Gas Condensate vs Oil

Wax Deposition
Lauchie Duff
Olga Users Group 11 November, 2009
OUTLINE
q Recap fromPrevious Olga Users Presentation
q Gas Condensate Misconceptions
q Fluid Characterisation Introduction Using Oil M
q Fluid Characterisation Using A & B Gas Condensates
q Wax Introduction
q Wax Precipitation vs Wax Deposition
q Waxy Condensates vs Waxy Oils Deposition
q References
Recap Summary: Olga Wax Attack
q Non Newtonian Rheology & How to Model in Olga
Recap: Olga Wax Attack on Non
Newtonian Flow
Steady State Shear & Thermal History Effects
Oil Cooldowns : SCDP vs CCDP
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Temperature (
o
C)
Apparent Viscosity
(mPas)
S 1.20 BT 90C: 2kppm PPD, SCDP
S 1.20 BT 90C: 2kpp PPD, CCDP
83%
Delta at
Final T
Recap: Non Newtonian Flow: Restarts
Shear & Thermal History Affects on Restarts
Restarts Ramps after Shut Down at 16
o
C: Shear History Effects
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Shear Rate (s
-1
)
Shear Stress (Pa)
No ramping after cooldown ramping
WAX / Condensate Misconceptions
q Condensate colour determines contamination
q Subsurface hydrocarbons are homogeneous fluids with no spatial
variation, unlike petrophysical variations.
q Waxes are n alkanes only
q Measured WATs and wax contents are more accurate than
simulated
q Wax Precipitation equals Wax Deposition
q Reported GC / HTGC compositions must be right. The lab has
surely integrated the areas and mass %s correctly?
q Condensate compositions terminate around C30-C40
q Long compositional heavy tails (of condensates), if they exist, are
very insignificant (compared to oils)
q Reported compositions and associated EOSs are matched to
measured dew points by regression of critical properties
q Condensate near well bore banking of heavy ends does not occur in
high permeability formations
Fluid Characterisation is First (and
very big) Step in Wax Deposition
Concepts and Wax Primer: 1 Composition Measurements
M Oil HTGC vs GC
C52+ = 1.828%
C30+ = 15.047 %
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SCN
Wt%
HTGC
GC
M Oil Composition
q Lets take the HTGC and extend power and exponential laws
M Oil HTGC & Manual Extrapolations
C52+ = 1.828%
y = 29992290.385621x
-4.827528
R
2
= 0.974967
C52+ = 2.189%
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150
SCN
Wt%
Measured HTGC
HTGC: Manual Extrapolations
Exponential
Power
Power (HTGC: Manual Extrapolations)
y = 78.1118e-0.1220x
R2 = 0.9583
C52+ = 1.525%
M Oil Composition
q Lets take the HTGC and extend using PVTSimCharacterisations-
ie Log Wt% vs Molec Wt is Linear
M Oil HTGC & Manual Extrapolations
C52+ = 1.828%
C100+= 0.0785%
y = 29992290.385621x
-4.827528
R
2
= 0.974967
C52+ = 2.189%
0.0001
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150
SCN
Wt%
Measured HTGC
HTGC: Basis for Manual Extrapolations
Exponential Extrapolation
Power Extrapolation
PVTSim C100+ Characterisation
y = 78.1118e-0.1220x
R2 = 0.9583
C52+ = 1.525%
WAX: Composition incl n Alkanes
q Does the n alkane a/c for all the wax?
M Oil HTGC
0.0785
0.0000
1.0000
2.0000
3.0000
4.0000
5.0000
6.0000
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
SCN
Wt%
HTGC: PVTSim Characterised C100+
n alkanes
M Oil Composition incl n Alkanes
0.0785
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
SCN
Wt%
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Wax% ?
HTGC: PVTSim Characterised C100+
n alkanes as % SCN
M Oil Properties: WAT / WDT
q Pour Point =24
o
C
q WAT by 3 different DSCs(45->75
o
C) / CPM(39-48.8
o
C)/ Rheology /
CWDT (51
o
C)
M Oil DSC (Heating Cycle)
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Temperature (
o
C)
WDT1 = 67
O
C
WDT 2 = 55
O
C
WDT 2 = 44
O
C
Heat Capacity
J /g
O
C
Still Melting at >100
o
C
M OIL WAX: WDT vs WAT
q Note endothermic melting curve vs exothermic xlln curve. Ie end of
melting approx at beginning of Xlln. This is a very significant result as
it reveals the effect of kinetics on WDT / WAT ie WDT-WAT almost zero
M WAT SIMULATION BASED ON HTGC
Simulated M WAT: 52
o
C
0
5
10
15
20
25
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Temperature (
o
C)
Wax Wt%
Tulsa WAT to C52+
M OIL WAX: Conclusion
q We have simulated WAT of 52
o
C vs DSC
measured WAT of 63
o
C & WDT of >100
o
C.
