Integration of Geochemistry &

Reservoir Fluid Properties

PTTC Workshop
June 25, 2003

Kevin Ferworn, John Zumberge, Stephen Brown

GeoMark Research, Inc.

Introduction
GeoMark has undertaken a number of projects integrating
geochemistry and reservoir fluid properties.

Presentation separated into two parts.

Part I. John Zumberge

Introduction to oil and gas geochemistry

Petroleum Systems studies

Part II. Kevin Ferworn

Results from interpretive studies (models, correlations and charts)

used to predict Reservoir Fluid and Flow Assurance properties .

Oil Quality Controlled by 4 Elements

Source Rock Type

Marine Shales
Marine Carbonates
Lacustrine Shales

Thermal History of Source Rock

Depth of Burial
Timing of Generation

Post Generative Alteration

Biodegradation

Reservoir Mixing

S#
S
#
S#
#
S#
#
S
S
S#
#
S#
S#
#
S
S#
S
S
#
S
#
S#
S#
#
# #
S
S#
#
S#
S#
#
S
S#
S
S#
S#
S
S
#
S
S
#
S#
SS
#
S #
S
S#
S #
#
S#
#
S#
S #
#
S#
S#
S
S #
#
S
#
S#
#
S#
S#
#
#
S
S
#
S#
#
S
#
S
#
S
S
S
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S #
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S #
#
SS #
S#
#
S#
#
S #
S#
S #
S#
#
S #
S#
S#
#
S
#
S#
#
S#
S
S#
S#
S
S #
S#
S#
S#
S#
S
SS #
S#
S#
#
S
S#
#
S#
S#
#
S#
SS#
S
#
S #
S
#
S
#
S
S#
#
S#
#
S
#
S
S
#
S
S#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S#
#
SSS#
S#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S#
#
S#
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S #
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S #
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S#
S#
#
S #
#
S#
SS
#
S#
S#
#
S#
S
S#
#
S #
#
SS#
#
S
S#
#
S#
S #
#
S
S#
S#
S#
S
S#
S#
S
S #
S
S #
S
#
SS#
#
S#
S#
S#
#
SS#
#
S#
#
SS#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
S#
#
S
S#
S
#
S #
#
S#
#
S
S
#
SS
#
S #
#
S#
S#
S
S
#
S#
S#
S #
#
S
S#
S#
#
S#
S#
S S#
#
S#
S#
#
S #
#
S#
#
S#
S
S #
#
S#
S #
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
S#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
S
#
S
#
S
S
#
S
#
S#
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
S
#
S#
#
S #
#
S#
#
S #
#
S #
#
S
#
S
#
S
S
#
S
S
#
S#
#
S#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
S
#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S #
S
S #
#
S #
#
S #
S#
S#
S#
S
S
#
SS
#
S #
#
S #
S
#
S
S
#
S
#
S#
#
S#
S#
S#
S
#
S
S
#
S
#
S
S #
#
S
#

S
#

% Sulfur
0 - 0.4
0.4 - 1
1-2
>2

S
#

#
S
S
#
S
#

S
#
S
#

S
#

S #
#
S#
S
# #
S
S
#
S
S
S#
#
S#
#
S
##
S
S#
S
S
#
#
S
S
#
S #
#
S
S#
#
S
#
#
S
S
#
S#
#
S
S#
#
S#
#
S#
S
S#
S#
S
#
S
S
#
S #
S#
#
S#
#
S
S
S#
S#
SS
S#
#

S
#

S
#
S
#

S
#

S
#

Geochemistry Fundamentals
Predict depositional environments, thermal maturity, and

geological ages of petroleum source rocks from corresponding

crude oils

Why use crude oils and not source rock extracts?

