Gas Condensate PVT
Gas Condensate PVT
Gas Condensate PVT
ABSTRACT
This paper gives a review of the key PVT data dictating recovery and well
performance of gas condensate reservoirs. The importance of specific PVT data are
put in the context of their importance to specific mechanisms of recovery and flow
behavior. Phase behavior important to gas cycling projects is also covered. Modeling
gas condensate reservoir fluid systems with an equation of state is discussed, as is
EOS modeling of complex fluid systems with strongly varying compositions and PVT
properties.
INTRODUCTION
It could be argued that the engineering of a gas condensate field is 80% traditional
“gas” engineering, and 20% “extra” engineering. The numbers could be 90/10 or
70/30 – but the majority of engineering of any gas condensate field is always the
same as the engineering of a gas reservoir without condensate.
The main difference between a gas condensate field and a “dry” gas field is the
additional income derived from surface condensate production. Condensate
production evolves from produced reservoir gas (= produced “wet gas” = produced
wellstream) as the wellstream is processed at the surface. The production of
reservoir gas can, for the most part, be handled with traditional gas engineering
tools.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 2
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
From an engineering point of view, the two “extra” issues which must be addressed
in a gas condensate reservoir are:
• How the condensate “yield” will vary during the life of a reservoir, and
• How two-phase gas/oil flow “near” the wellbore affects gas productivity.
Both of these issues are strongly related to the PVT properties of the fluid system
(though productivity is more affected by relative permeability effects).
• Z-factor
• Gas viscosity
and a few “extra” properties needed to handle the “condensate” part of a gas-
condensate reservoir:
The PVT properties listed above are particularly important to reservoirs produced by
pressure depletion. For gas condensate reservoirs undergoing gas cycling it may
also be important to quantify phase behavior (vaporization, condensation, and near-
critical miscibility) which develops in gas cycling below the dewpoint.
A PVT modela should describe accurately the key phase, volumetric, and viscosity
behavior dictating the key processes affecting rate-time performance and ultimate
recoveries of surface gas and oil. Unfortunately, a PVT model may not be capable of
accurately describing all PVT properties with equal accuracy. EOS models often
have difficulty matching retrograde phenomena (compositional variation of gas, and
liquid dropout), particularly when the system is near-critical, or only small amounts of
condensation occur just below the dewpoint (“tail-like” retrograde behavior). Oil
a
We define a PVT (pressure-volume-temperature) model to include the EOS (equation of state)
model describing phase and volumetric behavior, together with the viscosity model (e.g. the Lorentz-
1 2
Bray-Clark or Pedersen et al. ); the viscosity model is not formally linked with the EOS model but
makes use of EOS-calculated density.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 3
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
viscosities are also difficult to predict for reservoir condensates, and measured oil
viscosities are not usually available for tuning the viscosity model.
Example 3. An onshore “old” undeveloped gas cap with well-defined initial volume
(by production oil wells and pressure history), uncertain initial composition (estimated
initial yield of 120 STB/MMscf), partially depleted due to long-term production of
underlying oil, and low permeability (kh=300 md-m).
This paper will attempt to explain when and why various PVT properties are
important to the development of a particular gas condensate field.
PVT EXPERIMENTS
Constant Composition (Mass) Expansion Test
The constant composition expansion (CCE) test, sometimes referred to as a
constant-mass expansion test, is used to measure dewpoint pressure, single-phase
gas Z-factors, and oil relative volume below the dewpoint (“liquid dropout curve”). A
sample of reservoir fluid is charged in a visual PVT cell and brought to reservoir
temperature and a pressure sufficiently high to ensure single-phase conditions.
Pressure is lowered by increasing cell volume until a liquid phase is visually detected
(through a glass window). Total cell volume and liquid volume are monitored from
the initial reservoir pressure down to a low pressure (dictated by cell and sample
size).
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 4
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
The CVD test involves stepwise lowering the pressure below the dewpoint, with an
associated increase in cell volume. After equilibration at each pressure, enough
equilibrium gas is removed from the top of the cell to bring the cell back to the
original volume occupied at the dewpoint. The amount of gas removed, its
composition and Z-factor, and the remaining oil volume in the cell are measured and
reported. A “two-phase” Z-factor is also reported for use with the “gas” material
balance (see discussion below).
reported as part of the constant composition expansion test. Z-factors used in the
material balance equation below the dewpoint are “back-calculated” from data in the
constant volume depletion test. These so-called two-phase Z-factors are “pseudo”
(not-physical) properties which should only be used in the traditional gas material
balance equation.
