues manner to generate MBO PVT properties for volatile oil reservoirs.
Walsh and Towler5 in 1994 suggested a simple method to compute the black oil PVT properties of gas condensate
reservoirs. The authors used the data available from standard CVD experiments and developed an algorithm to compute the
black-oil PVT properties of gas condensate without the requirement of K-value model or equation of state (EOS) calculations.
The method is rigorous, direct and simple and is ideally suited for spreadsheet applications. However, it depends on how
many pressure steps are taken in the CVD laboratory experiments.
All the methods for generating modified black oil PVT properties presented in the literature need a combination of lab
experiments (PVT reports) and elaborate calculation procedures. Recently, a new oil-gas ratio (Rv) correlation was developed
by Abdel Fattah.9 This correlation doesnt require the use of fluid samples or elaborate EOS calculations. In practical use of
this new correlation, difficulties were noticed from the use of the surface gas gravity parameter (it is assumed to be
volumetric average between gas gravity in different separators, while gas gravity from low pressure separators may not be
available in many field operations). Therefore, the surface gas gravity used by the correlation14 probably needs advanced
knowledge in PVT to be calculated. Also, the effect of the surface separator configuration and conditions are not explicitly
represented in the correlation. Separator conditions were implicitly represented in the specific gravity term. It was found that
separator conditions would have significant impact on PVT properties for volatile oil and gas condensate reservoirs16.
In this work, we developed new MBO PVT correlations that combine the advantages of the previously published
correlations9,14 and explicitly use separator configurations and conditions.
SPE 164712
Approach
Extracting the modified black oil (MBO) PVT properties for each sample from the tuned equation of state (EOS) using
Whitson and Torp method generated at twelve different separator conditions was performed. The data set included 1,488
points for the 4 PVT curves from volatile oil samples, 1,212 points from near critical samples, and 2,280 points from the gas
condensate samples.
A statistical software program (SPSS) was used to develop the new correlations models by fitting the data sets extracted
above. In selecting the independent parameters for the 4 PVT properties curves, we selected parameters that are readily
available and also have strong correlation with the dependent variables (Rs, Rv, Bo, and Bg). The new correlations do not
require data from experimental fluid analysis (PVT reports), nor elaborate calculations with EOS models, and all the
parameters are easily obtained from field production data.
After developing those correlations, we evaluated them by comparing the results of the modified black oil simulation
using these PVT properties extracted from the new correlations to the results of full Equation of State (EOS) compositional
simulation. Also, the generalized material balance equation was used to calculate the Initial Oil/Gas in Place (IOIP/GIIP).
Error
.................................................................................(1)
Another step was performed to complete the work for the extraction of MBO PVT properties so those correlations can be
applied for any field case. Because saturation pressure may not be known in some cases, new saturation pressure correlations
were developed. The saturation pressure correlations depend on the same parameters and the calculated saturation pressure
will be used to divide the MBO curves to the saturated and the under-saturated parts. To account for the cases where
saturation pressure may be available from other sources, all correlations were presented for two cases: (1) known saturation
pressure, and (2) unknown saturation pressure. The following presents the new correlations models and their results. First, the
saturation pressure correlations are presented followed by the saturated curve correlations for the 4 PVT parameters, and
finally the under-saturated curves.
Saturation Pressure Models
The most widely used correlations for saturation pressure are probably the ones by Standing6, Vasquez and Beggs17, and
Al-Marhoun18. We tried to modify these correlations to account for three stage separation which is commonly used for
volatile oils and gas condensates and found that the modified Al-Marhoun correlation gives the best results with our data
base.
In the following, we present two correlations for saturation pressure: one for volatile oil and the other for gas condensate.
Both correlations have the same form, but for volatile oil it will be function of initial producing solution gas-oil ratio (Rsi)
while for gas condensate, it will be function of initial producing condensate-gas ratio (Rvi).
Volatile Oil Saturation Pressure (Bubble Point) Correlation:
SPE 164712
A R
.......................................(2)
......................................(3)
A R
..............................................................................................................................(4)
...............................................................................................................................(5)
The above correlation parameters are given in Tables 2 and 3 for two-stage and three-stage separation for volatile oils and
gas condensates, respectively. The average absolute error for the correlations is presented in Table 15.