Oils are widely available, accessible, abundant, and carry the

same kind of evolutionary & environmental information that
is buried in source rocks

Molecular Fossils a.k.a Biomarkers

Oils reflect the natural average in source rock variation
The source rock type and age for many of the oils in GeoMarks
database are known based on extensive integration of geology
and geochemistry

Geochemical Approach
Petroleum Systems Geochemistry GOM Example

Crude Oil Geochemistry - Few Source Rocks Available in GOM

Unparalleled Oil Sample Collection
Comparison with Known Petroleum Systems Onshore
Homogeneous Data Set
Multivariate Statistics

Production Geochemistry

Detailed comparison of samples from multiple formations or

wells to evaluate continuity
Often called Fingerprinting

Whole Crude Gas Chromatogram

FID1 A, (LA271.D)

C7
Sterane & Terpane
Biomarkers

0000

abundance

0000

C17
Pr

0000

C27

0000

0
5

10

15

20

time

25

30

35

min

GC/MS Mass Chromatograms

R

C27

C29
C28

50
50

55
55

60
60

65
65

Sterane Biomarkers m/z = 218

70
70

GC/MS Mass Chromatograms

C23
C23
C23

Tet
Tet
C24
C24

C20
C20

C19
C19

25
25

C21
C21

30
30

C25
C25

C22
C22

35
35

40
40

45
45

C26
C26

50
50

Tricyclic Terpane Biomarkers m/z = 191

Tricyclic Terpane Biomarker Ratios

1.3

1.1

Carbonate Source Rocks

carbonate
marl
shale
lacustrine

C22/C21

0.9

0.7

Shale Source Rocks

0.5

0.3

0.1
0.1

0.3

0.5

0.7

C24/C23

0.9

1.1

1.3

Terpane Biomarker Ratios

0.6

Carbonate Source Rocks

carbonate
marl
shale
lacustrine

C31R/H

0.5

Shale Source Rocks

0.4

Lacustrine Source Rocks

0.3

0.2

0.1
0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

C26/C25

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

GC/MS Mass Chromatograms

OLEANANE
C30H
C30H

C29H
C29H

C31S
C31S
Tm
Tm
Ts
Ts
27T
27T
60
60

C28
C28

OL
OL
C29D
C30M
C29D
C30M
C30X
C30X

65
65

70
70

C32S
C31R
C31R C32S
C35S
GA
C35S
C34S
GA C32R
C32R C33S
C33S
C34S
C33R
C35R
C34R
C33R
C35R
C34R
75
75

80
80

Pentacyclic Terpane Biomarkers m/z = 191

(a.k.a. Hopanes)

Oleanane vs Source Rock Age

0.60

carbonate
marl
0.50

shale
Permian Ext
Cretaceous Ext

OL/H

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0

100

200

300

Source Rock Age mybp

400

500

600

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Family B-Tertiary Coaly-Resinous

Family A - Tertiary Paralic

Shales

Family C2 - Wilcox Distal

Family C1 - L. Cretaceous Shales

Family D - U. Cretaceous Shales

Family SE1 ?????????

0.63
Family SE2 - Tithonian Marls/
Carbonates
Family F -Oxfordian Smackover

Carbonates/
Marls

La Luna/Napo Cretaceous

Cluster Analysis
Dendrogram
Cognac, Tahoe, Gemini
Petronius, Pompano,
Shasta, Popeye, Snapper
East Texas Field
Austin Chalk Trend
Mahogany, Agate, Teak,
Mars, Bullwinkle, Jolliet,
Baldpate, Auger, Tick
Europa, Lobster, Fuji,
Tampico, Salina,
Campeche (Cantarell)

Principal Component Analysis

Factor 2

%C29
C29/H
C22/C21

13Cs
13Ca
Factor 3

C31/H
C35/C34

C19/C23
Pr/Ph
OL/H
Factor 1

C24/C23

%C27

%C28
Ster/Hop

Principal Component Analysis

Factor 2

Tertiary Paralic
Shales

Oxfordian Smackover
Factor 3

Tithonian
Carbonates
/Marls

MIXED

Factor 1

Wilcox Distal
Shales
Cretaceous Shales

La Luna/Napo
Carbonates/Marls

Principal Component Analysis

Factor 2

13Cs
13Ca
Factor 3

Smackover

Factor 1

Gulf of Mexico Oil Source Rock Families

TERT

LK
MIX

EB

GB

AC

KC

UJ

MC

GC

AT

WR

LD

Family A: Tertiary Shales

Family C1: LK Shales
Family SE1: Mixed
Family SE2: UJ Marls

Factors Affecting Oil Quality

Oil Quality is affected by four elements.