The condensate rate profile is easy to convert into an economic profile, and
engineers can readily relate the two. But how can we readily forecast the condensate
rate profile for a gas condensate reservoir?
For a surface gas-rate production profile qg(t), the profile of oil rate versus time is
given (approximately) by
( y 7 + ) CVD 1
qo ( t) ≅ q g (t ) ⋅ ⋅ ........................................................................ (1)
1 − ( y 7 + ) CVD (C og ) CVD
R Tsc ρo
Cog = ⋅ ....................................................................................................... (2)
Psc Mo
where (ρo /Mo) = (ρ7+/M7+)CVD. Time dependence of CVD properties must be
correlated with cumulative wet-gas volumes produced,
G pw = ∫ q w dt ............................................................................................................ (3)
where
qw = qg + qo Cog ........................................................................................................ (4)
d
The simplification of surface condensate being “essentially” C7+ is a subjective choice. One could
easily have chosen C6+ or C5+ without any change in our comments.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 6
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
Given the qw(t) profile and Gpw(t), this can be translated into cumulative wellstream
produced from the CVD test, (np/nd)CVD,
(np/nd) = Gpw/Gw – [1 – (p/z)d/(p/z)i] ; p Sd ............................................................. (5)
where all CVD properties = initial gas properties for p > pd. Cog represents the
surface gas equivalent of one surface oil volume.
(p / Z )d (p / Z )d N ∆n p (1 / rsi + C og )
(p / Z )i (p / Z)i ∑
RFoD = 1 − + ⋅ ⋅
(1 / r + C ) ........................................... (7)
k =1 n d k sk og
z 7+ 1
rs ≅ ⋅ ...................................................................................................... (8)
1 − z 7 + C og
A simple spreadsheet calculation using these equations allows quick translation of
laboratory CVD data to important engineering and commercial quantification of in-
place surface volumes, reserves, and production forecasts. Fig. 1 and Table 1
shows an example calculation using Eqs. 6-8 for a rich-gas condensate.
Not all fields show compositional gradients with depth as predicted by the isothermal
model. Some fields show practically no gradient over large depths, such as the
Cupiagua field in Columbia4 where a near-critical gas condensate with more-or-less
constant composition is found over an interval of some 2000 m. Some oil fields have
gradients larger than predicted by the isothermal model. Høier5,6 made
comprehensive calculations using a number of thermal diffusion models which
indicate that thermal gradients typically reduce compositional gradients in gas
condensate fluids, while for oils a thermal gradient may cause either a reduction or
an increase in compositional gradients.
Our concern with compositional gradients in gas condensates will be limited to three
topics: (1) assessing the effect of a gradient on in-place surface volumes, (2)
assessing the prediction of a gas-oil contact using a theoretical gradient model, and
(3) the impact of compositional gradients on depletion (and cycling) recoveries.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 7
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
Variation in C7+ composition with depth will obviously affect the calculation of initial
surface condensate in place, compared with a calculation based on a constant
composition. Depending on the “location” of the sample used in the constant-
composition model, either smaller or larger initial condensate volumes in place can
result when compared with a gradient modele.
The gradient model will typically give an “optimistic” in-place sensitivity when the gas
condensate reference sample is upstructure. If the reference gas sample is
downstructure then the gradient model will provide a “pessimistic” in-place
sensitivity. For reservoirs with limited control of fluid variation with depth, we
recommend using the “in-situ representative” samples available, linear interpolation
between these samples, and for sensitivities use both (a) the gradient model for
extrapolation beyond the samples and (b) a constant-composition extrapolation.
A gradient model may also predict a transition from gas to oil which can dramatically
affect the initial oil in place volumes (see discussion below). However, a predicted
GOC from an upstructure gas sample is, at best, a “possibility”. Results of predicted
“oil zones” from gas samples should only be used for sensitivity analysis of a new
discovery, or in a reservoir where additional delineation wells are not planned.
Dewpoint Pressure
Strictly speaking the dewpoint pressure is the pressure where an incipient liquid
phase condenses from a gas phase. Practically, the dewpoint marks the pressure
where (1) reservoir gas phase composition changes and becomes leaner, and (2)
condensate accumulation starts in the reservoir. These two changes can have a
profound effect on reservoir and well performance – or, they may have little impact.