....................................................................(6)
..............................................................................................................................(7)
.............................................................................................................................(8)
STO ......................................................................................................................(9)
The correlation parameters have been computed by regression and are presented in Table 4 for gas condensate and volatile oil
(for both two-stage and three-stage separators). The average absolute errors and the least mean square errors mentioned
earlier are presented in Table 15.
b) Unknown Saturation Pressure
The final form of the modified correlation is:
.....................................................................(10)
..............................................................................................................................(11)
..............................................................................................................................(12)
SPE 164712
T STO .........................................................................................................................(13)
The new correlation parameters are given in Table 5 for gas condensate and volatile oil for both two-stage and three-stage
separators. The average absolute error for this correlation is presented along with other correlations in Table 15.
..........................................................(14)
STO ....................................................................................................................(15)
STO .....................................................................................................................(16)
T STO
.....................................................................................................................(17)
The oil formation volume factor correlation parameters (when saturation pressure is known) are given in Table 6 for gas
condensate and volatile oil for both two-stage and three-stage separators. The average absolute error for the correlation is
given in Table 15.
b) Unknown Saturation Pressure
The final form of the correlation is:
A P A 10 ^ A X
A Y EXP A V ..................(18)
STO ....................................................................................................................(19)
STO .....................................................................................................................(20)
T STO .........................................................................................................................(21)
Similarly, the new correlation parameters are given in Table 7 for gas condensate and volatile oil for both two-stage and
three-stage separators. The average absolute error is presented in Table 15.
SPE 164712
parameter is not the reciprocal of the initial producing gas-oil ratio. It is actually the amount of oil (or condensate) vaporized
in the gas coming out of the solution at surface separators. In black oil correlations, the parameter condensate-gas ratio is not
defined as the gas associated with black oil is dry gas19. Therefore, a new correlation for initial condensate-gas ratio (Rvi) will
need to be used first to compute a value we can use for other correlations in volatile oil cases.
The form of the initial condensate-gas ratio, Rvi, correlation is:
A EXP A X
A STO
A STO
................................................................................................................................................(22)
X
SG P
...................................................................................................................(23)
SG P
....................................................................................................................(24)
The new correlation parameters are given in Table 8 for volatile oil only for two-stage and three-stage separators. For gas
condensates, the initial Rvi value can be obtained from production data. Now for the rest of the correlations and for both fluid
types (volatile oils and gas condensates) Rvi values will be available. For gas condensates, it will be available from production
data while for volatile oils, it will be calculated from the new correlation.
A P
A P
EXP A X
A Y EXP A V R
................................................................................................................................................(25)
X
SG P
..................................................................................................................(26)
SG P
....................................................................................................................(27)
.....................................................................................................................(28)
During the regression process, we found that it was hard to obtain a good curve fit especially for the tail part of the curve in
the condensate-gas ratio model. This was the main reason to explain the higher error percentage in this correlation for gas
condensates than volatile oils. The new correlation parameters are given in Table 9 for gas condensate and volatile oil for both
the two-stage and three-stage separators. The average absolute error is presented in Table 15.
SPE 164712
A P
A P
EXP A X
A Y EXP A V R
................................................................................................................................................(29)
X
SG P
...................................................................................................................(30)
SG P
...................................................................................................................(31)
..............................................................................................................................(32)
A P
EXP A X
A Y EXP A V
........................(33)
SG P
...................................................................................................................(34)
SG P
....................................................................................................................(35)
STO T ........................................................................................................................(36)
The new correlation parameters are given in Tables 11 and 12 for gas condensate and volatile oil for two-stage and threestage separators. The average absolute error is presented in Table 15. Table 11 is used if we want to calculate Bg values for high
and low pressures. Table 12 is used if we would like to have better accuracy correlation for Bg in the high pressure range (P >
1000 psi).
Under-Saturated Curve Models
The following equations are presented to show how the 4 MBO PVT properties (Rs, Rv, Bo, and Bg) can be calculated for both
volatile oils and gas condensates above the saturation pressure.
Solution Gas Oil Ratio Model
The same model for the saturated curve with the same correlation parameters will be used to calculate the solution gas oil
ratio at the saturation pressure for gas condensate fluids. For volatile oils, it can be obtained from production data as it is
equal to the initial producing gas-oil ratio.
...........................................................................................................................(37)
The average absolute error is presented in Table 15 for both known and unknown Psat.