1. Source Rock Depositional Environment and Age

2. Thermal Maturity
3. Biodegradation
4. In-situ Mixing

Biodegradation and Mixing in Oils

FID1 A, (LA919.D)

nC7
500000

Non degraded

400000
300000
200000
100000
0
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

min

FID1 A, (LA993.D)

30000
25000
20000
15000
10000

FID1 A, (LA1034.D)
140000

Heavy biodegradation

5000

nC7

0
5

120000

10

15

20

100000

Polyhistory Oil

80000
60000
40000
20000
0
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

min

25

30

35

min

Polyhistory Oils
$

S
#

S $
#
S
##
S
#
S
S
#

S
#

S
#

S
#

S
#

S
#

#
S

S
#

S
#

S
#
#
S
S
#
S #
S#
#
S

$
#
S

#
S
S
S#
#

S
#
S
#

S S
#
#
S#
S
S #
#
S#
S#
#
S#
S

#
S
S
#

S
#
S
#
U
%
U
%
%
U
U
%
U
%
U#
%
U
%
S#
#
SS
S
#
U%
S %
#
U
S
#

EB

U
%

S
#

GB
U
%

AC

U
%

S
#

100

KC

#
S

#
S
$#
S

#
S
#
S
S
#
U
%
U %
%
U
U
%
S
#
S
#

S
#
S
##
S

S
#
S
#
#
S
##
S
S
S
S
#
S #
#
#
S

S
#
S
#
#
S
S
#

S
#
S
#
%
U
U#
%
S

U
%
U
%
%
U
S
#
S
#
U
%
U
S
#
U
%
U%
%
S#
#
U%
%
U
U
U%
%
U %
S
U%
%
U
U
%
U
%
U%
%
U %
%
U
%
U
%
U
U%
U
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
S %
#
U
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U %
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
S
#
U
%
U
%
S
#

S
#

S
#

%
S
#
U
U#
%
S
U
%
S
#
#
S
S
#
S#
#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
#
S
S
S #
#
S
#
S
S
#
S#
#
S#
#
S
U
%
U
%
S
#

S
#
S#
#
#
S
S%
U
U%
%
U%
U
U
%
S
#

U
%

%
U
U
U %
%

MC

U
%

U
%

#
S

GC

AT

100 Miles

WR

LD

Gas Geochemistry
No biomarkers present in Gases, therefore different markers used for
classification.

Composition & Stable Isotopes

C1 - C4
13C vs. 12C
2H vs. 1H

Origin of Gas: Thermogenic vs. Biogenic

Gas samples used for geochemical analyses may come from flashed
PVT lab samples or from Mud Gases (i.e., Isotubes)

Geochemical analyses also offer insight on quality of Deep Shelf gas

Location Map of Offshore Gas Samples

Well Gas
Seep Gas

S
#
S
#

50

50 Miles

S
##
S
S
##
S

S
#
#
S
S
#

S
#
S
#
S#
#
S#
#
SS
S
#
S
#

#
S
S
#
S
#

#
S

S
#

S
#

S
#

S#
#
S

S#
#
S
S#
S#
S
S#
#
S#
S#
#
S
#
S
S
#
S
S#
#

S
##
S
S
#

S
#
#
S
S
#

#
S

S
#

S
#
S
#

#
S
S
#
S
S#
#
#
SS
#

#
S
S
#

S
#

S#
#
S
S
S#
#
S#
S
#
#
S
S
#
S
#
# #
S #S
#
S
#
S
S
#
# S
S
S
#
S
#
SS #
#
S
S #
#
S#
S#
S #
S
S#
S#
#
S
#
S
#
S #
#
S #
S