Is this Robust and we can now
characterise to these measurements?
WAX: M Oil Composition incl n Alkanes
q Does wax content go down as SCN increases?
0.0785
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
SCN
Wt%
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Wax% ?
HTGC: PVTSim Characterised C100+
n alkanes as % SCN
M OIL : PVTSim Charactersation
q PVTSimcharacterises zero wax after last measured plus
fraction-but is this correct?
PVTSims PARAW Characterised Fractions
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SCN
Fraction
Paraffins
Napthenes (Branched & Cyclics)
Aromatics
Waxes
Asphaltenes
WAX: Composition incl n Alkanes
q PVTSimcharacterises zero wax after last measured plus fraction
0.0785
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
SCN
Wt%
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Wax% ?
HTGC: PVTSim Characterised C100+
n alkanes as % SCN
PVTSims Heavy Characterised Wax %
My favourite PhD on WDT vs WAT
Audrey Taggart 1995, Univ Strathclyde Nucleation, Growth and
Habit Modification of n Alkanes etc Ref [3]
q Terminology: Meta stable zone width =WDT-WAT
q WDT approaches WAT in the limit of slow cooling
My favourite PhD : WDT vs WAT

MSZW Associated with Crystallite Dissolution & Precipitation from
C
18
H
38
Melt
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
25 26 27 28 29 30
Temperature
Cooling Rate
(
o
C/min)
WAT
WDT
MSZW
T
sat
(at b =0
o
C /min)
WDT / WAT and Wax Xtal Effects

MSZWs vs Carbon Chain Lengths
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Carbon Chain Length
Meta Stable Zone
Width (
o
C)
MONOCLINIC
TRICLINIC
ORTHORHOMBIC
My favourite PhD on this subject
WATs for Normal Alkanes (Measured at 5
o
C /min)
-5
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
105
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Carbon Number
Temperature (
o
C)
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
Enthalpy of
Crystallisation (J/g)
WAT
Enthalpy of Crystallisation
TRICLINIC
MONOCLINIC
ORTHORHOMBIC
WAX PRIMER
q Wax is not just n alkanes but many other species. eg Ref [2] determined
microxlline waxes (mpts>60C) to be 20-40% n alkanes,15-40% iso
alkanes and approx 35% cycloalkanes.
q Macro and microXlline waxes. Microxlline waxes average 1-2 microns.
q MicroXlline waxes MWts from300 to 2500 (C21-C179).
q Relatively poorly measured and limitations of measurements not widely
understood. For example UOP 46 measures wax content at 30C after
filtering cold extract through GF filters that retain 1.5 microns (at best)
in liquid. CPMmeasures down to 2 microns at best. Kinetics of cooling
affects WAT measurement.
q WAT is defined as 2 ppmmost insoluble (highest MWt) species. No lab
measurements capable of measuring to this level.
q Recent project: Oil. CPMWAT 39-48
o
C. DSC WAT at least 63
o
C.
q GC / HTGC Measurements. Lack of resolution as Mwt increases and
Xllinity changes frommacro to microXlline.
q Recommend best GC / HTGC merged to provide overall fluid
composition.
WAX PRIMER
q Investigation of n alkane content of macro & microXlline waxes:
q AW034 AND AW050 were microxlline and OFM/CFA macroxlline
Must Understand that Micro / Macro
Relationship
WAX: Simulated WAT of Oil M
q Simulated WATs 52
o
C-85
o
C
Simulated M WATS: 52-85
o
C
0
5
10
15
20
25
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Temperature (
o
C)
Wax Wt%
PVTSim WAT to C52+
Tulsa WAT to C98+
PVTSim (Heavy) WAT
PVTSim: Melting (WDT) vs SCN
PVTSim SCN vs Melting Points of n Alkanes
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
C
7
C
1
0
C
1
3
C
1
6
C
1
9
C
2
2
C
2
5
C
2
8
C
3
1
C
3
4
C
3
7
C
4
0
C
4
3
C
4
6
C
4
9
C
5
2
C
5
5
C
5
8
C
6
1
C
6
4
C
6
7
C
7
0
C
7
3
C
7
6
C
7
9
C
8
2
C
8
5
C
8
8
C
9
1
C
9
4
C
9
7
C
1
0
0
TM (
o
C)
If sample contains no more than
C52, then require heating sample
to 90
o
C in order to melt.