SPE 164712
A P
A V
A P
A B
A X
A Y ...(38)
....................................................................................................................(39)
...................................................................................................................(40)
T STO .........................................................................................................................(41)
The new correlation parameters are given in Table 13 for gas condensate and volatile oil for both two-stage and threestage separators. The average absolute error is presented in Table 15.
.............................................................................................................................(42)
The average absolute error is presented in Table 15 for both known and un-known Psat.
Gas Formation Volume Factor Model
The value of under-saturated gas formation volume factor, Bg, decreases with increasing pressure, regardless of whether
the pressure is above saturation pressure or not. Therefore, the final form of the new correlation is the same as the saturated
curve model. The average absolute error is presented in Table 15. For volatile oils, under-saturated gas formation volume
factor is not defined and therefore, only gas condensate average absolute error is presented here.
Correlations Validation
The accuracies of the new correlations are evaluated firstly by cross plots between actual values and calculated values and
secondly by calculating the average absolute error. Figs. 7 to 10 show example cross plots between observed and calculated
values for the new correlations models.
For further validation and to estimate the effect of the correlation error on the results of the applications these correlations
will be used for, two more procedures were used in validation:
1. The results of the Modified Black Oil simulation using PVT properties generated from the new correlations were
compared to the results of full compositional Equation-of-State (EOS) simulation.
2. The Generalized Material Balance equation was used to calculate the Initial-Oil/Gas-In Place (IOIP/IGIP) for several
simulated cases.
SPE 164712
In order to examine the effects of MBO PVT Properties, all other potential sources of differences between compositional
and MBO simulation results should be eliminated. First, the same simulator was used for compositional and MBO simulation
runs. Second, the same EOS models that were used for generating MBO PVT properties were also used for compositional
simulation runs.
We used the generalized material balance equation (GMBE) in its straight line form to calculate the Initial-Oil/Gas In
Place using the PVT properties calculated from the new correlations and these values were compared to those calculated from
the compositional simulation models. The procedure to perform this comparison started by running hypothetical
compositional simulation cases to predict reservoir performance for each of the fourteen reservoir fluid samples. These runs
were also used in the simulation comparison between the MBO and compositional models. Then, the GMBE was used in its
straight line form (graphically) to estimate initial oil in place, N, and initial gas in place, G, following Walshs approach. Fig.
11 shows an example of the results of GMBE as a straight line using PVT generated from the new correlations. Table 14
compares between the calculated Initial Oil/Gas In-Place using PVT extracted from the new correlations and compared with
the values of the compositional simulation models. The table shows that the errors of material balance calculation using PVT
from the new correlations range from minimum of 3% up to a maximum of 23%, which represent reasonable accuracy.
Finally, we compared the results of the Modified Black Oil simulation using PVT generated from these correlations to the
results of Full Equation of State (EOS) compositional simulation. All simulation runs started from pressure greater than the
saturation pressure and went to pressures significantly below the saturation pressure (no pressure maintenance) up to
abandonment pressure of 500 psi. A commercial simulator program (ECLIPSE) was used for the simulation runs. Figs. 12
and 13 show example comparison results of compositional simulation and MBO simulation. These figures indicate a
reasonable match between reservoir pressure and the producing gas oil ratio calculated from MBO simulation (using PVT
properties calculated from the new correlations) and those calculated from the compositional simulation.
Discussion
The importance of the new correlations comes from the fact that they can generate reasonably accurate PVT properties for
volatile oil and gas condensate fluids without the need for a laboratory report or elaborate EOS calculations. They also take
into consideration the effect of surface separator conditions. Also, all parameters used in the correlations are readily available
especially for the surface gas gravity term that was a point of confusion in previous MBO correlations9,17.
The developed correlations are expected to have wide application in MBO simulations and volatile oil and gas condensate
material balance applications. To highlight the new MBO PVT correlations applicability, we compared the results from the
new correlations to the results of one of the most widely used black oil correlations (Standing correlation)16. The results from
Abdel Fattah9,17 correlations were also compared with the new work. We will consider here the MBO PVT properties
extracted with Whitson and Torp1 method as reference for comparison. Two samples (one volatile oil and one gas
condensate) were used for full comparison between the new correlations, Abdel Fattahs correlations, and Standing
correlations. The two selected samples were not used in developing the new correlations to present unbiased testing. Two sets
of figures (Figs. 14-17 for the new gas condensate sample and Figs. 18-21 for the new volatile oil sample) show the
comparison between the MBO PVT properties calculated by the new correlation, Abdel Fattahs, and Standing versus the
values extracted from the EOS model. The figures show that the new correlations perform much better than the other
correlations especially the one by Standing (which was developed for black-oil fluids).