#
S
S
#

#
S
S
#
S
S#
#

S
S
#
S
#
S#
S#
#
#
S
S
#
S
S#
#
#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S#
#
#
S
S
#
S#
#
S #
S
#
S
S
#
S
#
S#
S
#
S
#
S#
S#
S
#
S S
S #
#
S
S#
#
S#
#
S
S#
#
S#
#
S
S
#
S#
S#
S #
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
S
#
S#
S#
S #
S
S #
#
S
#
S #
#
S#
#
S
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S#
#
S
#
S #
#
S
S
S
#
S
#
S#
#
S
#
S
S
#

S
#
#
S

S#
#
S
#S
S
S
S #
S #
#
S#
#
S#
#
S#
#
S
S
#
S
#
S#
#
S
S
#
S#
S
#
S
S
#
#
S
S
S #
#
S
#
S#
#
S
S
#

#
S
S#
#
S

##
S#
#
SS
S

S
#

#
S
S
S#
#
S#
#
S S
#
##
S
S
S
#
S
#
S#
#
S
#
S
#
S
S
#
S#
#
S
#
S#
#
S
S #
S
#
S
S
#
S
# #
S

S
#
S
#

S
#
S
#

#
S
S
#

Genetic Classification of GOM Gases

0.0

-70

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0
-75.0
-70.0

-70

Biogenic

-65.0
-60.0

-60

Mixed

-55.0

-50

-50.0

-50

Oil Associated

-45.0

-40

TEDSE
TEDSW
TEMS
LKMSE
LKMSE
UKMS
THMC
THLKM
SMMC
Piston Cores + Seeps

-40
nd
en
s

at

13Cmethane /

-60

-30

Co

Post
Mature
Dry Gas

-30

-20

GeoMark Research, Inc.

Houston, Texas

10

20

30

Gas Wetness (%C2+)

40

-35.0
-30.0
-25.0
-20.0

-20
0

-40.0

10

20

30

40

Gas Wetness (%C2+)

(after Schoell, 1983)

Isotopic Cross Plots for GOM Gases

-10

TEDSE
TEDSW

13
13C
C Methane
and Propane
13C Propane

Methane/
(per mil)
13C

TEMS

1.5

LKMSE

-20

LKMSW
UKMS
THLKM
SEEPS

3.0 Ro

1.0

THMC

-30

2.0

0.7 Ro

-40

Thermogenic

-50

Mixed

-60

Biogenic
-70
-42

-38

-34

-30
13
Ethane(per
mil)
13CCEthane

-26

-22

-18

Biogenic Methane Trends

Methane Carbon Isotope
# < -80
# -80 - -70
# -70 - -60
# -60 - -50
# -50 - -40
# -40 - -30

50

50 Miles

#
#
#
#
#

#
##
#
#

# ##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
### #
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
##
##
##
##
#
#
#
#
#
# ###
##
##
# # #
# ##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

# #
#
# #
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
# # #
#
#
##
#
#
###
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
# ## ###
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
## #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# # ##
#
# ###
#
#
#
#
##
#
##
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
## #
##
##
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
# #
#
##
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
# #
#
##
#
#
#
#
#

#
#
#
#
#
##

#
#
#
#
#
##

#
#

#
# #
#

Inorganic vs. Organic Origin of Carbon Dioxide

10.0

Inorganic CO2
0.0
-10.0
-20.0

13

C CO
Isotope
13C/12C CO2 (Stable Carbon
2 Ratios For CO2)

20.0

TEDSE

-30.0

TEDSW
TEMS

Organic CO2

UKMS

-40.0

LKMSE
LKMSW
SMMC

-50.0

THMC
THLKM
SEEPS

-60.0
0

Normalized Percent
CO2 (%CO2)
Normalized
Percent
CO2

10

5.0

% Carbon Dioxide vs. Reservoir Depth

13CO2 > -12 per mil

0.0

1.0

2.0

% CO2

3.0

4.0

13CO2 < -12 per mil

5,000

10,000

15,000

MD ft

20,000

25,000

Maturity Trends
50

Ethane Carbon Isotope

S -51 - -34
#
S -34 - -31
#
S -31 - -28
#
S -28 - -26
#
S -26 - -17
#

50 Miles

S
#

S
##
S
S
#
#
S
S
#
S
#
S#
S#
#
S#
#
S
#
S
#
S
S#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
S
#
S
#
#