If sample contains C100, then
require heating sample to 125
o
C
in order to melt.
Equally, if sample contains C100,
WDT - WAT = 125-96= 30
o
C
If sample only contains C52:
WDT-WAT = 90- 52 = 38
o
C
GAS CONDENSATE FLUID CHARACTERISATION
Reasons why your gas condensate fluid
characterisation is probably wrong.
q Sampling below dew point if MDT, sample contamination
q Compositional gradients
q DST-well conditioning / poor separator control =gas / liquid
entrainment
q Subsampling losing fractions
q Laboratory GC vs HTGC Measurements-improper
measurement heavy fractions: condensate PVT very sensitive
to the small amounts heavy fractions
q EOS characterisation issues: Heavy fraction extension
GAS CONDENSATE FLUID CHARACTERISATION
Choosing Representative Samples
q Is there such a thing? ie how do reservoir compositional
gradients affect sample colour for example? Ref [4]
GAS CONDENSATE FLUID CHARACTERISATION
Condensate colour
q Ref [6] from onshore Canada describes the asphaltene production as
varying from well to well and the condensate colour varies from clear to
black between wells in the same field. Ref [6] further describes the
condensate discolouration changing from pale yellow at low flow to black
at high flow and back to pale yellow when flow is lowered again. Serious
asphaltene emulsion and asphaltene fouling occurred during high flow
periods. Other wells experienced a permanent shift from clear to dark
condensates after absolute open flow tests with compression.
q Ref [7] from an onshore Austrian lean gas condensate field also
describes the same colouration issues as above being flow related. This
reservoir was dew pointed at reservoir conditions (285 bar and 78
o
C).
Plant asphaltene deposition was an issue and the estimated asphaltene
content was 5 ppm of the produced liquid phase. The produced, dark
coloured condensate streams showed through production testing to have
increased colouring at the higher rates, attributed to increased asphaltene
uptake.
GAS CONDENSATE FLUID CHARACTERISATION
q Examples of GC vs HTGC and how GC misses heavy fractions Ref [1]
GAS CONDENSATE FLUID CHARACTERISATION
q Examples of GC vs HTGC and how GC misses waxes and other high
MWt species
GAS CONDENSATE FLUID CHARACTERISATION
` North Sea Gas Condensate Example Ref [5]: HTGC inset
GAS CONDENSATE FLUID CHARACTERISATION
1. Condensate AGC vs HTGC
n Company A HTGC C100+=3.5 wt%
n Company B GC C36+ =0.384 wt%
n Company C GC C35+ =0.03 wt%
GAS CONDENSATE FLUID CHARACTERISATION
1.
2. PVT Consequences of Gas Condensate A
GC / HTGC Measurements
n GC based EOS underpredicted two measured
dew points by 344 and 690 psi
n HTGC based EOS exactly matched one and
underpredicted the other by 190 psi
P Condensate Case History
PCondensate Properties
n API 46.7 (0.794 g/cc)
n Pour point 21
o
C
n Cloud Point 41
o
C by AMS 259 (CPMcooling at
0.2
o
C /min (=WAT?)
n CWDT 45
o
C
n Wax content ?
P Condensate Case History: PVT
P Gas Condensate VLE (Company X)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Temperature
o
C
PSI G
Measured Dew Point
Co X Characterisation
PVTSim C20+ Characterisation
P: Reservoir Fluid & TBP Given
Reported Compositions: Reservor Fluid P & TBP P
C38+ = 0.36%
C20+ = 6.055 %
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
N
2
C
O
2
C
1
C
2
C
3
i
C
4
n
C
4
i
C
5
n
C
5
C
6
C
7
C
8
C
9
C
1
0
C
1
1
C
1
2
C
1
3
C
1
4
C
1
5
C
1
6
C
1
7
C
1
8
C
1
9
C
2
1
C
2
4
C
2
8
C
3
2
C
3
8
+
SCN
Wt%
Condensate TBP
Reservoir Fluid
Flash P Reservoir Fluid to STP
n Why stop at C59+?
