Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 41

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 20012002 Distinguished Lecturer Program


4 July 2002

Reservoir Fluid Properties


State of the Art and Outlook for
Future Development
Dr. Muhammad Al-Marhoun
King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals
Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
E-mail: marhounm@kfupm.edu.sa

!"#$

Outline
% Introduction

State of the Art


% Determination of PVT properties
% Problems related to PVT
%

&
&

Experimentation & Calculations


Data smoothing & Correlations

Artificial neural networks


% PVT Reporting
% Conclusions
%

Introduction
Fluid Properties
The study of the behavior of vapor and liquid in
petroleum reservoirs as a function of pressure,
volume, temperature, and composition

Importance of PVT Properties


& Determination of hydrocarbon reserves
& Reservoir and simulation studies
& Design of production facilities

State of the Art


&

Graphical correlations are reduced to equations

&

Correlations have been improved

&

Fluid classification in reservoirs is defined

&

Laboratory analyses have been standardized

&

Chemical analyses of petroleum are made


available

&

EOS is utilized to calculate gas-liquid equilibria

Determination of PVT properties


& Laboratory measurements using:
' Bottom hole sample
' Recombined surface sample

& Equation of state with appropriate calibrations


& Empirical correlations with appropriate range
of application
& Artificial neural networks models

Problems related to
experimentation
'Reservoir process presentation
'Physical trends of lab data

Reservoir process presentation


& Lab tests do not duplicate reservoir process
& Petroleum engineers consider liberation process in
reservoir approaches differential
& Liberation process around well is considered flash
& Actual process is neither flash nor differential
& A combination test may be closest to the reservoir
process

Phase transition in oil reservoir


Zone A: above pb
Zone B: below pb, flash
Zone C: differential

Separator

Oil
Gas
Well

Reservoir

Typical trends of good lab data


1.31

&Good experimental P-V data


should follow physical trend.

1.31

1.30

Vo

'Volume

decreases with P

1.30

'Co

1.30

1.29
1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

'

decreases with P

dC o dp decreases with P

Pressure
0.00

1
Co =
Vo

0.00

V o

1500

2500

-1.52E-09

Co

Slope of Co

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00
1500

2000

-1.52E-09

-1.53E-09

-1.53E-09

2000

2500

Pressure

3000

3500

-1.54E-09

Pressure

3000

3500

Problems related to calculations


Adjustment of differential data
as an example

Adjustment of differential data


to separator conditions -Why?
& Rs and Bo obtained by differential liberation
are not the same as
Rs and Bo obtained by flash liberation
& Oil leaving reservoir is flashed to separator,
therefore Rs and Bo should be determined by a
flash process
& Flash liberation does not cover whole range of
interest, therefore differential data are corrected

Adjustment methods of oil FVF


& Current Adjustment of Bo

B o = B od

B obf
B obd

& Suggested Adjustment

Bo = Bobf + c(Bodn Bobf


c = ( B obd B od ) /( B obd B odn )

Current adjustment method-Properties


! At lower pressure formation volume factor, Bo
might read a value less than 1
1.40

1.30

Bo

1.20

1.10

Bo
-typical
Bo
t d

1.00

0.90
0

500

1000

1500

Pressure

2000

2500

Adjustment methods of solution GOR


& Current Adjustment of Rs

Rs = Rsbf ( Rsbd Rsd )


& Suggested Adjustment

R s = R sd (R sbf R sbd

Bobf
Bobd

Current adjustment method-Properties


! At lower pressure, the solution gas-oil ratio, Rs
extrapolates to negative values.
600.00

Rs
-typical
Rs
t d

Rs

400.00

200.00

0.00

-200.00
0

500

1000

1500

Pressure

2000

2500

Oil FVF
1.4

Differential
Current
Suggested

Oil FVF

1.3

1.2

1.1

0.9
0

500

1000

1500

Pressure, psia

2000

2500

Solution GOR
600

Differential
Current
Suggested

500
400

Solution GOR

300
200
100

0
-100
0

500

1000

1500

Pressure, psia

2000

2500

Problems related to
Smoothing experimental data
Smoothing relative total volume data
as an example

Smoothing relative total volume data


To obtain P-V data, conduct a flash
liberation experiment on a gas-oil mixture
at a constant temperature
% Data analysis defines
%

& volume & pressure at bubble point


& FVF above pb & total FVF below pb

The experimental data as reported are


accompanied by measurement errors.
Therefore, the data are usually smoothed

Y-function properties
5

volume
Total Relative Volume

&Only the experimental data at


pressures below pb are utilized
to obtain pb

Y-fun value
4

1
0

&Bubble point
corrected

volume

is

not

&Y-Correlation with an error in the


bubble point volume may yield a
straight line but with the wrong pb

1000

2000

3000
Pressure

4000

5000

YFunction plot
Total Relative Volume

volume

curve-1

curve-2
Y-fun value

YF
3

1
0

1000

2000

3000

Pressure

4000

5000

Problems related to
correlations
'Correlation application
'Properties of correlations
'Physical trends of correlations
'Pitfalls of least square method

Correlation application
Correlations normally used to determine:
% Bubble-point pressure, Pb
% Solution gas-oil ratios, Rs
% Density of liquids
% Oil FVF, Bob & total FVF, Bt
% Adjustment of Bob and Rs
% Oil compressibility, Co
% Oil viscosity, o , a , l
% Interfacial tension,

Properties of correlations
%

Correlations typically match employed experimental


data, with deviations less than a few percent

When applied to other fluids, a much higher


deviations are observed

If fluids fall within the range of tested fluids, an


acceptable accuracy can be expected

Fluid composition could not be explained by gross


properties

Errors in some PVT correlations are not acceptable

Physical trends of correlations


Trend tests are to check whether the
performance of correlation follows
physical behavior or not:
'

Trend tests on predicted values

'

Trend tests on errors

Correlation with two equations


&Modeling

physical properties with two equations might


produce non-physical trend
1.400

Standing
1.375

Marhoun
Vazquez & Beggs

Oil FVF

1.350

1.325

1.300

1.275

1.250
10

20

30

40

Oil API Gravity

50

60

Correlation with non-physical constraint


&Restriction

of correlation model gives non-physical trend

1.45

Standing

Marhoun

1.4

Oil FVF

Vazquez & Beggs

( api g )

1.35

1.3

1.25

1.2
0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

Gas Relative Density (Air=1.0)

1.4

1.6

Correlation with limited data


&Correlation

development for limited data will give a good fit,


but might lead to non-physical trend
2500

Pb, psi

2000

1500

Standing
Vazquez
Marhoun

1000

Dokla & Osman

500
60

110

160

210

RESERVOIR TEMPERATURE F

260

Trend Tests on Error: Effect of API On Bob


30

Standing

Error in Bo

25

Vazquez & Beggs


Marhoun

20

15

10

0
11.4<API<22
(23)

22<API<30
(39)

30<API<35
(26)

35<API<40
(56)

40<API<45
(33)

Oil API Gravity

45<API<59.2
(20)

Trend Tests on Error: Effect of GRD On Bob


30
Vazquez & Beggs
Standing
Marhoun

Error in Bo

25
20
15
10
5
0
0.525 - 0.7
(23)

0.7- 0.75
(25)

0.75-0.8
(24)

0.8-0.85
(24)

0.85-0.9
(22)

0.9 - 1.0
(27)

1.0-1.25
(30)

Gas Relative Density (Air=1.0)

1.25-1.7
(21)

Pitfalls of least square method


Used to estimate the regression coefficients in model

y = f (x)
%

Basic assumption of LSM is the independent


variable x is determinate, i.e. it has no error

But x and y involve measurement errors, therefore

Do not rely entirely on a method when its basic


assumption is violated

Comparison of the Best fit line


1000

100

Property
10

Min y-error LSM

Min x & y-error


1

0.1

0.01

10

20

30

40

Pitfalls of logarithmic equivalence


logarithmic equivalent used to linearize equations
%
%

y = kx n

Given the problem


Use the logarithmic equivalent

log y = log k + n log x


%
%

Apply LSM to minimize error


Compare errors 2

x
1

y
2.5

2
3
4

8.0
19.0
50.0

Comparative error analysis


Error using logarithmic equivalent

= log y ( estimated ) log y ( given )


Error using original values

= y ( estimated ) y ( given )
Method

LSM
Iterative

2.224
0.474

2.096
3.36

2
(logarithmic
equivalent)
0.02098
0.56838

2
(original
problem)
100.2
13.9

PVT Reporting
'Typical PVT report
'PVT report shortcoming
'Suggested improvement

Typical PVT Report


& Sampling information

&
&
&
&
&
&
&
&

Hydrocarbon analysis of reservoir fluid


Oil compressibility
Pressure volume relationship (smoothed data)
Differential liberation
Separator tests
Hydrocarbon analysis of lab flashed gases
Liquid and gas viscosity data
Mixture density

PVT Report- Shortcoming


% Reports

smoothed results only

% Does

not include raw data

% Does

not verify data consistency

PVT Report -Suggested improvement


% Raw

data reporting

& Pressure volume (experimental data)


& Differential liberation (experimental data)
& Viscosity (experimental data)

% Data

consistency

& Mixture density calculation & verification


& Co calculation & verification

Conclusions
More improvement in the following areas:
%

Problems related to experimentation


& Reservoir process presentation
& Physical trends of lab data

Problems related to calculations


& Adjustment of differential data

Problems related to data smoothing


& Y-function
& XY-function

Conclusions
% Problems related to correlations
& Physical trends of correlations
& Pitfalls of least square method

% Artificial

neural networks

& Design of ANN


& Over Fitting

% PVT Reporting
& Raw data reporting
& Data consistency

Final Comment
There are challenges in addressing these
problems, but there are untapped scientific
tools as well.
We explored these challenges and
examined possible solutions.