New Modified Black-Oil Correlations for Gas Condensate and Volatile Oil Fluids
A.H. El-Banbi, Schlumberger, and K.A. Fattah and M.H. Sayyouh, Cairo U.
Abstract
Several authors have shown the applicability of modified
black oil (MBO) approach for modeling gas condensate and
volatile oil reservoirs. It was shown before that MBO could
adequately replace compositional simulation in many
applications. In this work, a new set of MBO PVT correlations
was developed. The four PVT functions (oil-gas ratio, Rv,
solution gas-oil ratio, Rs, oil formation volume factor, Bo, and
gas formation volume factor, Bg) were investigated. According
to our knowledge, no other correlation for calculating oil-gas
ratio exists in the petroleum literature. Alternatively, oil-gas
ratio (needed for material balance and reservoir simulation
calculations of gas condensate and volatile oil reservoirs) had
to be generated from a combination of laboratory experiments
and elaborate calculation procedures using EOS models. In
previous work, we found that Whitson and Torp method for
generating Modified Black Oil (MBO) PVT properties yielded
best results when compared with compositional simulation.
This method (and the others available in the literature such as
Coats and Walshs) requires the use of data from PVT
laboratory experiments and proper construction of EOS
models. We used Whitson and Torps method to generate our
database of the MBO PVT curves used in developing our
correlations after matching the PVT experimental results with
an EOS model. For each one of the four PVT parameters, we
used 1850 values obtained from PVT analysis of eight gas
condensate fluid samples and 1180 values obtained from PVT
analysis of five volatile oil fluid samples. The samples were
selected to cover a wide range of fluid composition,
condensate yield, reservoir temperature, and pressure. The
data points were generated by extracting the PVT properties of
each sample at six different separator conditions. We then
used multi-variable regression techniques to calculate our
correlation constants.
SPE 102240
Fluid Samples
Thirteen reservoir fluid samples were used in this study [eight
gas condensates, (GC), and five volatile oils, (VO)]. The
samples were obtained from reservoirs representing different
locations and depth, and were selected to cover a wide range
of oil and gas fluid characteristics. Table 1 presents a
description of the major properties of the thirteen fluid
samples. The PVT experiments for all these samples were
presented in Ref. 9. Some samples represent near critical
fluids (VO 2, VO 5, GC 1, and GC 2) as explained by McCain
and Bridges10.
Approach
For every sample in Table 1, we constructed an EOS model
that matched as best as possible the experimental results of all
available PVT laboratory experiments (CCE, DL, CVD, and
separator tests). For consistency, we developed all EOS
models using Peng and Robinson11 EOS with volume shift
correction (3-parameter EOS). We followed the procedure
suggested by Coats and Smart12 to match the laboratory
results.
We then used the developed EOS model for each sample to
output MBO PVT properties at different separator conditions
using Whitson and Torp3 procedure. The MBO PVT
properties include the four functions required for MBO
simulation (oil-gas ratio, Rv, solution gas-oil ratio, Rs, oil
formation volume factor, Bo, and gas formation volume factor,
Bg). For each property of the four, we generated six curves,
representing six different separator conditions, for each
sample. Our database of PVT properties consisted of 1850
points from 8 different gas condensate samples and 1180
points from 5 volatile oil samples. We used PVTi program of
Eclipse13 to generate the curves for the MBO PVT properties.
For the three parameters that are commonly used for black
oil material balance and simulation (Rs, Bo, and Bg), we tested
some of the commonly known correlations to see which one
fits our database and to see if we need to modify the
correlation constants. For the fourth parameter (Rv), we had to
develop a completely new correlation, since we think that the
petroleum literature lacks one. Our approach here was to start
from a similar form to Rs correlations, then modify the
correlation parameters using regression methods until we
obtain the best fit to Rv data.
MBO PVT Correlations
The following discussion shows which correlations were used
for each PVT parameter of the four required for MBO material
balance and simulation calculations. We also report the
average error which we calculated using Eq. 1.
error =
1
N
i =1
Data Model
................................... (1)
Data
Rs = g + A2 10 X ........................................(2)
A1
A3 API
RS = A1 gs p A 2 EXP
...............(3)
T
p sep
5
gs = g 1 + 5.912 (10 )( API )(Tsep 460 )log
114.7 ....(4)
A1 gsc A2 p 2 + A3 p + A4
ps
) EXP
A5 CGR Tsc
osc T Psc
.......(5)
SPE 102240
BO = A1 + A2 * RS
gsc
osc
A4
Bg =
5.04 z T
............................................................ (9)
p
Discussion
The petroleum literature has reported many cases where MBO
approach was used to replace the more expensive
compositional simulation. To generate MBO PVT properties,
one has to have a representative fluid sample that undergone
enough laboratory experiments. Then, one usually constructs
EOS models to match the laboratory experimental results,
although other less accurate techniques are available6. Then,
one can output the MBO properties at appropriate separator
conditions using one of the procedures suggested in the
literature. This process requires the availability of a
representative fluid sample in addition to the skills of EOS
modeling.
The set of correlations presented in this work can be used
to generate MBO PVT properties without the need for fluid
samples or elaborate procedure for EOS calculations. The
application of these correlations is of particular importance
especially when a representative sample is not available.
Conclusions
1.
SPE 102240
2.