"Normal Characterisation" Options: Reservoir STP Flash to C59+
with 55 C7+ Pcs
C62+ = 1.2324%
6.055
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
N
2
C
2
n
C
4
C
6
C
9
C
1
2
C
1
5
C
1
8
C
2
1
C
2
4
C
2
7
C
3
0
C
3
3
C
3
6
C
3
9
C
4
2
C
4
5
C
4
8
C
5
1
C
5
4
C
5
7
C
6
0
-
C
6
2
SCN
Wt%
STP Condensate
Reservoir Fluid
STP P Condensate Composition
n Lets go to C80 being Max PVTSims Normal Characterisation
" Normal Characterisation" Options: Reservoir STP Flash with 74
C7+ Pcs to C80
C80+ = 0.0339%
1.2324%
0.39%
0.00001
0.00010
0.00100
0.01000
0.10000
1.00000
10.00000
100.00000
N
2
C
1
C
3
n
C
4
n
C
5
C
7
C
9
C
1
1
C
1
3
C
1
5
C
1
7
C
1
9
C
2
1
C
2
3
C
2
5
C
2
7
C
2
9
C
3
1
C
3
3
C
3
5
C
3
7
C
3
9
C
4
1
C
4
3
C
4
5
C
4
7
C
4
9
C
5
1
C
5
3
C
5
5
C
5
7
C
5
9
C
6
1
C
6
3
C
6
5
C
6
7
C
6
9
C
7
1
C
7
3
C
7
5
C
7
7
C
7
9
SCN
Wt%
STP Condy Characterised to C80
STP Condy Characterised to C59+
Reservoir Fluid
STP P Condensate Composition
n Why stop at C80? C80+is still 339 ppm
n We want to go to 1-2 ppm.
n Why?
P Condensate Composition
n We now need to use PVTSim Heavy
Characterisation to go beyond C80.
n But this condensate is not heavy. API =
46.7
n Problem #1 with PVTSim: Many normal
waxy fluids have carbon numbers in
excess of C100
n We continue with Heavy Characterisation
STP P Condensate Composition
n Lets go to C200 being Max PVTSims Heavy Characterisation
" Heavy Characterisation" Options: Reservoir STP Flash with 74
C7+ Pcs to C80
C100+= 0.0874%
C61+= 1.2324%
0.0010
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
100.0000
N
2
C
1
C
3
n
C
4
n
C
5
C
7
C
9
C
1
1
C
1
3
C
1
5
C
1
7
C
1
9
C
2
1
C
2
3
C
2
5
C
2
7
C
2
9
C
3
1
C
3
3
C
3
5
C
3
7
C
3
9
C
4
1
C
4
3
C
4
5
C
4
7
C
4
9
C
5
1
C
5
3
C
5
5
C
5
7
C
5
9
C
6
1
C
6
3
C
6
5
C
6
7
C
6
9
C
7
1
C
7
3
C
7
5
C
7
7
C
7
9
C
8
1
C
8
3
C
8
5
C
8
7
C
8
9
C
9
1
C
9
3
C
9
5
C
9
7
C
9
9
SCN
Wt%
STP Condy Characterised to C200
STP Condy Characterised to C80
STP Condy Characterised to C59+
Reservoir Fluid
P Condensate Heavy vs Normal Charact
n Normal
Heavy vs Normal Characterisation P Condensate 20 C7+ PCs
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
N
2
C
O
2
C
1
C
2
C
3
i
C
4
n
C
4
i
C
5
n
C
5
C
6
C
7
C
8
C
9
C
1
0
C
1
1
C
1
2
C
1
3
C
1
4
C
1
5
C
1
6
C
1
7
C
1
8
C
1
9
C
2
0
-
C
2
1
C
2
2
-
C
2
4
C
2
5
-
C
2
8
C
2
9
-
C
3
3
C
3
4
-
C
3
9
C
4
0
-
C
4
8
C
4
9
-
C
8
0
Wt %
Normal Characterisation
Heavy Characterisation
P Condensate Heavy vs Normal Charact
n Heavy
Heavy vs Normal Characterisation P Condensate 20 C7+ PCs
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
N
2
C
O
2
C
1
C
2
C
3
i
C
4
n
C
4
i
C
5
n
C
5
C
6
C
7
C
8
C
9
C
1
0
C
1
1
C
1
2
C
1
3
C
1
4
C
1
5
C
1
6
C
1
7
C
1
8
C
1
9
C
2
0
-
C
2
1
C
2
2
-
C
2
4
C
2
5
-
C
2
8
C
2
9
-
C
3
2
C
3
3
-
C
3
9
C
4
0
-
C
4
9
C
5
0
-
C
2
0
0
Wt %
Heavy Characterisation
Normal Characterisation
P Condensate Characterisation
Summary
Fluid Characterisation C7+ PCs C20+ C38+ C59+ C80+ C100+
TBP1 None None 10.96 0.36
TBP2 None None 20.8
GC Normal 20 26.23
GC Heavy 20 24.65
GC Normal 55 26.227 8.771 1.779 0.000 0.000
GC Normal 74 26.231 8.776 1.784 0.034 0.000
GC Heavy 94 24.644 8.164 1.875 0.390 0.087
Characterisation Summary
P Condensate HTGC : What is this saying?