##

#
#
# #
#

#
S

#
S
S #
#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S#
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
S#
#
S
#
S #
S
#
S
S
#

#
#

#
#

#
#
#
#
#

#
## #
#
##

#
#

S
S #
#
#

#
#

#
#
#
#

#
S
S
#

#
S
S
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

S
#

#
#

#
S
S
#

# #
#

##
#
#

#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
#

#
#

#
#

S
#
S
#
#

#
S
S
#
S
#

S#
S
S#
S#
#
##
S#
S S
#
SS#
#
S
#
S
#
S
# #

##

# #

#
#

# #

#
#
#
#

#
#

##
#
#
#
#
#

S
#

#
#
#
#
#
##

#
#
#
#
##

S
S#
S #
#
S
#

#
#

S
#

#
S
S
#
S
#
S
S #
#
#
S
S
#
S
#
S #
#
S
#
S
S
#
S #
#
S
#
S
#

#
#

##

#
#

#
#
# ##
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#

##
#
#

# #

S #
#
#
S
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S #
S
S#
S #
#

#
#

#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#

#
#

##

#
S
S
#
S
#

S
#
S
#
S#
#
SS
#
S
#

#
S
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#

gEngineering Studies
gPVT study completed in Gulf of Mexico in 2000.
12 member companies contributed PVT reports and matching stock
tank oil samples for full geochemical analyses and interpretation.

Traditional PVT correlations were tested against the data set and then
improve by tuning against main Geochemical Parameters:

Source rock type / family

Thermal maturity
Level of biodegradation.

Importance of associated gas was discovered. In particular, the

influence of Biogenic Methane.

Gulf of Mexico Oil Source Rock Families

TERT

LK
MIX

EB

GB

AC

KC

UJ

MC

GC

AT

WR

LD

Family A: Tertiary Shales

Family C1: LK Shales
Family SE1: Mixed
Family SE2: UJ Marls

Sulfur Oil Quality Matrix

A

M1B0
0.09

0.07

0.07

0.04

C2

M2B0
0.08
46

0.19

0.11

0.17

SE1 Mix
SE2

0.29

57

0.51

62

F2

17

0.58

0.56

A
B
C2
D
C1

0.08

11

0.12

0.21

15

0.28
6

M2B2*

0.04

0.22
1

0.09

27

0.25
60

0.18

0.30
21

0.69
21

0.13

0.44
14

0.39
1

1.60
2

1.19

1.6

0.44

0.68

0.55

0.16

0.19

0.58
6

0.17

0.21
4

1.19

0.33

0.69

0.94
20

2.50

2.66
1

0.63
4

0.52

0.46
3

0.37

AVE

1.92
0.13

Family

0.09

M1B2*

0.14

0.48
6

0.12

0.17

0.48
8

0.12

M2B2
0.16

3.18
0.53

T2/AJB

0.38

2.22

2.12
1.52

0.15

0.09

M2B1

0.18

0.77

2.31

1.06

F3

0.27

0.20

1.11

F1

M1B2
0.22

0.03

0.38

0.3
0.99
1.0
2.30
2.3

0.04

M1B1
0.12

0.16
25

D
C1

0.21

0.15
0.10

0.06

M3B0
0.06

0.92
8

Source Rock Age/Character

Tertiary Paralic/Deltaic Shales
Tertiary Coaly/Resinous Shales
Tertiary Distal Wilcox Shales
UK Distal Eagle Ford/Tuscaloosa Shales
LK Distal Shales

0.37

17

Family

Source Rock Age/Character

SE1 Mix Mixture of C1 and SE2
SE2 Tithonian Carbonates/Marls
F1
Oxfordian Smackover Carbonates
F3
Oxfordian Smackover Marls/Shales
F2
LK Sunniland Carbonates
T2/AJB Tithonian Carbonates

