You are on page 1of 12

Compositional Modelling of Two-Phase

Hydrocarbon Reservoirs
Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
Reservoir Engineering Research Institute

Abstract Reservoir Fluid Sampling and Validity

Compositional modelling of saturated two-phase hydrocarbon Reservoir fluids, whether sampled at the bottomhole or at the
reservoirs is a difficult task. When both oil and gas phases are wellhead, should be representative of the fluid in the reservoir.
present, the characterization of one phase may not be the same The procedures to obtain representative samples have been
as the other phase. Proper characterization will, therefore, addressed in the literature. In 1954 and later, Reudelhuber(1-3)
become an issue. emphasized the need for proper well conditioning to ensure repre-
In this paper, we examine the compositional data of four two- sentativeness of samples from oil reservoirs. He recommended
phase hydrocarbon reservoirs. An attempt is made to character- minimizing the differential pressure for bottomhole samples by
ize the reservoir fluids in both the gas cap and the oil column. In restricting the flow rate. This procedure applies to undersaturated
addition to the characterization of the plus fractions, we also reservoirs with high permeability. In saturated reservoirs and in
review reservoir fluid sampling and validation. reservoirs with high drawdown, the flowing pressure may be less
than the bubblepoint pressure. Therefore, the in situ reservoir fluid
has to be reconstituted from the wellhead samples; the well pro-
ducing gas-oil ratio (GOR) should be stabilized. Sometimes, it
Introduction may be necessary to establish the desired saturation pressure by
altering the GOR.
Equations of state are commonly used in compositional model- Well conditioning procedures have been reviewed by several
ling of both gas condensate and oil reservoirs. A key to the suc- authors(4-6). Stable flowing pressure and stable GOR should be
cessful application of an equation of state (EOS) is the proper examined to assess the possibility of coning in saturated reser-
characterization of the heavier hydrocarbons. voirs. The recommended sampling guidelines published by API(7)
in 1966 suggest a continuous rate reduction of the order of 30 to
Traditionally, the characterization has focussed on one single
50%, until a trend in the GOR is established.
hydrocarbon phase, either oil or gas. For oil reservoirs, the effect
of injected gas on the mass transfer with the in situ oil for the Sampling of gas condensate reservoirs is somewhat different.
characterization is accounted for by including laboratory swelling Flaitz et al.(8), in 1941, highlighted the difficulties in sampling gas
data in the match between calculated values from the EOS and condensate reservoirs. As the pressure in the vicinity of the well-
measurements. Similarly, for gas condensate reservoirs, the con- bore drops below the dewpoint, liquid condensate drops out. A
stant composition expansion, constant volume depletion, and the sufficiently high production rate is then necessary to ensure that
mixing of injected lean gas and the in situ gas condensate PVT the liquid is carried to the surface(9-10), and a gas-to-condensate
experiments are believed to be adequate for the characterization. ratio close to the minimum(11) is achieved. Thomas et al.(12) sug-
gested an optimum production rate range in the saddle point of the
When a reservoir contains both the oil column and the gas cap, GOR vs. production rate bell-shaped profile.
the characterization of the reservoir fluid for the EOS should New advances in reservoir fluid sampling techniques include
describe the phase behaviour of both the oil and the gas phases. “Mono-Phasic Sampling”(13), a technique devised to increase the
Generally, there is a significant difference in the molecular weight downhole pressure through a charge of compressed nitrogen. In
(and other properties) of the plus fractions of the oil and the gas this approach, the pressure is raised sufficiently to ensure a single
phases that are in equilibrium. Therefore, different characteriza- phase fluid sample. Other recent advances in reservoir fluid sam-
tions may become necessary for each phase. In other words, one pling technology, include multi-chamber sampling (MCS)
may need to characterize the heptane-plus fraction of the oil col- tools(14). From our field experience, we can state that MCS tools
umn to be different from that of the gas cap. have proved successful in relatively high permeability (> 25 md)
In this paper, we will study the fluid characterization of four formations where the drawdown is small. In tight formations the
different two-phase hydrocarbon reservoirs of significant size. tool performance might be poor, as we will discuss later.
The main objective is to develop a simple practical approach for The container used in shipping the reservoir fluid sample to the
the study of two-phase reservoirs. A large number of PVT sam- laboratory and the transit time may also affect the integrity of the
ples for the gas cap and the oil column of these four reservoirs reservoir fluid sample. This is of special significance for sour oil
will be used in this study. Since many PVT samples may not be and gas reservoirs with a high H2S content. Non-reactive samplers
representative, we will present a discussion on sampling and its with special material have recently been introduced(15) to alleviate
validity. this problem.

April 2001, Volume 40, No. 4 49

FIGURE 1: Initial reservoir pressure vs. depth identifying fluid FIGURE 2: RFT measured pressure across the gas-oil and oil-
contacts. water contacts.

In deciding the validity of reservoir fluid samples, the report of and horizontal temperature gradients, and gravity on vertical com-
the well-site engineer detailing the well condition during sampling position variation have been studied recently(23). In particular,
should be considered. In this study, in addition to the assessment thermal diffusion and natural convection may significantly affect
of the well-site engineer’s report and careful examination of the the distribution of components such as H2S areally. Field data on
above sampling procedures, we use the EOS in screening various reservoirs with areal compositional variation are scarce in the lit-
PVT samples. In applying the EOS, the parameters should be erature. In this paper, such data, which include saturated-oil reser-
adjusted minimally. voirs and gas-condensate reservoirs with a significant oil rim, will
Next, we discuss theoretical considerations for the EOS and be provided. The data will be used for engineering calculations
PVT data variation in hydrocarbon reservoirs. and may be useful for future theoretical studies.

