Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ABSTRACT
The exact determination of the precise reservoir fluid properties (PVT) in addition to the
positive role in evaluation of correct performance and volume of fluid in place calculation for
any reservoir, has got a doubly important deciding value for gas condensate reservoirs. This
is particularly important because of the liquid drop out phenomenon due to reservoir
pressure drop as a result of fluid production. These liquid drop outs are immobile and
irreducible due to the low degree of saturation and are considered as losses.
Among the other factors which is important in gas condensate reservoirs and is strongly
dependent on fluid properties, is gas recycling to prevent condensate losses. Gas recycling
stops or reduces the reservoir pressure drop which increases the condensate recovery.
Therefore without a thorough knowledge of reservoir PVT fluid properties, it will not be
possible to assess the degree of liquid drop out or to design recycling projects.
Presently in many countries of the world specially Iran, giant gas condensate reservoirs with
average to high liquid-gas ratios exist, which primarily due to natural depletion, have had
large liquid drop outs and losses (sometimes up to 30 mstb/d).
Proper reservoir fluid properties modelling, provides a better fluid characterization in
reservoir simulation.
INTRODUCTION
The reservoir in question has a giant dome gas which possesses retrograde behavior and a thin
oil bearing column. Several gas samples at different wells and times, before and after the start
of production, have been collected and complete PVT analysis on some of them performed.
In this survey all the experimental tests were analyzed with the use of a phase behavior
package. Proper oil and gas samples were selected and analyzed with an integrated PR
EOS modelling. Finally a single model to characterize both dome gas and oil column
was generated. The results of this modelling can be applied in compositional and
black oil reservoir simulators. Utilization of a reservoir fluid model, past and future
performance of reservoir will quantify the condensate losses.
2
DETERMINATION OF CONDENSATE LOSSES
As stated before at initial conditions, the reservoir dome gas was at dew point pressure and
the start of production was simultaneous with liquid drop out in dome gas with the resultant
losses. Using the fluid properties model, the condensate drop out of the associated produced
gas was calculated utilizing CVD test data . The produced gas in CVD experiments at
different pressures, was separated under the separator prevailing conditions and then the
ratio of liquid to gas (LGR) was determined. Fig.-10 illustrates the amount of LGR as a
percentage of initial condensate in place (OCIP) with respect to pressure drop.
Reservoir performance history indicates a linear variation of dome gas pressure in terms of
cumulative gas production and prediction of reservoir pressure was accordingly performed.
Fig.-11 shows the reservoir performance with coordinates indicating pressure drop with
respect to percentage of dome gas cumulative production (%OGIP). Utilizing Fig.-10 and 11
the variation of LGR with respect to cumulative gas production is obtained, (Fig.-12).
The area under the curve in Fig.-12 indicates the amount of producible condensate (Cp) at
each pressure stage (Fig.-12 must be converted to LGR vs. Gp). Condensate losses are
calculated utilizing the following equation:
CONCLUSION
1- Gas condensate reservoirs are very sensitive to fluid characteristics due to liquid drop out
phenomenon and gas recycling projects. Therefore PVT modelling should be carefully
performed.
2- PVT modelling for gas condensate reservoirs having an oil bearing column, should be
performed in an integrated manner.
3- PVT fluid modelling and analysis of reservoir performance history of a gas condensate
reservoir, will result in precise calculation of condensate losses.
NOMENCLATURE
Bo = oil formation volume factor
Rs = solution gas to oil ratio
Do = oil density
GOC = gas oil contact level
LGR = liquid -gas ratio
OGIP = original gas in place
OCIP = original condensate in place
3
REFERENCES
1 - Whitson, C. H ; "Effect of physical properties estimation on equation of state
prediction, SPE paper 11200, 1982.
