SPE 108434

Measurement of Gas Condensate, Near-Critical and Volatile Oil Densities, and

Viscosities at Reservoir Conditions
Ali Al-Meshari, SPE, Sunil Kokal, SPE, Ahmed Al-Muhainy, and Sajjad Ali, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Anaheim, U.S.A., 11-14 November 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract 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 an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract 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
Gas condensate liquid dropout can occur in gas reservoirs,
especially near the wellbore when the pressure falls below the
dew point. In near-critical and highly volatile oils, extreme
phase behavior effects can occur, especially near the critical
temperature. Liquid dropout phenomena in these fluids affect
well productivities. To simulate the liquid dropout
phenomenon, as well as the flow of fluids in these reservoirs,
viscosity values of reservoir fluids at high pressures and
temperatures are required. Viscosities of gas condensate and
near-critical fluids at elevated pressures and temperatures are
not measured routinely due to inherent problems associated
with their capture, measurement difficulties, and considerable
time and effort required. Therefore, it is frequently not
possible to obtain measured values, and viscosity values must
be estimated from correlations. Empirical correlations have
been published for determining viscosity as a function of
pressure, temperature, gas-liquid ratio, and gas composition.
Their accuracy for gas condensates and near-critical fluids has
not been evaluated due to lack of data.
This paper presents some new and unique viscosity data
for gas condensate and near-critical systems at elevated
pressures and temperatures. A new, state-of-the-art pressurevolume-temperature, PVT, apparatus was designed and
commissioned to measure the densities and viscosities of
Saudi Arabian gas condensate, near-critical and highly volatile
oils at reservoir conditions. The data include viscosity and
density values above and below the saturation pressure. The
data were used to evaluate existing correlations that are
typically used for predicting viscosity in PVT software.
Introduction
Viscosity is an important fluid property and is required in
reservoir simulation and engineering calculations. In a recent
paper1 it was shown that a 1% error in reservoir fluid viscosity

resulted in a 1% error in cumulative production. This can be

substantial for large reservoirs. In rich and wet gas reservoirs,
near-critical and highly volatile oils, large amounts of
hydrocarbon liquids can condense in the near wellbore region.
This phenomenon is called liquid banking and can result in
moderate to severe productivity declines2-3. To simulate the
effect of banking in numerical reservoir simulation studies,
accurate values of liquid viscosities are required. The viscosity
of liquid condensates at any pressure and temperature is
difficult to measure experimentally and are generally
estimated through correlations. The accuracy of these
correlations in predicting the viscosity, especially for gas
condensate is uncertain due to lack of measured viscosities at
high pressures and high temperatures (HPHT). Inaccurate
viscosity values can have a detrimental effect on reservoir
simulation results, leading to errors in reserves and cumulative
production. The common assumption in reservoir simulations,
that the accuracy of fluid properties has an insignificant effect
on reservoir performance, is inaccurate. Uncertainties in
reservoir fluid properties, particularly viscosity, can lead to
large errors in reservoir performance and can influence the
economics of reservoir exploitation.
At the beginning of this project, a concerted effort was
made to investigate the availability of experimental viscosity
data for gas condensates, near-critical and highly volatile oils
at reservoir conditions. To our knowledge, there are no
reported data for gas condensate liquid viscosities, especially
below the dew point pressure. It is inherently difficult to
measure the viscosity of gas condensate liquids below the dew
point pressure because:
1. Liquid dropout is generally very small due to the
small size of the commercial PVT cells.
2. Lack of HPHT small-volume cell viscometers.
3. Time and effort required to generate liquid phase
viscosities as a function of pressure and temperature.
This paper presents a novel method to measure the density
and viscosity of gas condensate liquids and near-critical fluids.
The main purpose of this study was to utilize a specially
modified PVT apparatus to measure the viscosities of typical
Saudi Arabian gas condensate and near-critical fluids at
elevated pressures and temperatures. These data can be used in
reservoir simulation as well as other reservoir engineering
calculations. The data are also used to compare and evaluate
existing viscosity correlations and suggest improvements.