Theoretical Considerations Saturated-Oil Reservoirs

There are two major challenges in applying thermodynamics to A saturated-oil reservoir is overlaid by a primary gas cap with a
study the phase behaviour of hydrocarbon reservoirs. One issue clearly identifiable gas-oil contact which can be established from
relates to using the equation of state for phase equilibrium calcula- initial pressure measurements and the reservoir fluid density gra-
tions in the saturated phases, and the other issue is how to account dients in the gas cap and in the oil column (Figure 1). Repeat for-
for areal and vertical variation of composition in the oil column mation tests (RFT) of wells crossing the fluid contacts may also
and in the gas cap(16). provide valuable data in locating the fluid contacts (Figure 2).
Open hole logs of wells crossing the gas-oil contact (Figure 3)
Cubic equations of state are generally suitable for phase-behav-
with low drilling fluid invasion could establish the gas saturation
iour calculation of well-defined hydrocarbon systems (identifiable
by the separation of the neutron porosity log from the bulk density
with specific Tc, Pc, and ω) away from the critical point(17). In the
log. The log identified fluid contact tends to be shallower than the
near-critical region, efforts have to be made to vary certain para-
meters(18). When equations of state were introduced to perform V-
L equilibria of reservoir fluid systems, it was assumed that the
same carbon number in the vapour and liquid phases has the same
characteristics(19). However, recently we have learned that the
same carbon number in different phases may have different char-
acteristics. It has been demonstrated(20) that the precipitated wax
from petroleum fluids contains very little aromatics. In other
words, C40 carbon in the wax phase may not contain aromatics
while it may be very rich in paraffins; C40 in the liquid phase has
aromatics and may have paraffins. This implies that the carbon
number distribution in the liquid and solid phases may be differ-
ent. In general, there is no reason to believe that the heavy carbons
in the oil and gas phases have the same properties; C30 in the oil
and in the equilibrium gas may not have the same Tc and Pc.
Thompson(21) has reviewed the work in this area and establishes
that condensates may be rich in paraffins and depleted in aromat-
ics. One important objective of this work is, therefore, to examine
measured PVT data of hydrocarbon reservoirs with both an oil
column and a gas cap and to establish the distribution of carbon
number for both phases in a practical way.
Composition in many hydrocarbon reservoirs varies both areal-
ly and vertically even when pressure communication exists.
Gravity (pressure diffusion), thermal diffusion, molecular diffu-
FIGURE 3: Neutron porosity and bulk density logs identifying the
sion, and natural convection mechanisms affect the composition
gas-oil contact.
variation(22). The effect of thermal diffusion because of vertical

50 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 4: Field A East-West cross-section: reservoir AO FIGURE 5: Field T East-West cross-section: reservoir TO
(saturated oil reservoir) and reservoir AG (gas-condensate with a (saturated oil reservoir) and reservoir TG (gas-condensate with a
significant oil rim). significant oil rim).

contact based on the pressure gradient (free gas contact); the dif-
ference is due to the threshold capillary pressure.

Gas-Condensate Reservoirs With a

Significant Oil Rim
Gas condensate reservoirs with a thin oil rim are differentiated
from saturated-oil reservoirs with a primary gas cap by the size of
the oil rim. This definition reflects on the traditional approach in
characterizing an equation of state in gas condensate reservoirs
where the emphasis, logically, is in modelling the condensate
phase behaviour. Exploitation of the thin oil rim is technically
challenging and is limited by the economic constraints. If not
favourable, characterization of the reservoir fluid based on the
properties of the gas condensate is justified. However, if the
development considers exploitation of the oil rim, then characteri-
zation of the reservoir fluid should also include the oil rim. The
gas condensate reservoirs that we will consider in this work have
a significant oil rim and are planned as secondary development
targets. FIGURE 6: Fluid samples and contacts reservoir AO (saturated

Field PVT Data voirs. Reservoir TO is a saturated-oil reservoir with a huge gas
cap(16). Reservoir TG is a gas condensate with a thin oil rim. Field
The PVT data of two oil fields will be presented in this section. T is characterized by the graded areal variation in H2S content
The hydrocarbon accumulations in Field A lie in the middle-upper which gradually increases towards the North-East. In all known
Jurassic formation, as is illustrated in the East-West cross-section hydrocarbon accumulations of Field T, a significant areal compo-
shown in Figure 4. Two hydrocarbon reservoirs from Field A will sitional variation is observed. In individual reservoirs, the pressure
be considered. Reservoir AO is a saturated-oil reservoir with a communication is excellent, indicating that compartmentalization
huge gas cap and reservoir AG is a gas condensate reservoir with is not a possible explanation of this variation.
a thin oil rim.
The hydrocarbon accumulations in Field T lie in the lower As was stated earlier, thermal diffusion across the field could
Cretaceous formation, as is illustrated in the north-south cross- be one reason for H2S areal variation. This subject is currently
section (Figure 5). Similar to Field A, we have selected two reser- under study and results will be published later. Marzouk(24) has

TABLE 1: Reservoir AO fluid samples.