All volatile oil samples from this work were then used in similar comparison and the error was calculated for the new
correlations, Abdel Fattahs, and Standing. Table 16 provides the average absolute error for all the 4 MBO PVT functions
computed with all correlations. The error was calculated referenced to the Whitson and Torp MBO PVT properties
calculation method. Both the comparison figures and summary table show the superior behavior of the new correlations. One
should also notice that the common black-oil PVT correlations will usually perform badly in volatile oil and gas condensate
fluids. Also, the condensate-gas function (Rv) is not defined for commonly used black-oil PVT correlations.
Conclusions
Fluid samples representing different fluid composition and ranging from volatile oils to near critical fluids and up to gas
condensates were characterized using a commercial EOS PVT software program and new MBO PVT properties (Bo, Rs, Bg and
Rv) correlations were developed. Based on work presented in this paper, the following conclusions were made:
1. The new MBO PVT properties correlations do not require lab experiments or EOS model and they take into consideration
the surface separator configuration and conditions. Separate models were developed for volatile oil and gas condensate
fluids.
2. The obtained results show reasonable agreement between MBO PVT properties generated from the new correlations and
those extracted using Whitson and Torp (W&T) method. The average absolute error is 8.5% for volatile oils and 17.5% for
gas condensates.
3. Application of the new correlations in material balance and reservoir simulation was performed for both validation and for
10
4.
SPE 164712
estimation of error in case of applying those new correlations. The error in calculating the initial fluid in place using the
GMBE ranges from 3% to 23%. Reasonable agreement between MBO simulation using PVT from the new correlations and
fully compositional simulation was also obtained.
For volatile oil fluids, the new correlations are significantly more accurate than commonly used black-oil PVT correlations.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to express their gratitude to both Cairo University and GUPCO for making the programs used in
this research work available.
Nomenclature
BIC
Bg
Bgi
Bo
Boi
Bosat
CCE
C7+
CGR
CVD
DL
EOS
GIIP
GC
GMBE
IOIP
MBE
MBO
PVT
PR
Psat
Psep1
Psep2
Rs
Rsi
Rv
Rvi
STO
SG1
SG2
Tr
VO
References
1. Whitson, C.H. and Trop, S.B.: Evaluating Constant Volume Depletion Data, Paper SPE 10067, SPE, Richardson, TX.
USA, 1983.
2. Schilthuis, R.J.: Active Oil and Reservoir Energy, Trans. AIME 1936, 148, pp. 33-52.
3. Walsh, M.P.: A Generalized Approach to Reservoir Material Balance Calculations, paper presented at the International
Technical Conference of Petroleum Society of CIM, Calgary, Canada, JCPT, May 9-13, 1994.
SPE 164712
11
4. Walsh, M.P., Ansah, J., and Raghavan, R.: The New, Generalized Material Balance as an Equation of a Straight line: Part 1
Applications to Under-Saturated and Volumetric Reservoir, paper SPE 27684 presented at the 1994 SPE Permian Basin
Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, March 16-18, Midland TX.
5. El-Banbi, Ahmed H., Forrest, J.K., Fan, L., and McCain, W.D., Jr.: Producing Rich-Gas-Condensate Reservoirs--Case
History and Comparison Between Compositional and Modified Black-Oil Approaches, paper SPE 58988 presented at the
SPE Fourth International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, Villahermosa, Mexico. Feb. 1-3, 2000.
6. Coats, K.H.: Simulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance, Paper SPE 10512, JPT, Oct. 1985, pp. 1870-1886.
7. McVay, D.A.: Generation of PVT Properties for Modified Black Oil Simulation of Volatile Oil and Gas Condensate
Reservoirs, Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University, TX. 1994.
8. Walsh, M.P., and Towler, B.F.: Method computes PVT properties for Gas Condensate, OGJ, July 31, 1994, pp. 83-86.
9. Abdel Fattah, Khalid A.: Volatile Oil and Gas Condensate Fluid Behavior for Material Balance Calculations and Reservoir
Simulation, Ph.D. Thesis, Cairo University, 2005.
10. Ibrahim, M, El-Banbi, Ahmed H., El-Tayeb, S., and Sayyouh, H.: Changing Separator Conditions During Black-Oil and
Modified Black-Oil Simulation Runs, paper SPE 142462 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and
Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 69 March 2011.