n Wax content decreasing as SCN increases?
" Normal Characterisation" Options: Reservoir STP Flash with 74
C7+ Pcs to C80
0.00001
0.00010
0.00100
0.01000
0.10000
1.00000
10.00000
C
2
0
C
2
2
C
2
4
C
2
6
C
2
8
C
3
0
C
3
2
C
3
4
C
3
6
C
3
8
C
4
0
C
4
2
C
4
4
C
4
6
C
4
8
C
5
0
C
5
2
C
5
4
C
5
6
C
5
8
C
6
0
C
6
2
C
6
4
C
6
6
C
6
8
C
7
0
C
7
2
C
7
4
C
7
6
C
7
8
C
8
0
SCN
Wt%
STP Condy Characterised to C80
HTGC (n alkanes) of Condy
Simulated P WAT v1 based on HTGC
n V1 Simulated WAT =36
o
C vs CPM41
o
C or CWDT 45
o
C?
P Condensate Simulated WAT v1 = 36
o
C
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Temperature
o
C
Wax Content %
v1 WAT
P Condensate Distillates Properties
n 49.2 % Wax for C22+
API Gravity 31.8
Density 15C g/ml 0.866
Viscosity 70C cSt 8.697
Viscosity 100C cSt 4.736
Pour Point C 21
Conradson Carbon
Residue
wgt % 0.48
Ash wgt % 0.045
Asphaltenes wgt % <0.05
Wax Content wgt % 49.2
Boiling Range
Yield Range
Yield
C 360+ = C22+
wgt % 84.1 - 100
wgt % 15.9
P Condensate Distillate Properties
n UOP 46 C22+=49.2% Wax
n HTGC C22+=6.6 % Wax (n alkane =13% UOP46)
HTGC vs UOP Wax Fraction
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
C
2
0
C
2
2
C
2
4
C
2
6
C
2
8
C
3
0
C
3
2
C
3
4
C
3
6
C
3
8
C
4
0
C
4
2
C
4
4
C
4
6
C
4
8
C
5
0
C
5
2
C
5
4
C
5
6
C
5
8
C
6
0
C
6
2
C
6
4
C
6
6
C
6
8
Wax Fraction
Simulated P WAT v2
q We need to resimulate reflecting 49% wax content for C22+
P Condensate Simulated WAT v2 = 74.7
o
C
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Temperature
o
C
Wax Content %
v1 WAT v2 WAT
C80+ = 0.034 Wt%
We need to keep going down the
SCNs because WAT is down to 1-2
ppm.
P Condensate WAT v3
P Condensate Simulated WAT v2 = 85
o
C
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Temperature
o
C
Wax Content %
v1 WAT
v2 WAT
v3 Heavy Characterised WAT
Simulated v2 P WAT vs CPM / CWDT
q 75
o
C vs CPM41
o
C and CWDT 45
o
C
q So Simulation Must be Wrong?
Lets look at some other Information: Melting Points
of C80 using PVTSim
q C80 MPt (Tf) =112
o
C (WAT driven by C80 of
0.034 wt% =75
o
C)
q WDT WAT =37
o
C. Is this reasonable?
Conservative?
q WDT approaches WAT in the limit of slow cooling
PVTSim Melting (WDT) vs SCN
PVTSim SCN vs Melting Points of n Alkanes
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
C
7
C
1
0
C
1
3
C
1
6
C
1
9
C
2
2
C
2
5
C
2
8
C
3
1
C
3
4
C
3
7
C
4
0
C
4
3
C
4
6
C
4
9
C
5
2
C
5
5
C
5
8
C
6
1
C
6
4
C
6
7
C
7
0
C
7
3
C
7
6
C
7
9
C
8
2
C
8
5
C
8
8
C
9
1
C
9
4
C
9
7
C
1
0
0
TM (
o
C)
If sample contains no more than
C52, then require heating sample
to 90
o
C in order to melt.