Level of Thermal Maturity

M1 Low to Moderate
M2 Moderate
M3 Moderate to High

Degree of Biodegradation
B0
Nondegraded
B1
Mild
B2
Heavy
B2* Polyhistory Oils

Vasquez-Beggs Sat. Pressure Correlation

Vasquez-Beggs: Psat = f(GOR, Gas Gravity, Oil Gravity, Temperature)
Oil Family

Regression
Coefficient (R2)

Entire Data Set

(original constants)

0.6032

Entire Data Set

(updated constants)

0.8429

C1

0.9097

SE1

0.9194

SE2

0.8779

C1-Biodegraded

0.9969

SE1-Biodegraded

0.9248

SE2-Biodegraded

0.9816

GOR / Res. Fluid MW Relationship

Reservoir Fluid MW vs. Single Stage GOR
12000
Gases

Oils
C1 - Distal Lower Cretaceous Shales
SE1 - Mixture of C1 and SE2
SE2 - Tithonian Carbonates/Marls
C1-B - Biodegraded C1

Single Stage GOR (scf/stb)

10000

SE1-B - Biodegraded SE1

Curve Fit: R2 = 0.9959

8000

6000

4000

GOR-1 = -9.715E-5 + 1.2464E-6 MW 1.5

2000

0
0

50

100

150

Reservoir Fluid MW (lb/lbmole)

200

250

Gas Wetness vs. Res. Fluid MW

Reservoir Fluid MW vs. Reservoir Fluid % Wetness
40
C1 - Distal Lower Cretaceous Shales

35

SE1 - Mixture of C1 and SE2

SE2 - Tithonian Carbonates/Marls
C1-B - Biodegraded C1

Reservoir Fluid % Wetness

30

SE1-B - Biodegraded SE1

25

20

15

Biodegraded Samples

10

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Reservoir Fluid MW (lb/lbmole)

140

160

180

200

Psat / Composition Relationship

Reservoir Fluid C1 / C5 Ratio vs. Adjusted Saturation Pressure
14000
C1 - Distal Lower Cretaceous Shales
SE1 - Mixture of C1 and SE2
SE2 - Tithonian Carbonates/Marls

12000

C1-B - Biodegraded C1

Adjusted Psat (psia @ 190F)

SE1-B - Biodegraded SE1

SE2-B - Biodegraded SE2

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reservoir Fluid C1 / C5 Ratio (mole%/mole%)

80

90

100

Predicting PVT from FT Gradients

Pressure Gradients from Wireline Formation Test Tools (e.g. RCI, MDT,
RDT) can be directly converted to Reservoir Fluid Densities:

i.e., Pressure Gradient P/z = res . g

Pressure Gradient Densities are unaffected by Oil-Based Drilling Fluid.

Correlations have been developed to predict Downhole Petroleum Fluid
PVT Properties from Reservoir Fluid Densities and Geochemical
Parameters derived from GeoMarks global database of oils and seeps.

Input requirements:

Pressure Gradient
Reservoir Pressure/Temperature
Three Geochemical Parameters: Source Rock, Maturity, Biodegradation
Mud Logging Dryness Factor: C1 / (C1 + C2 + C3)

Algorithms are used to predict PVT parameters real-time, prior to the

availability of physical samples.

GeoMark Research, Inc.

PVTMod Application
Pedigree Info

GOM
Example

Country
State/Province
Basin
Block/County
Field Name
Well/ST Number
Formation Name
MD

Input Parameters
USA
Louisiana
GOM

Reservoir Pressure
Reservoir Temperature
Pressure Gradient
Reservoir Fluid Density
Mud Logging Dryness Factor
Source Rock Aromaticity
Thermal Maturity
Biodegradation

Input Parameters

4000
125
0.320
0.739
0.92
0.23
0.24
0

Notes
Example is from the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Measured PVT data is compared to PVTMod Predictions
from a general GOM basin model and a further refined field model with additional weight given to
previously analyzed samples from the same field.
*Probable Range: 2/3rd of the data points used to develop the correlation fall within the probable range.