11. Coats, K.H., Smart, G.T.: Application of a Regression Based EOS PVT Program to Laboratory Data, SPERE (May 1986)
277-299.
12. McCain, W. Jr.: Analysis of Black Oil PVT Reports Revisited, Paper SPE 77386, Oct. 2002.
13. Vasquez, M. and Beggs, D.: Correlation for Fluid Physical Property Predictions, JPT, June 1989.
14. Al-Marhoun, M.A.: Evaluation of Empirically Derived PVT Properties for Middle East Crude Oils, Journal of Petroleum
Science and Engineering 42 (2004) pp.209-221.
15. McCain, W.D., Jr.: Heavy Components Control Reservoir Fluid Behavior, JPT (September 1994) 746-750.
16. Standing, M. B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems, SPE, AIME, 1977.
17. EL-Banbi, Ahmed H., Abdel Fattah, Khalid A., and Sayyouh, M.H.: New Modified Black Oil Correlations for Gas
Condensate and Volatile Oil Fluids, Paper SPE 102240 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, TX. Sept. 24-27, 2006.
NO.
SampleName
SampleType
C7+
(%)
Tres
(F)
Psat
(PSIG)
IGOR
(Scf/Stb)
VO1
VolatileOil
19.0
249
4527
1678
VO2
VolatileOil
16.9
176
4460
N/A
VO3
VolatileOil
14.9
246
4821
2000
VO4
VolatileOil
14.2
276
4375
2527
NC1
GasCondensate
12.7
312
5210
3413
NC2
GasCondensate
12.2
286
5410
4279
NC3
GasCondensate
11.7
238
4815
3405
GC1
GasCondensate
8.2
280
6750
5500
GC2
GasCondensate
8.2
215
4952
5403
10
GC3
GasCondensate
6.9
186
4000
5987
11
GC4
GasCondensate
6.5
312
5465
8280
12
GC5
GasCondensate
6.4
260
4525
7203
13
GC6
GasCondensate
5.9
267
4842
N/A
14
GC7
GasCondensate
5.5
240
3360
N/A
12
SPE 164712
C7+Range
20.0
VolatileOil
18.0
16.0
14.0
NearCritical
12.0
10.0
8.0
GasCondensate
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
VO1
VO2
VO3
VO4
NC1
NC2
NC3
GC1
GC2
GC3
GC4
GC5
GC6
GC7
SampleName
RelativeVolume
5000
Pressure,psi
4000
3000
2000
1
1000
0
0
1000
2000
3000
0
100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Rel.Vol.(EOS)
Temperature,F
5000
6000
7000
8000
Rel.Vol.(Obs.)
Fig.3 Comparison between EOS and Observed Relative volume values for VO1
1.5
1.4
0.9
1.3
0.8
1.2
0.7
LiquidDropout,fraction
VaporZFactor
4000
Pressure,psi
900
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.5
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1000
2000
Pressure,psi
VaporZfactor(EOS)
3000
4000
5000
Pressure,psi
VaporZfactor(Obs.)
Liq.Sat.(EOS)
Liq.Sat.(Obs.)