Comp. / Wells G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7
C1 83.89 80.96 82.98 82.1 83.113 83.12 83.02
C2 4.72 6.04 5.93 5.78 5.994 5.98 5.97
C3 2.92 3.12 2.88 2.87 2.871 2.77 2.93
IC4 0.59 0.54 0.54 0.56 0.516 0.47 0.51
NC4 1.2 1.78 1.2 1.23 1.182 1.04 1.12
IC5 0.52 0.67 0.47 0.52 0.456 0.37 0.45
NC5 0.61 0.59 0.53 0.6 0.54 0.44 0.53
C6 0.72 0.81 0.72 0.72 0.612 0.63 0.67
C7+ 2.68 3.17 2.44 3.1 2.37 2.73 2.2
CO2 2.14 2.32 2.21 2.44 2.206 2.22 2.45
N2 0 0 0.1 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.15
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
C7+, Mw 137 141 135 132 134 131 127.3
C7+, SG 0.782 0.797 0.78 0.773 0.779 0.772 0.779
Sampling Date B.P. B.P. B.P. B.P. B.P. B.P. A.P.
5 1.8
C3+
G4
L i q u i d C o n te n t (G P M )
4 C4+
C5+ G6 1.6
G7G4
O i l FV F (rb/s tb)
3
G6 1.4
G7
2 G4
G6 1.2
1 G7 O1 @ 185 F
O2 @ 185 F
1 O3 @ 208 F
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Press. (psia) 0.8
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Fig. -2 :Experimental Liquid Content for Press. (Psia)
Some of Gas Samples at T=180 F 4 Fig. -3 :Experimental Oil FVF for Oil Samples
Table - 3 : Splitting Components Properties
User Comp. Tc (R) Pc (psia) Vc (cuft/lbmole) Mw T boil (R) %mole in Gas %mole in Oil
1500 0.9
1200 O1 @ 185 F
0.82 O2 @ 185 F
O il De nsity (lb/cuft)
O3 @ 208 F
Rs (scf/stb)
900
0.74
600
O1 @ 185 F 0.66
O2 @ 185 F
300 O3 @ 208 F
0.58
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0.5
Press. (Psia) 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
6 100 Press. (Psia)
Fig. -4 :Experimental Solution Gas Oil Ratio for
Oil Samples Model
Fig. -5 :Experimental Oil Density for Oil Samples
5 Model
C u m . G a s P r o d .( % IG i n
80
Li qu i d Drop (%H PV)
Test Test
4
60
ce l l )
3
40
2
20
1
0
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
1.8 1200 Press. (Psia)
Press. (Psia)
Fig. -6 :Comparison of Liquid Drop at T=180 F 1000
Fig. -7 :Comparison of Cumulative Gas Prod. at T=180 F
1.6
O i l FVF (rb/stb)
800
Rs (scf/stb)
1.4
600
Model
1.2
400 Test
Model
Test
1 Table - 4 : Composition of Dome Gas at Three Depths with oil
200 Composition after Modelling
Components 0
Dome Gas (%mole) Oil Column
0.8
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Near GOC Datum Near Crest Pre ss. (Psia)
(%mole)
Press. (Psia)
CO2 2.3981 2.433 2.4409 Fig. - 9 :Comparison
0 of Solution Gas Ratio at
Fig.
C1
-8 :Comparison of80.65
Oil FVF at T=185 F81.933 82.3161 T=185 F
53.23
C2 5.7169 5.7691 5.779 6.44
C3 2.9174 2.8777 2.8653 3.63
C4 1.9213 1.8121 1.7834 3.19
C5 1.3038 1.1511 1.1133 2.24
5
C6 0.9086 0.752 0.7142 2.28
GM1 3.9039 3.053 2.8222 10.396
GM2 0.2806 0.2195 0.1656 10.426
GO1 0 0 0 8.157
TOTAL 100 100 100 100
40 3000
2500
LGRi -LG Rc (S TB /MMS C F)
32
2000
1500
16
1000
8
500
0 0
0 600 1200 1800 2400 3000 0 20 40 60 80 100
Press. Drop (Psi) Gas Prod. (%O GIP)
50
40 Fig.-10 :Liquid Gas Ratio Drop Vs. Pressure Drop C on de n s ate Los s (%O C IP) Fig. -11 :Pressure Drop Vs. Cumulative Gas Prod.
40
LG Ri -LG Rc (S TB /MMS C F)
32
30
24
20
16
10
8
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Gas Production (%O GIP)
Gas Cum. Prod. (%O GIP) Fig. -13 :Condensate Loss Vs. Cumulative Gas
Fig. -12 :Liquid Gas Ratio Drop vs. Pressure Drop Production