H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2C3 C4C5 C6 C7+ Density C20+ Density IGOR

Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole MW C7+ Mole MW C20+ Depth Pi Psat Temp IGCR
Well % % % % % % % % C7+ gm/cc % C20+ gm/cc ( (psia) (psia) (F) scf/stb

AO-2 1.87 5.18 0.17 66.59 13.87 5.36 1.32 5.64 151.22 8,365 4,165 8,300
AO-222 2.04 5.01 0.18 67.18 13.57 4.87 1.53 5.62 134.89 300.80 8,087 3,975 3,885 218 5,842
AO-7 1.09 2.62 0.21 43.88 14.74 7.61 2.33 27.52 222.00 0.8595 8,990 3,662 218 1,295
AO-11 2.52 3.13 0.00 41.83 15.54 7.87 2.51 26.60 250.22 8,775 4,383 4,210 216 1,492
AO-15 1.68 3.51 0.72 43.90 14.20 7.41 2.82 25.76 227.14 8,791 4,273 3,770 218
AO-17 2.46 4.15 0.09 47.32 13.42 6.22 3.19 23.15 224.54 8,824 4,305 4,233 218 1,446
AO-18 2.08 3.93 0.08 46.90 13.42 6.62 2.47 24.50 231.00 0.8607 5.31 8,778 4,035 4,019 219 1,471
AO-19 2.53 3.83 0.12 47.47 14.03 6.37 2.54 23.11 224.05 8,730 4,272 4,227 218 1,400
AO-21 2.05 3.89 0.05 47.73 13.82 5.98 2.73 23.75 224.90 8,842 4,413 4,188 218 1,479
AO-29 1.34 3.23 0.43 47.83 13.78 6.92 2.04 24.43 230.00 0.8646 8,800 4,107 218 1,553
AO-32 1.59 3.18 0.00 51.50 10.33 6.12 2.28 25.00 248.05 9,000 4,253 3,969 218 1,325
AO-97 2.07 3.55 0.10 40.74 12.46 5.95 0.95 34.18 230.00 0.8754 8,731 4,013 3,513 222 1,448
AO-105 1.49 2.80 0.32 45.30 14.61 7.19 2.38 25.91 8,850 4,016 3,916 218 1,373
AO-169 2.63 3.22 0.00 42.50 12.83 6.53 2.50 29.79 226.63 8,825 4,415 3,409 218 1,236

April 2001, Volume 40, No. 4 51

FIGURE 7: Initial gas-oil ratio vs. depth-reservoir AO. FIGURE 8: C7+ content in the oil column vs. depth-reservoir AO.

explained that the presence of vertical barriers and the pinchout of

the Jurassic anhydrite towards the East has confined the migration
path of H2S from the deeper H2S source formations to the north-
ern part of the hydrocarbon reservoirs in Field T. Whatever the
reason for the H2S variation is, the reservoirs at initial conditions
prior to production are not in an equilibrium state(22, 23).
In the following sections, we will review the PVT samples
from the four reservoirs AO, AG, TO and TG.

Reservoir AO (Saturated-Oil)
Figure 6 depicts reservoir fluid sampled wells; there are several
samples in the oil zone, while sampling in the gas cap is limited to
two. Compositional analysis and other relevant data are presented
in Table 1. The temperatures in the table are rough estimates of
the reservoir temperature and may be few degrees different from
the true values.
The reservoir fluid samples are examined using the procedures
outlined in the above section on sampling validation and other
available documented information. The validity of one fluid sam-
ple from AO-169 was suspected from the report of the well-site FIGURE 9: Fluid samples and contacts-reservoir AG (gas
engineer in charge of sampling. Inspection of the initial solubility condensate with a significant oil rim).
vs. depth presented in Figure 7, reveals that the GOR of AO-169
is not consistent with those of other wells. Figure 7 also indicates
that the samples AO-19 and AO-97 have a trend different from Figure 9 presents reservoir fluid sampled wells; the composi-
the others. Since A0-97 is very close to the gas-oil-contact (GOC), tional analyses are presented in Table 2. The comment on temper-
a mixture of gas and oil might have been sampled. ature for Table 1 applies to Tables 2, 3, and 4. Eight recombined
surface samples were collected in the gas cap with triple samples
Figure 8, presents the C7+ mole% vs. depth, highlighting that
analysed by the same laboratory collected from one well (AG-58).
the samples from wells AO-97, AO-169 and AO-32 have a differ-
Only one oil well was sampled (AG-87).
ent trend from the rest. The variation of MW of C7+ with depth
indicates that the measurements for samples AO-11 and AO-32 Figure 10 presents the saturation pressure and the initial reser-
are possibly not representative (the results are not shown voir pressure vs. depth. The figure shows that the dewpoint pres-
graphically). sure of AG-58 as measured from the three recombined surface
On the whole, Figure 7 shows a consistent decreasing trend of samples may not be valid. The same figure also implies that the
initial gas solubility, but from Figure 8 and C7+ MW data, the dewpoint pressures of samples AG-196 and AG-220 are suspect.
amount and molecular weight of C7+ do not increase appreciably The MW of C7+ vs. depth presented in Figure 11 confirms that
with depth. samples from AG-58 are in poor agreement with others, and sam-
The gas PVT sample from AO-222 seems to be representative ples from AG-196 and AG-220 may be suspect. Figure 12 pre-
based on the report of the well-site engineer and that the EOS sents the dewpoint pressure vs. the initial GCR ratio, highlighting
could predict the measured data from the compositional analysis. the inconsistency in samples AG-58, 196 and 220.
The dewpoint pressure is also compatible with reservoir pressure. Sampling in the oil rim is limited to one well (AG-87). The col-
The gas-to-condensate ratio (GCR) for gas well AO-2 seems lected reservoir fluid samples were analysed by three different
incorrect; the dewpoint pressure is higher than the reservoir pres- commercial laboratories. As Table 2 shows, the results are differ-
sure and the EOS could not predict the measured data accurately. ent. The analysis and measurements by two laboratories provide
reasonable repeatability and are considered valid.
Reservoir AG (Gas Condensate With a On the whole, from the results presented in Figures 10 and 11,
Significant Oil Rim) it is likely that there is not much segregation in the gas cap.

52 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

TABLE 2: Reservoir AG fluid samples.