3.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Schlumberger Egypt for donating
Eclipse suite of software, which was used in this investigation,
to the Petroleum Engineering Department of Cairo University.
The first author would also like to thank Prof. Dr. Bill McCain
for many valuable discussions that led to this research idea.
Nomenclature
Bg = gas formation volume factor, bbl/Mscf
Bo = oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
CCE = constant Composition Experiment
CVD = constant Volume Depletion Test
DL = differential Liberation Test
EOS = equation of state
MBO= Modified Black Oil
N = number of points or values
p
= pressure, psia
ps = saturation pressure, psia
psc = standard pressure, psia
psep = separator pressure, psia
PVT = pressure-Volume-Temperature
Rs = initial solution gas oil-ratio, SCF/STB
Rv = volatile oil-gas ratio, STB/Mcf
T
= reservoir temperature, oR
Tsc = standard temperature, oR
Tsep = separator temperature, oR
z
= gas compressibility factor, fraction
gsc = gas density at standard conditions, lb/cc
osc = oil density at standard conditions, lb/cc
g = gas gravity at the actual separator conditions of psep
and Tsep
gs = gas gravity at reference separator pressure
gsc = specific gravity of gas at standard conditions
osc = specific gravity of oil at standard conditions
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
SPE 102240
VO 1
VO 2
VO 3
VO 4
VO 5
GC 1
GC 2
GC 3
GC 4
GC 5
GC 6
GC 7
GC 8
249
246
260
190
197
312
286
238
256
186
312
300
233
NA
5055
5270
NA
13668
14216
NA
6000
7000
5728
14216
5985
17335
1991
2000
2032
2424
2416
3413
4278
NA
4697
5987
8280
6500
6665
45.5
51.2
NA
36.8
34.1
45.6
NA
NA
46.5
58.5
50.7
45.6
43
4527
4821
4987
7437
9074
5210
5410
4815
6010
4000
5465
5800
11475
Components
Composition (Mole %)
CO2
2.14
2.18
2.4
0.1
0.34
2.66
4.48
0.14
0.01
0.18
2.79
6.98
0.36
N2
0.11
1.67
0.31
0.16
0.17
0.70
1.62
0.11
0.13
0.14
1.07
0.31
C1
55.59
60.51
56.94
69.84
72.47
59.96
66.24
63.06
68.93
61.72
66.73
65.25
81.23
C2
8.7
7.52
9.21
5.37
4.57
7.72
7.21
11.35
8.63
14.1
10.22
8.92
5.54
C3
5.89
4.74
5.84
3.22
2.79
6.50
4.00
6.01
5.34
8.37
5.90
4.81
2.66
iC4
1.36
4.12
1.44
0.87
0.67
1.93
0.84
1.37
1.15
0.98
1.88
0.85
0.62
nC4
2.69
2.73
1.7
1.33
3.00
1.76
1.94
2.33
3.45
2.10
1.75
1.06
iC5
1.17
2.97
1.03
0.79
0.69
1.64
0.74
0.84
0.93
0.91
1.37
0.65
0.47
nC5
1.36
1.22
0.88
0.82
1.35
0.87
0.97
0.85
1.52
0.83
0.69
0.52
C6
1.97
1.38
1.96
1.41
1.52
2.38
0.96
1.02
1.73
1.79
1.56
0.83
0.84
C7+
19.02
14.91
16.92
15.66
14.8
12.69
12.2
11.68
9.99
6.85
6.48
8.2
6.39
Constant
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
Gas Condensate
0.19408473
-3709.4214
1.06052098
-0.05022324
-0.003771627
Volatile Oil
47.23306
-8.833514
1.3251534
0.0091756
-0.000385524
Constant
A1
A2
A3
Gas Condensate
12.5849757
1.343554054
-105.486585
Volatile Oil
0.0005473
1.607758566
20.35993884
Constant
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
Gas Condensate
3.45841109
6.89461E-05
- 0.03169875
251.0827307
4.174003053
Volatile Oil
1.225537042
0.000107257
- 0.194226755
240.549909
8.32137351
Constant
A1
A2
A3
A4
Gas Condensate
0.965109778
0.000342547
1.303305644
1.053171234
Volatile Oil
0.839614826
0.000460621
2.013137024
1.015821025
Constant
A1
A2
A3
B1
B2
B3
Gas Condensate
670.958
-188.078
-3.7882
480.1142
-94.2128
9.398696
Volatile Oil
608.520
-45.8495
27.71169
29.70495
871.57199
-502.6044
SPE 102240
Original Fluid In
Place
0.9948
1.0027
1.0138
0.9451
1.0154
1.0092
1.1526
1.0319
VO 1
VO 2
GC 1
GC 2
GC 3
GC 4
GC 5
GC 6
Error
(%)
0.52
0.27
1.38
5.49
1.54
0.92
15.26
3.19
0.7
0.6
0.5
F, Rb
Fluid Sample
0.4
0.3
y = 0.9948x
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Eo, Rb/stb
GMBC
Linear (GMBC)
Rv (Cal), STB/Mscf
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Rv (Obser), STB/Mscf
0 .2
F, Rb
0 .1 6
0 .1 2
y = 1 .0 1 3 8 x
0 .0 8
0 .0 4
0
0
0 .0 5
0 .1
0 .1 5
0 .2
E o , R b /s tb
GMBC
L ine a r (G M B C )