Variable

Reservoir Fluid
MW
Reservoir
Fluid
Single Stage GOR
Reservoir
Fluid
MW
Reservoir Fluid Density
GOR Reservoir SS FVF
Reservoir Fluid Viscosity
Saturation Pressure
Saturation
Reservoir
Fluid
Saturated Fluid
Density
Pressure
Saturated SS FVF
Viscosity
Saturated Fluid Viscosity
Saturated
API Gravity FVF
STO Sulfur Content
Reservoir Fluid N2
Reservoir Fluid CO2
Reservoir Fluid C1
Reservoir Fluid C2
Reservoir Fluid C3
Reservoir Fluid iC4
Reservoir Fluid nC4
Reservoir Fluid iC5
Reservoir Fluid nC5
Reservoir Fluid C6
Reservoir Fluid C7+
Reservoir Fluid C7+ MW
Reservoir Fluid C7+ SG
Flash Gas Gravity

Reservoir Fluid
C1

Units
g/mole
scf/stb
g/cc
vol/std vol
cP
psia
g/cc
vol/std vol
cP
API
wt%
mole%
mole%
mole%
mole%
mole%
mole%
mole%
mole%
mole%
mole%
mole%
g/mole
(Air = 1.0)

Measured

102.9
102.9
639
630.739
9 1.329
0.87
3140
3140
.87
0.729
1.310
0.72
35.2
0.20
0.40
0.68
47.10
2.25
1.67
0.41
1.63
1.95
0.86
1.59
41.46
197.6
0.854
0.760

1.310

47.10

Field Tuned

103.
7677

Basin Tuned

103.7
105.4
677
672
Calculated from Gradient
1.325
1.292
0.81
0.75
3387
3435
0.732
0.735
1.314
1.357
0.73
0.65
35.9
32.9
0.21
0.27
0.30
0.22
1.69
0.48
45.06
44.59
4.30
2.68
3.07
2.85
1.05
1.07
1.92
1.74
1.50
1.10
1.31
1.73
2.12
2.40
37.68
41.14
202.2
239.4
0.857
0.868
0.801
0.744

338
.81
7
1.31
4

45.0
6

psia
F
psi/ft
g/cc
(0 - 1)
(0 - 1)
(0 or 1)

Flow Assurance Studies

In 2001 a study was undertaken to compare stock tank oil
geochemical analyses to wax and asphaltene stability
measurements

Extended Compositions by HTGC

Cloud Points by CPM
Asphaltene stabilities by n-Heptane Titration

It was found that source rock type, thermal maturity and level of
biodegradation each had an influence on solids stability.

Live oil flow assurance data is beginning to appear in the

Reservoir Fluid Database.

Future work includes a new study to collect and interpret Live Oil
flow assurance data with geochemical analyses.

High Temperature GC Example

150
120
90
60
30

FID response
C40

Expanded Scale

C50

nC35

UCM
LA271

retention time (min)

Example Cloud Point Trial (CPM)

CPM Crystal Growth Plot

CPM Micrograph

Cloud Point vs. nC30+

Cloud Point vs. HTGC nC30+
200
180
160

Cloud Point (F)

140

Marine Distal Shales

Marine Paralic Shales
Marine Carbonates
Marine Marls
Hypersaline
Coaly/Resinous
Lacustrine Fresh
Lacustrine Saline

LA952

120
100
80
60
40

RU115
20
500

1000

5000

10000

nC30+ (ppm)

50000 100000 200000

Distal Shale Sample Cloud Points

Sample RU115

Cloud Point = 49F

Sample LA952

Cloud Point = 115F

Cloud Point Histogram

CPM Cloud Point Histogram
Marine Distal Shales
Marine Paralic Shales
Marine Carbonates
Marine Marls
Hypersaline
Coaly/Resinous
Lacustrine Fresh
Lacustrine Saline

154

Number of Samples

150

100

58

58

50
34

CP < 40F

40 < CP < 80F

80 < CP < 120F

CPM Cloud Point Ranges

CP > 120F

Regional Cloud Point Maps

Larger Symbols Indicate
Higher Cloud Points

Symbol Colors by Source Rock Oil Type

Symbol Sizes by Paraffin Cloud Point
Range

Southeast Asia

Middle East

'W

W
'