H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2C3 C4C5 C6 C7+ Density C20+ Density IGOR

Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole MW C7+ Mole MW C20+ Depth Pi Psat Temp IGCR
Well % % % % % % % % C7+ gm/cc % C20+ gm/cc ( (psia) (psia) (F) scf/stb

AG-58 3.27 3.77 0.20 78.81 7.61 2.90 0.77 2.67 149.20 9,172 4,775 4,565 230 16,818
AG-58 3.33 3.80 0.20 79.27 7.62 2.51 0.52 2.75 159.32 9,172 4,775 4,710 230 17,882
AG-58 3.24 3.82 0.22 79.54 7.61 2.48 0.52 2.57 161.79 9,172 4,775 4,655 230 17,263
AG-196 1.49 5.11 0.22 76.28 10.51 3.36 0.67 2.36 131.00 0.7760 9,541 3,745 3,754 230 15,753
AG-212 2.75 5.61 0.13 75.97 8.42 2.87 0.88 3.38 135.05 0.0600 289.08 0.8700 9,185 3,985 3,993 230 13,825
AG-214 1.90 5.19 0.33 73.99 9.64 3.49 1.06 4.40 138.02 0.0800 281.46 0.8590 9,547 3,990 4,095 230 10,569
AG-216 2.05 5.25 0.08 75.25 9.86 2.95 0.75 3.81 147.72 0.1800 307.42 0.8440 9,597 3,985 3,980 230 10,673
AG-220 1.90 5.24 0.48 75.73 9.75 3.09 0.79 3.02 131.03 0.0020 309.73 0.8270 9,708 3,985 3,405 230 13,729
AG-87 1.39 3.32 0.08 48.06 11.88 6.33 2.43 20.53 228.62 6.0000 9,950 4,841 4,513 230 1,471
AG-87 1.13 3.97 0.13 52.74 11.41 3.79 1.86 24.97 211.00 9,950 4,865 4,345 230 1,757
AG-87 1.23 4.29 0.12 50.96 11.41 4.46 1.19 26.34 207.00 0.8481 9,950 4,864 4,448 231 1,736

TABLE 3: Reservoir TO fluid samples.

H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2C3 C4C5 C6 C7+ Density C20+ Density IGOR

Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole MW C7+ Mole MW C20+ Depth Pi Psat Temp IGCR
Well % % % % % % % % C7+ gm/cc % C20+ gm/cc ( (psia) (psia) (F) scf/stb

TO-388 2.09 4.11 0.38 73.29 10.32 4.72 1.21 3.89 136.65 0.0500 318.12 0.7660 8,117 4,000 3,747 248 17,807
TO-247 2.35 4.35 0.27 73.10 9.48 4.22 1.21 5.03 139.84 0.0440 375.00 8,120 3,998 2,998 8,466
TO-393 1.50 4.15 0.27 78.39 9.33 3.47 0.55 2.34 142.03 0.0100 293.56 8,109 4,020 3,695
TO-362 2.90 4.53 0.12 72.31 9.67 4.63 1.23 4.60 135.49 0.7860 0.0300 307.23 0.7970 8,260 3,873 4,565 226
TO-32 2.03 3.32 0.11 49.62 10.35 7.01 2.03 25.53 196.00 0.8322 8,403 4,154 4,104 250 1,775
TO-32S 2.32 3.60 0.25 47.64 11.00 7.33 4.00 23.86 221.14 5.2658 434.00 0.9171 8,403 4,154 4,104 250 1,546
TO-33 1.38 2.94 0.13 47.34 10.52 7.99 3.31 26.39 201.00 0.8350 8,474 4,033 3,815 250 1,538
TO-35 2.48 3.01 0.11 43.72 9.95 7.76 3.39 29.58 209.00 0.8411 8,257 4,115 3,503 250 1,238
TO-5 0.08 3.02 0.12 43.52 11.29 8.54 2.16 31.27 198.00 0.8330 8,565 3,385 250 1,291
TO-13 0.51 2.63 0.11 44.11 12.06 8.44 3.19 28.95 208.00 0.8371 8,585 3,370 250 1,333
TO-14 0.70 2.59 0.12 47.46 11.22 7.72 2.50 27.69 199.00 0.8351 8,510 3,715 250 1,460
TO-28 0.37 2.34 0.08 47.00 10.88 8.26 3.32 27.75 203.00 0.8354 8,467 4,005 3,755 250 1,458
TO-22 2.34 3.18 0.11 48.42 10.45 7.48 3.14 24.88 210.00 0.8413 8,449 4,091 4,057 250 1,664
TO-72S 7.73 3.75 0.17 38.18 9.80 7.35 3.06 29.96 8,476 4,235 4,002 250
TO-27S 9.73 4.85 0.00 40.87 9.55 7.15 2.60 25.25 210.00 0.8440 8,460 3,460 254 1,928
TO108 10.09 4.05 0.12 31.45 9.86 10.24 3.65 30.54 215.90 0.8391 8,403 3,605 2,613 250 1,237
TO-96 4.15 4.43 0.18 45.46 9.75 7.47 2.88 25.68 209.00 0.8380 8,458 4,040 3,763 250 1,581
TO-97 4.98 4.59 0.20 35.42 9.87 8.72 3.26 32.96 210.00 0.8369 8,517 4,192 2,729 250 1,085
TO-141 2.60 2.73 0.07 33.39 9.38 10.13 3.76 37.94 8,279 3,962 2,456 250
TO-230 5.77 3.88 0.36 45.79 9.71 7.16 2.66 24.67 210.00 0.8426 8,398 3,900 250 1,715
TO-378 0.92 2.09 0.17 44.28 10.48 7.98 3.62 30.50 191.31 4.1500 449.92 0.8960 8,401 3,908 3,728 255 1,226
TO-375 1.26 2.79 0.17 42.32 10.32 8.00 4.11 31.04 182.52 0.8560 3.5700 449.37 0.8990 8,247 3,487 3,487 253 1,276
TO-382 9.31 4.27 0.19 41.93 9.34 6.74 2.39 25.83 215.83 5.6300 408.22 0.9040 8,428 3,715 3,738 250 1,523
TO-379 8.19 4.40 0.15 40.61 9.52 7.28 3.00 26.85 203.72 4.4600 453.71 0.9140 8,440 3,715 3,360 250 1,496
TO-413 4.04 3.23 0.32 44.08 8.86 7.16 3.77 28.54 187.04 0.8550 3.6400 456.09 0.9130 8,372 3,921 250 1,266

TABLE 4: Reservoir TG fluid samples.