Viscosity Correlations
The viscosity of hydrocarbon gases and liquids is a function of
pressure, temperature, fluid density, and composition. The
density of these fluids itself is a function of pressure,
temperature, and fluid composition. There has been a clear
link established between the viscosity and in-situ density4.
Several correlations and mechanistic models have been
published in the literature discussing ways of estimating and
predicting viscosities of hydrocarbons fluids at reservoir
conditions4-12. This paper will not discuss the correlations in
great detail as it has been done in earlier studies. Two
common viscosity correlations used in commercial PVT
software were short listed for comparing the experimental data
generated in this study that are described below.
LBC Model5
Lohrenz-Bray-Clark (LBC)5 in 1964 introduced correlation
and procedures to calculate the viscosities of reservoir fluids
using their fluid composition. The LBC correlation is based on
the concept of residual viscosity, defined as the difference
between the viscosity of the fluid at specified pressure and
temperature, to that at low pressure. The residual viscosity is
shown to be a function of density and the viscosity of gases at
low pressure is a function of thermal energy only and can be
predicted from the kinetic theory of gases. This is one of the
most popular methods used in reservoir engineering
calculations, particularly in reservoir simulators. Details are
provided in Reference 5.
CSP Model6
The second most popular method is the corresponding states
principle (CSP), based on the observation that a reduced
property, in this case reduced viscosity, is related to the
reduced state properties, such as reduced pressure and reduced
temperature. The reduced viscosity is defined as the ratio of
the viscosity at prevailing conditions to the viscosity at the
critical point. A simple correlation is the 2-parameter CSP
method based on reduced pressure and reduced temperature.
More complicated methods include 3- or 4-paratmeter
equations that tend to correct the deviations with the simpler
models. In this study, viscosities were calculated using
corresponding state principle option in PVTsimTM, which is
based on the forms suggested by Pedersen et al. (1984, 1987)6.
PVT Apparatus
A special gas condensate PVT apparatus capable of measuring
the viscosity of gases and liquids at reservoir temperature and
elevated pressures was designed and built. A schematic of the
apparatus is shown in Fig. 1. It is a HPHT apparatus and
consists of a variable volume, visual PVT cell retrofitted with
fiber optic light transmission probes to measure fluid
volumetric data. The PVT cell is mounted inside a
temperature-controlled oven and has an effective volume of
110 cc. The windowed PVT cell permits visual observation of
fluids. A variable-volume displacement pump controls the
volume and pressure of the fluid inside the cell. A specially
designed magnetically coupled impeller mixer provides
powerful mixing and maintains equilibrium in the fluid

SPE 108434

system. The PVT cell is designed for operation at pressures up

to 10,000 psi and temperatures up to 360oF.
Along with the 110 cc variable volume PVT cell, another
1-liter blind, floating-piston cell was also added to the PVT
system (Fig. 1). Blind cell was fitted with a mixer. Large
volume blind cell is capable of condensing sufficient
quantities of gas condensate liquids (during expansion). Gas
condensate dropout collected during a constant composition
expansion (CCE) and a constant volume depletion (CVD) are
pumped into a HPHT viscometer capable of measuring
viscosity with a small amount of sample. Addition of a large
volume blind cell and a small-volume viscometer has enabled
the measurement of viscosity of gas condensate liquids. Liquid
collected in 1-liter blind cell during an experiment is pumped
through the viscometer and densitometer maintained at the
same temperature and pressure. This enables the measurement
of the fluid sample viscosity and density at the system
pressure and temperature.
Viscosity Measurements
The viscometer used in this study was supplied by Cambridge
Applied Systems (Model SPL440) capable of measuring the
viscosities of hydrocarbons at HPHT. The viscometer is based
on patented electromagnetic pulse technology with a working
pressure of up to 15,000 psi and a working temperature of up
to 350F. The sample volume of the instrument is ~5 cc. The
instrument has twelve measurement ranges for operation from
0.2-10000 cP. The model used in the study was a stand-alone
model on a bench with a heating jacket and associated
instrumentation. It was hooked in a loop with the
densitometer.
Density Measurements
The densitometer used in this study was an Anton-Paar HPHT
densitometer (DMA 512 P). It operates at temperatures of up
to 390F and pressure up to 20,000 psi. The volume required
for measurement using such densitometer is small, generally
about 2-3 cc.
Fluid Sampling
Experimental measurements were made on three Saudi
Arabian reservoir fluid systems: (a) gas condensate (b) near
critical fluid, and (c) highly volatile. The wells selected were
Well H, Well T1 and Well T2. The first task of the study was
to obtain representative fluid samples. The wells were
conditioned and flowed into a separator. Separator gas and
liquid samples were collected that were later recombined in
the laboratory. Viscosity and density measurements were
made on the recombined and reconstituted reservoir fluids at
reservoir temperatures and at different pressures.
Experimental Procedures
The dead volume of the apparatus (lines and tubing etc) was
measured separately and recorded before conducting any tests.
A typical experiment was conducted by first charging the
recombined fluid sample into the PVT apparatus. The sample
was generally charged at 7000 psi, or above the saturation
pressure. About 100 cc of the recombined sample was charged
into the blind mixer cell and 50 cc of the sample charged
separately into the PVT cell (see Fig. 1). The amount of