Fig.4 Comparison between EOS and Observed Vapor Z-Factor values for VO1 Fig.5 Comparison between EOS and Observed Liquid Dropout values for VO1
SPE 164712
13
1
0.9
MolesRecovered,fraction
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Pressure,psi
EOS
Obs
Fig.6 Comparison between EOS and Observed Moles Recovered values for VO1
Fluid
SeparatorStages
A0
A1
A2
A3
A4
VO
2Stages
0.064
1.00
0.005
5.77
1.73
VO
3Stages
0.033
1.06
0.004
6.22
1.83
Fluid
SeparatorStages
A0
A1
A2
A3
A4
GC
2Stages
729
0.06
0.007
0.97
0.38
GC
3Stages
762
0.06
0.017
0.96
0.38
Fluid
SeparatorStages
A0
A1
A2
A3
GC
2Stages
1.51E04
1.06
43.99
6.24
GC
3Stages
1.78E04
1.13
36.44
774.33
VO
2Stages
4.88E04
0.63
407.53
8.32
VO
3Stages
4.26E04
0.55
356.32
1200.33
A4
A5
10.10
332.73
9.15
3.48
524.59
4.00
Fluid
SeparatorStages
A0
A1
A2
A3
GC
2Stages
1.5E08
6.47E04
0.12
4.94
GC
3Stages
1.1E08
6.94E04
0.12
1597.13
VO
2Stages
1.0E07
1.42E04
0.08
7.80
VO
3Stages
9.2E08
1.27E04
0.07
988.22
A4
A5
0.0007
698
0.001
0.001
433
0.001
Fluid
SeparatorStages
A0
A1
A2
A3
GC
2Stages
5.55E05
0.721
3193
1.6E05
GC
3Stages
7.25E05
0.690
3396
3.0E05
VO
2Stages
1.81E04
0.294
4382
1.6E05
VO
3Stages
1.82E04
0.268
4444
1.1E05
A4
A5
0.0022
6.6E05
0.0020
0.0007
4.7E05
0.0006
14
SPE 164712
Fluid
SeparatorStages
A0
A1
A2
A3
A4
GC
2Stages
2.1E08
3.7E04
1.00
9.4E06
GC
3Stages
1.9E08
3.6E04
1.05
4.0E05
VO
2Stages
3.8E08
7.4E05
0.97
1.4E05
VO
3Stages
3.8E08
6.8E05
0.98
1.2E05
A5
6.5E05
7.0E05
3.8E05
6.3E04
4.3E05
5.8E04
Fluid
SeparatorStages
A0
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
VO
2Stages
1.6E23
6.7E02
52.94
93.72
40.36
4.7E03
VO
3Stages
9.9E27
4.8E02
63.82
112.41
48.25
5.3E03
Fluid
SeparatorStages
A0
A1
A2
A3
GC
2Stages
8.6E08
1.9E04
0.606
1.2E05
GC
3Stages
8.7E08
2.0E04
0.634
1.2E04
VO
2Stages
3.1E07
9.3E04
1.493
3.8E04
VO
3Stages
3.0E07
9.4E04
1.554
1.7E03
A4
A5
5.0E02
2.2E04
4.9E02
7.4E02
2.3E03
7.2E02
Fluid
SeparatorStages
A0
A1
A2
A3
GC
2Stages
4.6E09
2.5E04
2.6E01
8.5E06
GC
3Stages
2.0E09
2.3E04
2.9E01
1.4E03
VO
2Stages
4.7E07
1.4E03
2.3E+00
3.7E04
VO
3Stages
4.6E07
1.4E03
2.4E+00
1.7E03
A4
A5
2.4E+02
2.4E03
2.3E+02
4.6E+02
2.3E03
4.5E+02
Table 11- Gas Formation Volume Factor (Unknown Psat) Correlation 1 Parameters
Fluid
SeparatorStages
A0
A1
A2
GC
2Stages
3626
1.07
3.1E05
GC
3Stages
3695
1.08
1.4E04
VO
2Stages
3015
1.07
8.9E05
VO
3Stages
2988
1.07
1.7E04
A3
A4
0.0021
1.8E04
0.0022
0.0027
1.5E04
0.0029
Table 12- Gas Formation Volume Factor (Unknown Psat) Correlation 2 Parameters
Fluid
SeparatorStages
A0
A1
A2
GC
2Stages
349
.78
8.9E06
GC
3Stages
343
.77
3.3E05
VO
2Stages
449
.81
2.7E05
VO
3Stages
435
.81
9.4E07
A3
A4
0.0020
7.5E05
0.0020
0.0020
5.2E05
0.0020
SPE 164712
15
Fluid
SeparatorStages
A0
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
GC
2Stages
1.4E04
6.1E06
1.4E04
0.997
8.1E08
GC
3Stages
1.3E04
6.1E06
1.4E04
0.997
8.0E07
VO
2Stages
7.1E05
8.6E05
1.0E04
0.952
1.3E06
VO
3Stages
7.0E05
8.8E05
1.0E04
0.951
5.4E06
1.2E06
1.4E05
5
4.5
3.5
4
2
R =0.9661
R2=0.915
Bo(Calc),rbbl/Stb
Rs(Calc),Mscf/Stb
3.5
3
2.5
2
2.5
2
1.5
1
1.5
0.5
0
1
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
1.5
Rs(Obs),Mscf/Stb
2.5
3.5