H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2C3 C4C5 C6 C7+ Density C20+ Density IGOR

Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole Mole MW C7+ Mole MW C20+ Depth Pi Psat Temp IGCR
Well % % % % % % % % C7+ gm/cc % C20+ gm/cc ( (psia) (psia) (F) scf/stb

TG-91 6.80 7.95 1.63 78.53 2.57 0.81 0.24 1.47 152.00 0.7951 8,458 4,315 4,315 260 48,453
TG-151 10.41 6.01 0.21 79.46 1.89 0.68 0.19 1.15 143.71 0.010 307.00 0.7550 8,620 4,325 3,675 257 47,893
TG-190 0.74 3.98 0.14 84.52 4.46 2.32 0.75 3.09 137.79 0.070 325.00 0.8130 8,587 4,244 4,260 257 17,970
TG-193 1.61 4.21 0.26 84.47 4.08 2.14 0.75 2.48 135.96 0.020 313.00 0.7890 8,568 4,203 4,225 257 22,700
TG-112 0.98 4.35 0.35 82.93 5.39 2.24 0.56 3.20 132.00 0.7718 8,772 4,329 4,205 260 17,795
TG-197 4.02 5.30 0.12 81.54 3.26 1.81 1.21 2.74 131.06 0.030 329.00 0.8200 8,575 4,286 4,305 257 28,930
TG-203 2.33 5.64 0.27 84.94 3.38 1.55 0.37 1.52 143.84 0.030 329.00 0.7470 8,427 4,288 3,995 257 35,200
TG-247 1.94 5.51 2.04 81.01 4.06 2.55 0.83 2.06 135.00 0.8790 8,357 4,119 3,542 253 31,130
TG-87 0.46 2.87 0.14 41.19 6.70 5.67 3.18 39.79 230.00 0.8551 8,741 4,335 3,137 207 730
TG-352 1.23 3.09 0.10 47.15 7.35 5.04 2.20 33.83 222.77 0.8650 8.690 407.70 0.9480 8,736 4,305 4,023 260 934
TG-377 12.31 5.32 0.30 38.48 1.24 2.97 1.49 37.89 225.64 9.100 414.37 8,703 4,073 4,073 260 796
TG-308 1.20 2.46 0.14 32.02 7.06 5.67 2.59 48.86 238.00 0.8663 14.47 424.00 8,723 4,073 2,259 260 512

April 2001, Volume 40, No. 4 53

FIGURE 10: Saturation pressure and initial pressure vs. depth
-reservoir AG. FIGURE 12: Dew point pressure vs. GCR—reservoir AG.

Reservoir TO (Saturated-Oil) pect samples identified based on such a plot could be confirmed
as poor samples.
Figure 13 presents reservoir fluid sampled wells summarized in For gas cap samples, we note from Table 3, that the dewpoint
Table 3. In the oil zone, there are 21 samples: 9 are analysed to pressure of sample TO-362 is significantly higher than the reser-
C7+, 10 are analysed to C20+, and two samples (TO-379, TO-382) voir pressure. The validity of sample TO-362 is, therefore,
are analysed to C40+. Sampling in the gas cap is limited to four suspected.
wells; one with extended analysis and constant composition The validity of the PVT samples from saturated-oil reservoir
expansion and constant volume depletion tests (TO-247), and TO, examined by the examples discussed above, may result in
three samples with extended analysis and dewpoint pressure selecting the representative samples. Various other plots will be
measurements. needed for the screening of all of the PVT samples for this
Figures 14 and 15 present the variation of (C1+N2) and C7+ vs. reservoir.
depth. These two figures reveal that there may not exist a trend The MCS tool was used in collecting bottomhole fluid samples
due to the complexity of compositional variation. In order to from wells TO-375, 378, 382, and 413 in the oil column and TO-
understand the effect of gravity, we may plot the C20+ content 388 and 393 in the gas cap. With the exception of the gas cap
rather than C7+ content vs. depth. Figure 16 shows the amount of samples, the tool’s success in collecting representative fluid sam-
C20+ vs. depth indicating a clear increasing trend. Samples TO- ples was limited, and proved operationally problematic, especially
32S and TO-382 do not follow the general trend, and are consid- in sampling the low productivity wells in the northern part of the
ered suspect. It is interesting to note that C20+ molecular weight reservoir, which includes wells TO-382 and 413.
increases very little with depth (results not shown graphically).
The variation of C7+ content vs. initial solubility is presented in Reservoir TG (Gas-Condensate With a
Figure 17. This figure reveals that as the gas solubility increases
the C7+ amount decreases, as expected.
Significant Oil Rim)
The plot of initial solubility vs. depth provides a decreasing Figure 19 presents reservoir fluid sampled wells.
trend of solubility with depth, as is shown in Figure 18. The sus- Compositional analyses are given in Table 4. Eight recombined
surface samples were collected in the gas cap, and four bottom-
hole samples were obtained in the oil column.
The compositional analyses confirm the established graded H2S
variation trend in all hydrocarbon accumulations in Field T, with

FIGURE 13: Fluid samples and contacts—reservoir TO (saturated

FIGURE 11: C7+ MW vs. depth—reservoir AG. oil).