SPE 108434

sample charged into the blind mixer cell was variable and
depended on the system being tested. For a lean gas
condensate the amount could be increased to obtain sufficient
quantities of the liquid for viscosity and density
measurements. The minimum amount of liquid dropout
needed for measurement was ~12 cc, which was sufficient to
fill the viscometer and densitometer and the dead volume in
the lines between the PVT cells and the instruments.
Two types of PVT tests were conducted for the gas
condensate sample (Well H) (a) constant composition
expansion (CCE) and (b) constant volume depletion (CVD). In
the CCE test, the pressure was reduced in steps at reservoir
temperature and the change in volume is measured. The dew
point is also measured. At a given pressure above the dew
point pressure, the single-phase fluid is pumped into the
viscometer and the densitometer for viscosity and density
measurements. Once the pressure falls below the dew point
pressure, liquid condensate drops out. If enough amount of
liquid condensate is dropped, it will be pumped to the
viscometer for viscosity measurements and densitometer for
density measurements. At any given pressure below the dew
point, and after the measurements had been made, the liquid
was flushed out of the viscometer and the densitometer,
remixed thoroughly in the blind and PVT cells before the next
step and the next reduction in pressure. The mixing was
accomplished using a synchro-flow option in the PVT
apparatus. During this process the fluid from the PVT cell was
completely flushed out to the blind cell (through the in-line
viscometer and densitometer) and vice versa, at constant
pressure. This is an important step to keep the liquid and vapor
in equilibrium throughout the system.
In the CVD test, the reservoir fluid was kept in the PVT
cell at reservoir temperature and at dew point pressure. The
pressure was reduced in steps during this test. This test started
with the dew point pressure and the volume was measured at
this pressure. The cell volume was then expanded to target the
next step pressure. Vapor was withdrawn at the same stage
pressure and the cell volume reduced back to the saturation
pressure volume. The liquid that drops out was then pumped
into the viscometer and densitometer for measurements. The
liquid was pumped using the synchro-flow option and every
effort was made to keep equilibrium between liquid and vapor.
To ensure that only liquid was filling the viscometer and
densitometer, the values were checked during synchro-flow
until they were stabilized.
Since the near-critical sample (Well T1) exhibited a bubble
point at reservoir temperature, a differential liberation (DL)
test was conducted instead of a CVD test. The reservoir fluid
was kept in the PVT cell at reservoir temperature and at
pressure equal to the bubble point pressure. The pressure was
reduced stepwise and all the liberated gas was displaced and
flashed to standard conditions. This procedure was repeated 610 times. At each stage liquid was pumped to the viscometer
and densitometer for viscosity and density measurements
For the volatile oil sample (Well T2), CCE experiments
were conducted to measure the bubble point, relative volumes,
and mixture densities at different pressures and temperatures,
including the reservoir temperature. Viscosities of the liquids
were measured using a rolling ball viscometer at different
temperatures and pressures.