Bo(Obs),rbbl/Stb
0.4
0.35
1.75
R2=0.9726
R2=0.9724
Bg(Calc),rbbl/Mscf
Rv(Calc),Stb/Mscf
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
1.5
1.25
1
0.1
0.75
0.05
0.5
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Rv(Obs),Stb/Mscf
0.4
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
1.75
Bg(Obs),rbbl/Mscf
Fig. 10- Bg Cross Plot for VO (Entire P. Range) (Three Stage Separator)
16
SPE 164712
200E+6
180E+6
160E+6
y=17447371.084x
R2=0.993
140E+6
F,bbl
120E+6
100E+6
80E+6
60E+6
40E+6
20E+6
000E+0
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
Eo,bbl/STB
Sample
Name
SampleType
EOS_STOIIP
(STB)
MBal_STOIIP
(STB)
ERROR
(%)
VO1
VolatileOil
15110447
17828640
18
VO2
VolatileOil
14361290
15373341
VO3
VolatileOil
11714572
12684897
VO4
VolatileOil
12663336
15610385
23
Sample
Name
SampleType
EOS_GIIP
MSCF
MBal_GIIP
MSCF
ERROR
%
NC1
NearCritical
38712208
36317597
NC2
NearCritical
37197692
32884012
12
NC3
NearCritical
39709708
35588587
10
GC1
GasCondensate
50497036
44672755
12
GC2
GasCondensate
45546884
43311130
GC3
GasCondensate
48092008
43808088
GC4
GasCondensate
42919356
41842871
GC5
GasCondensate
44155820
41464689
GC6
GasCondensate
46457824
43642928
GC7
GasCondensate
50783260
46557199
SPE 164712
17
Pr_Models
PGOR_Models
Pr_W&T
PGOR_W&T
50
7000
45
6000
40
ProducingGOR,MScf/Stb
ReservoirPressure,psi
5000
4000
3000
2000
35
30
25
20
15
10
1000
5
0
0
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
500000
1000000
CumOilProduction,STB
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
CumOilProduction,STB
Fig. 12- Reservoir Pressure for MBO and Comp. Simulation for VO1
Fig. 13- Producing Gas Oil Ratio for MBO and Comp. Simulation for VO1
RSquare
SaturationPressureCorrelation
SolutionGasOilRatioCorrelation
(KnownPsat)
SolutionGasOilRatioCorrelation(Un
KnownPsat)
OilFormationVolumeFactor
Correlation(KnownPsat)
OilFormationVolumeFactor
Correlation(UnKnownPsat)
CondensateGasRatioCorrelation
(KnownPsat)
CondensateGasRatioCorrelation(Un
KnownPsat)
GasFormationVolumeFactor
Correlation(Model1)
GasFormationVolumeFactor
Correlation(Model2)
UnderSaturatedSolutionGasOil
RatioCorrelation(KnownPsat)
UnderSaturatedSolutionGasOil
RatioCorrelation(UnKnownPsat)
UnderSaturatedOilFormation
VolumeFactorCorrelation
UnderSaturatedCondensateGas
RatioCorrelation(KnownPsat)
UnderSaturatedCondensateGas
RatioCorrelation(UnKnownPsat)
UnderSaturatedGasFormation
VolumeFactorCorrelation
2StageSeparator
3StagesSeparator
VO
VO
GC
Avg.Error
RSquare
3%
Avg.Error
RSquare
12%
GC
Avg.Error
RSquare
3%
Avg.Error
12%
96%
12%
88%
21%
97%
11%
89%
19%
97%
11%
78%
28%
97%
11%
79%
26%
92%
6%
82%
10%
92%
6%
81%
10%
96%
4%
70%
11%
96%
4%
70%
11%
96%
15%
85%
22%
97%
15%
85%
22%
96%
16%
80%
25%
97%
15%
80%
25%
100%
9%
100%
13%
100%
9%
100%
13%
98%
11%
98%
16%
98%
12%
99%
16%
8%
14%
10%
15%
9%
25%
10%
27%
1%
1%
1%
1%
9%
16%
11%
16%
12%
24%
14%
26%
35%
36%
18
SPE 164712
Table 16 Error Comparison Between This Work, Abdel Fattahs and Standing Correlations for All Volatile Oil Samples Combined
Method
Rs
Rv
Bo
Bg
New Correlation
26.8
1.8
0.5
Abdel Fattah
Correlation
33.2
42
5.3
7.6
Standing
Correlation
62.5
N/A
18.9
64
SPE 164712
19