54 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 14: - Variation of (C1+N2) of oil samples vs. depth— FIGURE 16: Variation of C20+ of oft samples (normalized by the
reservoir TO. balance of H2S content) vs. depth—reservoir TO.

FIGURE 15: Variation of C7+ of oil samples vs. depth reservoir FIGURE 17: -C7+ of oil samples vs. initial solubility—reservoir

the H2S content as low as 1 mole% in the south, gradually increas-

ing towards the north-east in both the oil column and in the gas
cap to more than 12 mole% in the oil column.
The initial gas to condensate ratio vs. depth presented in Figure
20 indicates that the validity of samples TG-91 and TG-151 is
suspected. The dewpoint pressure vs. initial gas-condensate ratio
(see Figure 21), provides the evidence that samples TG-151, TG-
247, and TG-203 are possibly poor. Similarly, the bubblepoint
pressure vs. initial GOR for samples in the oil column indicates
that the validity of sample TG-377 is suspected (Figure 22).
The assessment of the compositional variation trends is masked
by the H2S content. Figure 23 presents the variation of C1+N2 vs.
depth; the data are widely scattered and no clear trend is evident.
However, by normalizing the C1+N2 content by the balance of the
H2S fraction (Figure 24), a reasonable trend emerges. This indi-
cates that samples TG-247 and TG-151 are suspect, as identified
from the dewpoint pressure data and initial gas-to-condensate
ratio analysis.
The various plots presented for the samples from this reservoir
are useful in identifying poor samples. The plots reveal that: 1) the
initial gas-condensate ratio decreases with depth, and 2) the C1
FIGURE 18: Initial solubility of oil samples vs. depth—reservoir
content due to high concentration of H2S (in the gas) does not
reveal a systematic trend, similar to reservoir TO.

April 2001, Volume 40, No. 4 55

FIGURE 19: Fluid samples and contacts—reservoir TG (gas FIGURE 20: Initial gas in condensate ratio vs. depth—reservoir
condensate with a significant rim). TG.

FIGURE: 21 Dew point pressure vs. initial gas to condensate FIGURE 22: Bubble point pressure vs. initial gas-oil ratio—
ratio—reservoir TG. reservoir TG.

FIGURE 24: (C1+N2) of gas samples (normalized by the balance

FIGURE 23: (C1+N1) vs. depth of gas samples—reservoir TG. of H2S content) vs. depth—reservoir TG.

56 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 25: C7+ extended analysis of oil samples (normalized)— FIGURE 26: C7+ extended analysis of gas samples
Field A. (normalized)-Field A.

FIGURE 27: C7+ extended analysis of oil samples (normalized)— FIGURE 28: C7+extended analysis of gas samples (normalized)—
Field T. Field T.

Characterization of the Plus Fractions for the four samples both in the oil column and the gas cap of
Field T, respectively. These two figures also establish distinct
The characterization of the heavy fraction has received signifi- characterizations for the oil column and gas cap reservoir fluids
cant emphasis in the literature, recognizing its influence on the for Field T.
equation of state prediction of reservoir fluid properties(25-28). The trend observed in Figures 25 – 28 provides a logical basis
Wilson et al.(25), demonstrated that, even for a fluid system with in extending the analysis of reservoir fluids for the gas cap and the
less than 0.01 mole% of C6+, the adjustment of the properties of oil column, separately.
the heavy fraction may affect the phase behaviour calculation.
Thomassen et al.(28), highlighted that the “error” in determining
the molecular weight of the heavy fraction on the order of 5 –
10%, can result in more than 700 psi error in the prediction of the Characterization and Application of EOS
dewpoint pressure of a gas condensate. Prior to using two distinct characterizations—one for the oil
Various efforts were made to characterize the C7+ fraction of phase and the other for the gas—we used the heptane-plus charac-
the reservoir fluids from the gas cap and the oil column of Fields terization of the oil phase for the two-phase saturated oil reser-
A and T. Towards this end, the separate plot of C7+ extended voirs. For the gas reservoirs with an oil rim, the C7+ characteriza-
analyses of the reservoir fluid from the oil column and gas cap tion of the gas was used. This approach can result in poor calcula-
proved useful. Figure 25 depicts the normalized C7+ extended tions of the phase for which its plus fraction was not used. As an
analysis to C20+ for three oil column samples, two from reservoir example, when we used the C7+ characterization of the oil phase,
AO and one from reservoir AG. For the gas cap gas, four samples the prediction of the dewpoint pressure and the constant volume
are selected, and the C7+ extended analysis are shown in Figure depletion of the gas condensate reservoir fluid on the top of the oil
26. These two figures reveal that oil and gas samples from Field A column was in poor agreement with data. Therefore, we decided
show distinct distributions. Figures 27 and 28 show similar plots to use distinct characterizations for the calculation of the phase

April 2001, Volume 40, No. 4 57

TABLE 5: Components/pseudocomponents of oil and behaviour of the reservoir gas and the reservoir oil of the two-
gas samples. phase hydrocarbon reservoirs AO, AG, TO, and TG. In applying
the EOS, a minimum set of components/pseudocomponents were
selected. Table 5 presents the components/pseudocomponents. We
No. Component/Pseudocomponent
used the Peng-Robinson (PR)(29) EOS in this work.
1 H2S For gas condensate fluids, the extended analysis to C20+ was
used. This last fraction was considered specific to the gas cap gas.
2 CO2
For the oil phase, the analysis was extended to C44+ (see Table 5).
3 C1+N2 To match the measured PVT data and the values from the EOS,
4 C2 the critical properties of C20+ for gas condensate systems and C44+
5 C3 for the oil systems were adjusted. In addition, the interaction coef-
6 C4+C5 ficients between C1+N2 pseudocomponent and the plus fraction
were also adjusted.
7 NC6
In applying the EOS, we selected one representative sample
8 C7-C10 from the oil column and one representative sample from the gas
9 C11-C19 cap of the two Fields A and T. Then the PR-EOS was used in pre-
10 C20+ (Gas only) dicting the phase behaviour of all other samples without further
11 C20-C30 (Oil only) adjustment of the parameters. Figure 29 presents the predicted and
12 C31-C43 (Oil only)
measured saturation pressures for all samples in reservoir TO; the
match is reasonable. Note that the samples considered suspect
13 C44+ (Oil Only) generally indicate larger disagreement between measured and pre-

FIGURE 29: Measured and predicted saturation pressures— FIGURE 31: Measured and predicted differential liberation data
reservoir TO. of an oil sample from reservoir AO.