Comparison with Correlations

The experimental viscosity and density data were compared
with simulated results. As described earlier, the viscosity data
were compared with predictions using two different
models/correlations: (LBC)5 and (CSP)6.
The density data were compared with predictions made
with an equation of state (EOS) using a commercial software
package PVTsimTM by Calsep. The EOS used in our
predictions was the Peng-Robinson equation with the volumetranslation shift parameter. The EOS was first tuned with the
DPP at reservoir temperature by adjusting the molecular
weight of the plus fraction13. Tuned EOS was then used to
simulate a CCE and CVD tests at the same pressures and
temperature used in our experiments.
Results
Gas Condensate Sample: Well H
Separator gas and liquid samples were collected from Well H
for recombination and PVT analysis. The separator was
operating at 1272 psig and 145F. Separator gas and liquid
samples were recombined in the lab based on the separator
GOR of 6526 scf/sep. bbl. Table 1 shows the fluid
composition for the wellstream. The measured dew point
pressure for this sample was 5720 psia at a reservoir
temperature of 243F. The liquid dropout curve at reservoir
temperature is shown in Fig. 2.
Table 2 shows the measured density and viscosity at
various pressures during the CVD experiment. The density
data are plotted in Fig. 3. The data indicate that, above the
dew point pressure, the density decreases slightly as the
pressure is decreased. Below the dew point pressure, the
density values are plotted for the liquid condensate or the
dense phase fluid. There is a discontinuity at the dew point
pressure (DPP) because the values above this pressure are for
single-phase gas and below this pressure are for the liquid
condensate. Below the DPP there is a gradual increase in
density with a decrease in pressure.
The results of these predictions with the experimental data
are shown in Fig. 3 and suggest an extremely good match. The
percentage average absolute relative error (%AARE) for the
density comparison was 4.9%.
The viscosity data for the CVD experiments are shown in
Fig. 4. It is important to note that the viscosity values below
the DPP are the viscosities of the liquid condensate. The trend
observed is due to compositional changes with pressure below
the DPP. Fig. 4 also shows the predicted values of two models
available in commercial PVT software that were described
earlier in the paper. The (%AARE) for the viscosity
comparison was 31.2% using LBC model and 33.6% using
CSP model.
Near-Critical Fluid: Well T1
Separator gas and liquid samples were collected from Well T1
for recombination and PVT analysis. Separator was operating
at 958 psig and 226F and the separator GOR was 2191
scf/sep. bbl. Separator gas and liquid samples were
recombined in the lab based on the separator GOR. Table 1
shows the fluid composition for the wellstream. The measured
bubble point pressure for this sample was 5136 psia at

reservoir temperature of 300F. The sample from Well T1

turned out to be a very volatile, near-critical fluid.
Measured values of densities and viscosities for a
differential liberation test are shown in Table 3. The values
are reported for the liquid only. The density data is plotted in
Fig. 5. Density increases with pressure above the bubble.
Below the bubble point the density of the liquid increases with
decreasing pressure. This is due to the evolution of gas from
the liquid. Simulated density values match surprisingly well
with the measured values with an absolute average relative
error (%AARE) of 3.0%. Viscosity data for the liquid are
shown in Fig. 6. The figure also shows the simulated values
with LBC and CSP models. The match was relatively poor
with an %AARE of 48.8% and 49.8% respectively.
Volatile Oil: Well T2
For the volatile oil, bottom hole oil samples were collected
from Well T2 for PVT analysis. The bottom hole temperature
was 300F and the static bottom hole pressure was 8900 psi.
Table 1 shows the fluid composition for this sample. The
measured bubble point pressure was 4477 psia at reservoir
temperature of 300F.
The viscosity and density measurements for this sample
were made at temperatures of 300, 200, and 100F.
Viscosity and density data are shown in Tables 4 and 5
respectively. An important note: Density data for pressures
below the bubble point are for the mixture density and not for
the liquid density.
Viscosity data are plotted in Fig. 7 along with the
predictions using the LBC model at three temperatures. The
match was generally poor with an %AARE of 45.2%, 52.9%,
and 49.0% at temperatures of 300, 200, and 100F
respectively. Fig. 8 shows a comparison of viscosity data with
CSP model predictions. The results were better than the LBC
model with an %AARE of 4.5%, 10.0%, and 23.7% at the
three temperatures. Fig. 9 shows a plot of measured and
predicted mixture densities at three temperatures. The
%AARE were 1.7%, 1.29%, and 1.27% at 300, 200, and
100F, respectively.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Viscosities of gas condensates at elevated pressures and
temperatures are difficult to measure routinely due to
inherent problems associated with its capture,
measurement difficulties, and considerable time and effort
required.
A PVT apparatus was modified to generate sufficient
quantities of gas condensate liquid which could be used to
physically measure viscosity and density.
Viscosity predictions using standard models (LBC and
CSP) are not sufficiently accurate.
It is recommended to measure limited representative
viscosity data for the gas condensate liquid and to tune a
viscosity model with these data before predicting
viscosities at other conditions.
PVT packages with EOS can predict liquid density with
sufficient accuracy.