W
'

'W
'W

W
'

U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

M a rine Ma rl
Hy pe rsa line
Co a ly / R esino u se
La c us trin e F res h
La c us trin e S alin e

W
'

'W

'W'W

'W

'W

'W W
'
'W
'W
'W
'W
'W
1. M a rine Dis ta l Sh ale
2. M a rine Pa ralic S ha le
'W 'W
3. M a rine Ca rbo na te
'W

U
%

W
'

W
'

'W 'W 'W

'
W
' 'W
W

'W

'W

'W

W
'

'W
'W
'W
'W
'W
'W 'W
'W 'W
'W
'W
'W
'W
'W
'W
'W

'
W

'W

Wax Cloud Point Symbols

'W CP < 40F
'W 40F < CP < 80F

W
' 80F < CP < 120F

'W CP > 120F

'W
'W'W

'W
'W

Example Asphaltene STO Onset Test

Asphaltene Stability Histogram

Asphaltene Stability Histogram

200

Marine Distal Shales

Marine Paralic Shales
Marine Carbonates
Marine Marls
Hypersaline
Coaly/Resinous
Lacustrine Fresh
Lacustrine Saline

202

Number of Samples

150

100
80

50
24

Stable Asphaltenes

Moderately Stable Asphaltenes

Asphaltene Onset Classes

Unstable Asphaltenes

Asphaltene Stability
Histogram
Asphaltene Stability Histogram
High Thermal Maturity Samples(High Thermal Maturity Samples)

Marine Distal Shales

Marine Paralic Shales
Marine Carbonates
Marine Marls
Hypersaline
Coaly/Resinous
Lacustrine Fresh
Lacustrine Saline

Number of Samples

200

150

106
100

60
50

11
Stable Asphaltenes

Moderately Stable Asphaltenes

Asphaltene Onset Classes

Unstable Asphaltenes

Regional Asphaltene Stability Maps

Larger Symbols Indicate More
Unstable Asphaltenes

Symbol Colors by Source Rock Oil Type

Symbol Sizes by Asphaltene Onset Titration
Ratio

Middle East

Southeast Asia
'W
'W

'W

W
'

'W
'W 'W

'W 'W'W
'W

'W
'W

'W

'W

'W

'W

'W

'W
'W

'W
'W
'W
'W
''W
W
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%
U
%

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Ma rine Dis ta l Sh ale

Ma rine Paralic S ha le
Ma rine Ca rbo na te
Ma rine Ma rl
Hy persaline
Co a ly / R es ino u se
La c us trin e F res h
La c us trin e S alin e

'W
'W

'W

'W'W
'W

'W

'W
'W
' 'W
W
'W
W
'
'W
'W
'W
'W
'W
'W
'W'W'W'W
'W
'W
'W

Asphaltene Onset Symbols

'W A.O. > 5 mL/g
'W A.O. > 3 mL/g

'W

'W

W
'

'W

2 < A.O. < 3 mL/g

'W A.O. < 2 mL/g

'W

de Boer Asphaltene
Stability
Plot
Asphaltene Stability
Plot
(De Boer Diagram)

Reservoir Saturation Pressure ( psia )

12000

Marine Distal Shales

Marine Paralic Shales
Marine Carbonates
Marine Marls
Hypersaline
Coaly/Resinous
Lacustrine Fresh
Lacustrine Saline

Fuji Samples

10000

Severe
Problems

8000

Magnolia
Samples

Slight
Problems

6000

No Problems

4000

2000

Saudi Arabian Samples

0
0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Reservoir Fluid Density (g/cc)

0.9

Conclusions
Oil Geochemical analyses are used to determine

Source Rock Depositional environment and age

Thermal Maturity
Biodegradation
In-situ Mixing
Reservoir Continuity (i.e., Production Geochemistry)

Gas Geochemical analyses further provide estimations of Biogenic

vs. Thermogenic gas concentrations in Reservoir Fluids.

Oil and Gas PVT correlations are improved by introducing

geochemical factors.

Flow Assurance issues may be Forward Modeled with Geochemical

representations.