FIGURE 30: Measured and predicted constant composition FIGURE 32: Measured and predicted differential liberation data
expansion data for an oil and a gas sample from reservoir TO. of an oil sample from reservoir TO.

58 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 33: Measured and predicted constant volume depletion FIGURE 34: Gas-chromatography mass-spectometry (mass 217)
data of gas-condensate samples from reservoirs AO and TO. fingerprint of Titerpane for formations A,T, and the source rock.

dicted saturation pressures. behaviour in the oil column and the gas cap can be properly
Figure 30 presents the constant composition expansion of an oil calculated by an EOS.
sample (TO-32) and a gas cap sample (TO-247) for reservoir TO, • The extended analysis of the heavy fractions may be useful
indicating good agreement between measured data and predicted to provide linkage to the hydrocarbon source.
results. Prediction of the reservoir oil differential data are present-
ed in Figure 31 for a sample in reservoir AO (AO-21), and in
Figure 32 for a sample in reservoir TO (TO-32); both indicating a Acknowledgements
reasonable match of the relative volume and the gas-oil ratio. The
liquid drop-out of valid samples was also considered, and the The authors wish to extend their appreciation to the
results are presented in Figure 33 for gas cap samples TO-247 and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company for permission to publish the
AO-222 in reservoirs AO, and TO, respectively. The results for study.
other representative samples (not shown) are similar to the plots in
Figures 29 – 33. NOMENCLATURE
GOC = Gas-Oil-Contact
WOC = Water-Oil-Contact
Extended Analysis an Indication of the
Hydrocarbon Source SI Metric Conversion Factors

The extended analysis of the heavy fractions of the accumula- ft × 3.048* E-01 = m
tions in the two fields A and T for the oil and gas samples present- psi × 6.894757 E+00 = kPa
ed in Figures 25 – 28 reveal a uniform pattern. The emergence of bbl × 1.589873 E-01 = m3
this pattern is possibly an indication that the hydrocarbon accumu- cp × 1.0* E-03 = Pa.s
lation originated from the same source. md × 9.869233 E-04 = µm2
*Conversion factors are exact
A review of the geochemical analysis, source rock and migra-
tion studies, confirm a common source rock of the reservoirs
reviewed. Figure 34 presents a gas chromatography mass spec- REFERENCES
trometry of triterpanes fingerprints for the source rock and the for- 1. REUDELHUBER, F.O., Separator Sampling of Gas-Condensate
mations of the reservoirs presented, in support of this conclusion. Reservoirs; Oil & Gas Journal, pp. 138-140, June 21, 1954.
Geochemical analyses of the hydrocarbon accumulations in the 2. REUDELHUBER, F.O., Better Separator Sampling of Crude Oil
two fields attributes the variation in properties to the differences Reservoirs; Oil & Gas Journal, pp. 181-183, November, 8, 1954.
in the maturity. 3. REUDELHUBER, F.O., Sampling Procedures for Oil Reservoir
Fluids; Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 15 – 18, December
4. MOSES, P.L., Engineering Applications of Phase Behaviour of
Discussion and Conclusions Crude Oil and Condensate Systems; Journal of Petroleum
Technology, pp. 715-723, July 1986.
This work covers the compositional modelling of two-phase 5. PERES, A., MACIAS-CHAPA, L., KELSEN, S., and REYNOLDS,
hydrocarbon reservoirs with an identifiable GOC. In some near- A.C., Well-Conditioning Effects on Bubble point Pressure of Fluid
critical reservoirs, a GOC may not exist. Sampling and PVT mod- Samples From Solution-Gas Drive Reservoirs; SPE Formation
elling of near-critical reservoirs are beyond the scope of this Evaluation, pp. 389-398, December 1990.
study. The main conclusions from this work are: 6. STRONG, J.B., THOMAS, F.B., and BENNION, D.B., Reservoir
• The validity of a PVT sample may be established by exami- Fluid Sampling and Recombination Techniques; Presented at the
Petroleum Society Conference, Calgary, AB, May 10 – 12, 1993.
nation of the sampling procedures, cross plots of PVT data,
7. RP 44, Recommended Practice for Sampling Reservoir Fluids; 1st
and screening by EOS calculations edition, API, Dallas, TX, 1966.
• The heptane-plus fractions in the oil column and the gas cap 8. FLAITZ, J.M. and PARKS, A.S., Sampling Gas-Condensate Wells;
of two-phase saturated reservoirs have different characteri- Transactions AIME, 146, pp. 13-27, 1941.
zations. When this difference is accounted for, the phase 9. MCCAIN Jr., W.D. and ALEXANDER, R.A., Sampling Gas-