If sample contains C100, then
require heating sample to 125
o
C
in order to melt.
Equally, if sample contains C100,
WDT - WAT = 125-96= 30
o
C
If sample only contains C52:
WDT-WAT = 90- 52 = 38
o
C
Are we ready to make P Wax File?
Still need viscosity tuned data
P Condensate Cooldown Viscosity at 60s
-1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Temperature
o
C
Viscosity (s-1)
Are we ready to make P Wax File?
Whats happening here?
P Condensate Cooldown Viscosity from 50 to 25
o
C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Temperature
o
C
Viscosity (s-1)
Its all Upside Down!
Visco Tuning Using P WAT v 3
P Condensate Cooldown Viscosity at 60s
-1
: PVTSim Viscosity Tuning
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Temperature
o
C
Viscosity (s-1)
Raw Experimental
Filtered Experimental
Simulated
Tuned
Wax Deposition in Production System
Export of Stabilised Condensate through
onshore pipeline-15
o
C Ground Temperature
Wax Deposition in Production System
Onshore STO Condensate Export: 20 Days:
Oil M vs Condensate P: Single Phase Onshore Pipeline
82
82.5
83
83.5
84
84.5
85
85.5
86
86.5
87
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Distance (m)
WAT (
o
C)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
DXWX (mm)
M Oil WAT
P Condensate WAT
M Oil DXWX
P Condensate DXWX
Wax Deposition in Production System
Onshore STO Condensate Export: 20 Days:
Oil M vs Condensate P: Single Phase Onshore Pipeline
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Distance (m)
T (
o
C) / Viscosity (cp)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
QOST bbl/d
M Oil T
P Condensate T
M Oil Viscosity
P Condensate Viscosity
M Oil QOST
P Condensate QOST
Wax Deposition in Production System
Onshore STO Condensate Export: 20 Days:
Oil M vs Condensate P: Single Phase Onshore Pipeline
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Distance (m)
Viscosity (cp)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Shear Rate (s
-1
)
M Oil Viscosity
P Condensate Viscosity
M Oil Shear Rate
P Condensate SR
CONCLUSIONS
1. Do not confuse science and the engineering
implications of the science. Get the science right first
before figuring the engineering consequences
2. Differences between Reservoir and DST compositions
could be due to:
n analysis techniques employed
n heavy end depletion in the near well bore region (condensate banking)
n deposition in the production system(downstreamWH choke)
3. Wax precipitation is a precursor to deposition but
should not be confused with deposition.
4. Gas condensate deposition as simulated by Olga
requires Reynolds number modification.
CONCLUSIONS: Condensate Banking Ref [8]
CONCLUSIONS: Condensate Banking
n Core 1 had a permeability of 256 Md and 17.5% porosity.
n Core 2 had a permeability of 39 Md and 18.5% porosity
n Core 1 had a 10x Reduction in K
G
due to liquid banking
n Core 2 had a 25% reduction in K
G
due to liquid banking
References
1. Zhou, Li et al 2005 Distribution and Properties of High Molecular Weight
Hydrocarbons in Crude Oils and Oil Reservoir of Shengli Oil Field, China
J. Pet Science & Eng 2005
2. Barker et al 1995 The Chromatographic Analysis of Refined and and Synthetic
Waxes. In Adlard Ed Chromatography in the PetroleumIndustry Journal
Chromatography Library Series, vol 56,pp 55-93
3. Taggert. A 1995 Nucleation, Growth and Habit Modification of n Alkanes and
Homologous Mixtures in the Absence and Presence of Flow Improving
Additives PhD, University Strathclyde.
4. Mullins et al 2009 The Impact of Reservoir Fluid Compositional Variation on
Flow Assurance Evaluation OTC 20204
5. Heath et al 1995 Quantification of the C30+Fraction of North Sea Gas
Condensates by HTGC Analytical Proceedings Incl Analytical Comms
1995,32,485
6. Cosman, F Controlling Asphaltenes in Gas Condensate Systems NL Treating
Chemicals Internal Case History fromAlberta, Canada. 1970s
7. Thou, Ruthhammer et al 2002 Detection Asphaltenes Flocculation Onset in a
Gas Condensate System SPE 78321
8. Thomas B 2003 Gas Condensate Reservoirs SPE 101514