SPE 108434

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Saudi Aramco for permission to publish this
paper.
References
1. Hernandez, J.C., Vesovic, V., Carter, J.N, and Lopez, E.,
Sensitivity of Reservoir Simulations to Uncertainties in
Viscosities, SPE-75227 paper presented at the SPE/DOE
IOR Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April (2002).
2. Wheaton, R.J. and H.R. Zhang, Condensate Banking
Dynamics in Gas Condensate Fields: Compositional
Changes and Condensate Accumulations Around
Production Wells, SPE-62930 presented at the SPE
ATCE, Dallas, Texas, October (2000).
3. Barnum, R. S., Brinkman, F. P., and Spillette, A. G., Gas
Condensate Reservoir Behaviour: Productivity and
Recovery Reduction Due to Condensation, SPE-30767
paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October (1995)
4. Londono, F.E., Archer, R.A. and Blasingame, T.A.,
Correlations for Hydrocarbon-Gas Viscosity and Gas
Density-Variation and Correlation of Behavior Using a
Large-Scale Database, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and
Engineering, pp. 561-566, December (2005).
5. Lohrenz, J., Bray, B. G., and Clark, C. R., Calculating
Viscosities of Reservoir Fluids from Their Composition,
SPE 915, Oct 11-14, 1964.
6. Pedersen, K.S. and Fredenslund, A., An Improved
Corresponding States Model for Prediction of Oil and Gas
Viscosities and Thermal Conductivities, Chem. Eng.
Sci., 42, pp. 182-186, (1987).
7. Carr, N.L., Kobayashi, R. and Burrows, D.B., Viscosity
of Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure, Trans. AIME,
vol. 201, pp # 264, (1954).
8. Gawish, A. and Al-Homadhi, E., State-of-the-Art
Natural Gases Viscosity Under Reservoir Conditions,
SPE-106326 paper presented at the Technical Symposium
of Saudi Arabia Section, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, May
(2005).
9. Erdogmus, M., Adewumi, M.A. and Ibraheem, S.O.,
Viscosity Prediction of Natural Gases, SPE-39219
paper presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting,
Lexington, Kentucky, October (1997).
10. Giddings, J.G. and Kobaysahi, R., Correlations of the
Viscosity of Light Paraffin Hydrocarbons and Their
Mixtures in the Liquid and Gaseous Regions, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, pp. 679-682, June (1964).
11. Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M.H. and Eakin, B.E., The
Viscosity of Natural Gases, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, pp. 997-1000, August (1966).
12. Elsharkawy, A.M., Predicting the Properties of Sour
Gases and Condensates: Equations of State and Empirical
Correlations, SPE-74369 paper presented at the SPE
International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition,
Villahermosa, Mexico, February (2002).
13. Al-Meshari, A. A. and McCain W. D., New Strategic
Method to Tune Equation-of-State for Compositional
Simulation, SPE-106332 paper presented at the 2005
SPE Technical Symposium of Saudi Arabia Section,
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, May (2005)

SPE 108434

Table 1: Wellstream compositions for selected wells

Well Number
Sampled
Reservoir Temp. F
Sat Pressure @ RT, psi

Well H

Well T1

Well T2

243
5720

300
5136

300
4477

Component
N2
CO2
H2S
C1
C2
C3
iC4
nC4
iC5
nC5
C6
C7/C7+
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12+
Total

Mol%

Mol%

7.08
0.62
0.00
71.04
7.57
3.48
0.64
1.43
0.50
0.56
0.75
1.07
1.36
0.86
0.61
0.41
2.02
100

4.39
3.24
0.00
62.49
4.21
2.81
1.00
1.76
0.92
1.09
1.85
2.40
2.77
2.26
1.76
1.25
5.80
100

2.23
1.75
0.00
59.93
4.47
1.87
0.76
1.78
1.33
1.41
3.03
21.47*

Density, g/cc
API
Molecular weight
* C7+

0.84
36.8
240

Pressure
(psi)
7077
6460
6089
5847
5720
5000
4200
3500
2800
2100
1400
800
0

CVD
Viscosity Density
(cP)
(g/cc)
0.3782
0.3734
0.3674
0.3609
0.3575
0.264
0.5233
0.277
0.5654
0.292
0.6121
0.312
0.6349
0.339
0.6652
0.384
0.6784
0.442
0.7208
0.561
0.7635

Table 3: Experimental viscosity and density data for

Well T1

Pressure
(psi)

Properties of C12+/C7+

0.8247
39.9
232

Table 2: Experimental viscosity and density data for

Well H

0.8039*
44.3*
165*

7015
6670
6185
5814
5317
4500
3500
2500
1500
500
0

DL
Viscosity
(cP)
0.223
0.222
0.219
0.218
0.217
0.243
0.273
0.310
0.365
0.508
0.528

Density
(g/cc)
0.4725
0.4707
0.4617
0.4476
0.4372
0.5266
0.5813
0.6282
0.6617
0.6970
0.7259

SPE 108434

Table 4: Experimental viscosity data for

Well T2
Pressure
psi
9015
8615
8215
7815
7415
7015
6615
6215
5815
5415
5015
4615
4574
4477
4389
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
115
65
40
15

Experimental Liquid
Viscosity (cP)
300 F
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.1
0.1

200 F
0.2
0.2
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14

100 F
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.3
0.3
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28

0.09
0.11
0.14
0.16
0.19
0.22
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.42
0.44
0.46
0.5

0.17
0.2
0.24
0.27
0.31
0.36
0.42
0.5
0.61
0.64
0.65
0.71

0.28
0.3
0.33
0.37
0.41
0.45
0.51
0.59
0.7
0.86
0.91
0.93
1.1

Table 5: Experimental mixture density data for

Well T2
Pressure
psi
9015
8615
8215
7815
7415
7015
6615
6215
5815
5415
5015
4615
4574
4477
4389
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500

Experimental Density (g/cc)

300 F
33.9
33.6
33.3
33.0
32.7
32.4
32.0
31.6
31.2
30.7
30.2
29.5

200 F
36.6
36.3
36.0
35.8
35.5
35.2
34.9
34.6
34.3
34.0
33.6
33.2
33.1

100 F
39.1
38.9
38.7
38.5
38.4
38.2
38.0
37.7
37.5
37.3
37.0
36.8
36.6

31.3
29.4
26.9
23.8
20.1
15.7
10.7
5.1

35.7
34.2
32.2
29.3
25.3
20.1
13.5
6.4

29.3
27.6
25.5
23.0
20.1
16.7
12.9
8.5
3.8

Figure 1: Schematic of PVT apparatus

SPE 108434

1.0

18

0.8

16
14

D en sity (g /c c) .

Liquid Dropout - % of
Hydrocarbon Pore Space

20

12
10
8
6
4
2

0.6
0.4
0.2

Exp: Liq Dropout

Exp: DL Liq
Sim: DL Liq

0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

0.0

Pressure (psi)

2000

4000

6000

8000

Pressure (psi)

Figure 2: Liquid dropout for Well-H

Figure 5: Density of Well-T1

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.2

Viscosity (cP) .

Density (g/cc).

1.0

Exp: CVD Liq

Sim: CVD

0.0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Pressure (psi)

0.4
0.3
Exp.

0.2

Sim (LBC Model)

0.1

Figure 3: Density of Well-H

Sim (CSP Model)

0.0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Pressure (psi)
0.7

Figure 6: Condensate viscosity of Well-T1 (UZ)

CVD

0.5
10

0.4
0.3
0.2

Viscosity (cP) .

V isco sity (cP ).

0.6

Exp.
Sim (LBC Model)

0.1

Sim (CSP Model)

0.0
0

2000

4000

6000

Pressure (psi)

Figure 4: Condensate viscosity of Well-H

CVD

Exp 300 F

Exp 200 F

Exp 100 F

Calc 300 F - LBC

Calc 200 F - LBC

Calc 100 F - LBC

0.1

8000
0.01
0

2000

4000
6000
8000
Pressure (psi)
Figure 7: Viscosity data comparison with LBC Model
for Well-T2

10000

SPE 108434

Viscosity (cP)

10

Exp 300 F

Exp 200 F

Exp 100 F

Calc 300 F - CSP

Calc 200 F - CSP

Calc 100 F - CSP

0.1

0.01
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Pressure (psi)
Figure 8: Viscosity data comparison with CSP Model
for Well-T2

Mixture Density (lb/ft3) .

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Exp Dens 300 F
Calc Dens 300 F

Exp Dens 200 F

Calc Dens 200 F

Exp Dens100 F
Calc Dens 100 F

0
0

2000

4000
6000
8000
10000
Pressure (psi)
Figure 9: Mixture density data comparison for Well-T2