April 2001, Volume 40, No. 4 59

Condensate Wells; SPE Reservoir Engineering, pp. 358-362, August
1992. Authors’ Biographies
D.W., Towards Optimizing Gas Condensate Reservoirs; the
Abdulla Hamoodi, is a reservoir engineer-
Petroleum Society Paper No. 95-09, presented at the 46th Annual
Technical Meeting, Banff, AB, May 14 – 17, 1995. ing superintendent with the Abu Dhabi
11. GILCHRIST, R.E. and ADAMS, J.E., How to Best Utilize PVT National Oil Company (ADNOC), respon-
Reports; Petroleum Engineer International, pp. 38-41, July 1993. sible for onshore oil and gas reservoirs. He
12. THOMAS, F.B., ANRAKU, T., BENNION, D.B., and BENNION, graduated from the University of Pittsburgh
D.W., Optimizing Production From a Rich Gas Condensate with a B.Sc. in mechanical engineering and
Reservoir; SPE-35455 presented at the 1996 SPE/DOE Tenth an M.Sc. in petroleum engineering. He is a
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa OK, April 21 – 24, member of SPE, the Petroleum Society,
1996. and ASME. His technical interests include
13. Oilphase Sampling; Private Communication, April 1996.
phase behaviour and compositional model-
T., Application of Emerging Wireline Formation Testing ling, numerical methods in engineering,
Technologies; presented at the Eighth Offshore South East Asia reservoir simulation, improved oil recovery, integrated reservoir
Conference, December 4 – 7, 1990. characterization, and development of technical applications. He
15. PRICE, J.G.W. and CROMER, D.K., Influence of Containers on currently serves as chairman of the SPE Abu Dhabi section, a
Sour Gas Samples; Petroleum Engineer International, March 1980. member of ADIPEC organizing committee and the SPE fluid
16. HAMOODI, A.N., ABED, A.F., and GRABENSTETTER, J., mechanics and recovery process committee.
Modelling of a Large Gas Capped Reservoir With Areal and Vertical
Variation in Composition; SPE-28937 presented at the SPE 69th A.F. Abed is a senior advisor, E & P
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LA,
Directorate of Abu Dhabi National Oil
September 25 – 28, 1994.
17. FIROOZABADI, A., Reservoir Fluids Phase Behaviour and Company (ADNOC). His interests include
Volumetric Prediction Using Equations of State; Journal of developing and application of EOR
Petroleum Technology, pp. 397-406, April 1988. processes to optimize ultimate recovery
18. FIROOZABADI, A., ARBABI, S., and DINDORUK, B., Near- factors to more than 70%, developing and
Critical Phase Behaviour of Mixtures Using Variable Interaction application of the next-generation reservoir
Coefficients; Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, pp. 134- characterization and simulation models. He
141, February 1994. holds B.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Cairo
19. KATZ, D.L., and FIROOZABADI, A., Predicting Phase Behaviour University, both in petroleum engineering.
of Condensate/Crude Oil Systems Using Methane Interaction
Coefficients; Journal of Petroleum Technology, AIME Transactions,
Vol. 26, pp. 1649-1655, November 1978. Abbas Firoozabadi is a senior scientist
20. PAN, H., FIROOZABADI, A., and FOTLAND, P., Effect of and director at the Reservoir Engineering
Pressure and Composition on Wax Deposition From Crudes, Research Institute (RERI) in Palo Alto, Ca,
Experiments, and Model Results; SPE Production and Facilities, and a professor at Imperial College in
pp. 250-256, November 1997. London. His research interests include mul-
21. THOMPSON, K.F.M., Gas-Condensate Migration and Oil tiphase flow in fractured porous media and
Fractionation in Deltaic Systems; Marine and Petroleum Geology, field performance of fractured reservoirs,
pp. 237-246, August 1988. and thermodynamics and nucleation with
22. FIROOZABADI, A., Thermodynamics of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs;
application to oil and gas reservoirs and
Chapter 2,McGraw-Hill , New york, NY,1999.
23. GHORAYEN, K., and FIROOZABADI, A., Modelling production. Firoozabadi has authored and
Multicomponent Diffusion and Convection in Porous Media; SPE coauthored some one hundred papers and a
Journal, pp. 157-171, June 2000. new book “Thermodynamics of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs” pub-
24. MARZOUK I., Abu Dhabi Gas Reservoirs—A Geological lished by McGraw-Hill in 1999. He has a B.S. degree from the
Perspective; ADSPE 103, presented at the Abu Dhabi International Abadan Institute of Technology (AIT), Abadan, Iran, and M.S.
Petroleum Conference, October 1994. and Ph.D. degrees from the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT),
25. WILSON, A., MADDOX, R.N., and ERBAR, J.H., C6+ Fractions Chicago, USA. All the degrees are in gas engineering.
Affect Phase Behaviour; Oil and Gas Journal, pp. 76-81, August 21, Firoozabadi is the recipient of the SPE Reservoir Engineering
Award in 2000.
26. THOMASSEN P. and PEDERSEN K.S., Adjustment of C 7+
Molecular Weights in the Characterization of Petroleum Mixtures
Containing Heavy Hydrocarbons; SPE-16036, 1987.
27. ERBAR, J.H. and MADDOX, R.N., C6+ Fractions Need Special
Attention; Oil and Gas Journal, pp. 116-118, February 16, 1981.
28. MCCAIN, Jr. and WILLIAM, D., Heavy Components Control
Reservoir Fluid Behaviour; Journal of Petroleum Technology,
pp. 116-118, September 1994.
29. PENG, D.Y. and ROBINSON, D.B., A New Two-Constant Equation
of State; Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 59-64, 1976.

Provenance— Original unsolicited manuscript, Compositional

Modelling of Two-Phase Hydrocarbon Reservoirs (99-10-12), first pre-
sented as SPE 36244 at the 7 th Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference, in Abu Dhabi, UAE, October 13 – 16, 1996.
Abstract submitted for review November 5, 1999; editorial comments sent
to the author(s) October 23, 2000; revised manuscript received December
19, 2000; paper approved for pre-press January 5, 2001; final approval
April 2, 2001.

60 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology