sPE 94211
eors for subsequent pressus stsps increase abruptly as the
pressure drops further. The errors in Bo and GOR exceed 5%
and 20% respectively, while the Z factor (Figure 4) seems to
be less sensitive to extrapolation with its ma;iimum error being
less than 4% despite the fact that such masurements were not
used for matching. The liberated gas specific gravi values
(Figure 5) are also quite offthe reported ones with prediction
errors being as high as l4o/o, It is noted that the occurring
eors are highly correlated to the value ofthe property itself
as shown in Figure 6 where the higher the S* value, the higher
also its prediction error. This can be explained by the fact that
gases exhibiting high S* values contain constituents heavier
than Co which ae those aifecteO Uy the tuning procedure.
Subsequently, another test was performed involving a three
stage separation prosess at the surface of the 5%-95% molar
ratio mixture of the reservoir fluid with injection gas a 3. Finally, tuning 2 produces the smoothest derivatives plot
composition which could be encountered close fo the injection
weli during gas flooding (Table 1). The deviations in the Bo
and GOR predictions of the EoS bstween different tunings are
illustrated in Tabie 5 and indicate that the errors exceed 57o
ard 8%o respectively.
Such deviations can also be expected in multi-phase
flowrneter applications where EoS rnodels are utilized for
providing predictions ofthe volumetric conversion factors for
the phases flowing at line conditions. The liquid produced in
the first stage sepafator can be thought of as the liquid flowing
tkough the,flowmeter at line conditlons.
The third test conducted is a Constant Volume Depletion
study of the 5yy-95o/o mixtue at reservoir temprature, the
ptedictions of which from the three tunings arE shown in Table
and Figures 12, 13. As expected, the deviations betwEen the
different models as shown in Table 7 indicate fhat the gas
phase Z factor is only slightly affected by the tuning due to the
very small amounts of heavy components contained in its
composition. The difference in the performance between the
three tunings is very pronounced for the liquid dropout where
the deviations exceed l0% as the condensate consists mainly
of the heavier compounds which were included in the tlning
procedure.
Evaluating the different tunings
Overall, judging by the average prediction errors in the
differential vaporization test shown in Table 4, tuning 2 seems
to be substantially more accurate compared to tunings I and 3
outside of the region defined by the data that were provided
for mafching although all of them have matched the same lab
measurements. It is claimed that the superiority of tuning 2
can be expiained by the physically sound shape of its PVT
propetties derivatives plot. Similar arguments are set for
rendering funing 3 as inadequate.
'Ihe Bo, GOR, oil density at saturation pressur, produced
oil density at atmospheric prsssure and liberated gas Z factor
at 2658 psia derivatives defined lvith respect to the Co-Crz+
component$ are shown in Figures 7 to 11, Furthermore, thp
values of the B" ard GOR derivatives with respect to Cs in
tuning 3 are unexpectedly low due to the fact that the critical
temperature of the latter, dtring the tuning procedure, took a
value higher than that ofC,6. This effect is even stronger in the
derivatives of the oil density at po*, thus proving that pical
errors in a tuning procedure such as violating the critical
proprties values ordel ako affect the derivatives values.
Horvever, the adverse is not allvays true, i.e. even if the order
of the oitical propertios values is respected by tuning, a
distorted derivatives plot may be obtained. Such is the case of
the derivetives of Bo, GOR and Z faao with respect to Cs and
Ce for tuning l.
Thorough,examination of the derivative of the oil density
with respect to Ce for tuning 3 indicates that although it holds
a positive sign at p6, which is a matching point, it exhibits a
very Iow value and, as a result, outside the composition and
operating oonditions region spanned by the measurements this
derivative obtains non physically sound negative values.
Overall, the derivatives plofs of tuning 3 exhibit several
unrealistic values, wrong signs and trends. The derivatives
plots of tuning I ae in general smoother that those of tuning
and as shown above exhibits the best performance outside the
matching points region
Similar arguments can be established for the CVD study.
The derivatives of the RLD plotted in Figures l4 ta 16
indicate that those with respect to G and C,o for funing 3 are
unrealistically high and low respectively. This is more clear in
Figures 17 and 18 where the large deviations of tuning 3
compared to tunings I and 2 ae shown all along the CYD test
pressure lange.
Conclusions
Tuning the adjustable EoS parameters to match a given set of
experimental fluid PVT data, which were obtained ovor a
limited composition and conditions range, may lead to
predictions bearing significant deviatlons when used outside
this range.
It was verified from the study ofan extendsd database that
the plots of the PVT properdes derivatives values with respect
to each component versus cabon number give smooth curves
which depend on fhe overall fluid characterization and on p
and T, In addition, thsse crves also vary smoothly betwsen
different fluids.
It is claimed that the monitoring of the PVT properties
derivatives during an EoS tuning substantially improves the
performance of the model at extrapolated conditions. It is
shown through a set of examples that tuned EoS modols
displaying non smooth derivatives plots provide poor
predictions outside the "safe" area ofthe matching points used
fot tuning. It is recommended that the regression procdure for
tunirrg is performed under suitable cotstraints to guarantee
that the derivatives plots of the flrrsd EoS model are
physically sound.
Nomenclature
I/S = Volume shift parameter
AF = Accertnc factor
B, - Formation oil volume factor
GOR: Gas to Oil Ratio
RLD = Reograde liquid deposit
CP.F: Cumulative produced fluid
Dtr :
Differential Vapourisation study
CYD = Constant Volume Depletion study