The importance of the actual dewpoint pressure will vary from reservoir to reservoir,
but in most situations accurate dewpoint determination is not important.
Why? First, in the context of compositional variation with pressure (and associated
variation of condensate yield with pressure) accurate determination of the
thermodynamic dewpoint pressure is not of particular importance. In fact, we don’t
need to know the “specific” dewpoint at all as long as the variation of composition
(C7+ content) with pressure is well defined “near” the thermodynamic dewpoint.
e
The gradient model requires that a composition be specified at a reference depth with a reference
pressure and temperature.
f
This behavior is readily understood in a black-oil model using a solution oil-gas ratio rs(p) function.
The initial variation of rs (and dewpoint) with depth is short-lived when reservoir pressure drops below
the dewpoint, as rs of the equilibrium gas through the reservoir becomes (more-or-less) constant at
the average reservoir pressure. Because only reservoir gas flows into wells, the producing OGR will
reflect the equilibrium rs at average reservoir pressure, which becomes independent of depth when
pR<pd.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 8
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
Second, when the bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP) drops below the dewpoint
and two phases start flowing near the wellbore, gas relative permeability drops and
well productivity drops. However, as long as BHFP is “anywhere near” the dewpoint
the well will have excess deliverability – i.e. we simply reduce the BHFP to produce
more gas (even though the well productivity is lower).
Only when the BHFP reaches a minimum value (dictated by some delivery-pressure
constraint) will the well no longer be able to deliver the desired rate. At this point,
well productivity is important. However, this occurs at a BH flowing pressure much
lower than the dewpoint. A typical minimum BHFP might be 50-150 bara, while
dewpoint pressures are typically 250-400 bara. Whether the BHFP drops below the
dewpoint at 400 or 350 bara has little impact on what the well will (or won’t) produce
when BHFP reaches a minimum constraint of 100 bara.
Another (less common) need for dewpoint pressure is when an underlying saturated
oil zone may exist and a PVT model is used to predict the existence and location of
the gas-oil contact (GOC). In this case, the PVT model dewpoint should be tuned
precisely to an accurately measured dewpoint pressure. It is not uncommon that a
predicted GOC may vary 10’s of meters per bar of uncertainty in the (PVT-model)
dewpoint pressure. Thus an accurate description of the dewpoint pressure will have
an impact on the prediction of initial oil and gas in place, placement of delineation
wells, and potential field development strategy. In this situation, accurate dewpoint
measurement and equally-accurate modeling of the measured dewpoint should be
given due attention.
On the other hand, if accurate treatment of the dewpoint pressure is not required (for
estimating a GOC), then we recommend using little if any weighting of the measured
dewpoint pressure when tuning the PVT model. Instead, priority should be given to
matching the variation of C7+ with pressure in the removed gas from a constant
volume depletion test.
CONDENSATE BLOCKAGE
When BHFP drops below the dewpoint and two-phase gas/oil flow stabilizes in the
near-wellbore region, relative permeability to gas (the primary flowing phase) may
drop dramatically and the well deliverability is lowered accordingly. Saturations in the
near-wellbore region can reach 40-60%, with gas permeability reductions of 0.05-
0.2.
The relative permeability ratio krg/kro in the steady-state (SS) region is given by
krg/kro=(1/Vro – 1)(µg/µo)............................................................................................ (9)
where Vro = Vo/Vt is the CCE oil relative volume of the produced wellstream at any
pressure within the SS region. The pressure in the SS region ranges from the BHFP
to the dewpoint pressure of the produced wellstream, and most deliverability loss
occurs nearest the wellbore where pressures are closer to the BHFP.
Given the krg/kro ratio throughout the SS region from Eq. 9, the relative permeability
to gas krg can be found directly from the relative permeability relationship. That is,
krg(S) = krg(krg/kro(S)). Fevang and Whitson7 have shown that the krg/kro ratio in the
SS region does not vary more than about one order of magnitude throughout the life
of a reservoir. With regard to uncertainties in PVT properties, and the need to
measure (or predict) their values for accurate description of condensate blockage,
we can conclude that oil viscosity should be given highest priority because it has the
largest uncertainty both experimentally and in predictions. Fig. 2 shows the effect on
krg caused by a ±20% error in Vro for values of Vro ranging from 0.5 for a near-critical
condensate to 0.005 for a very lean condensate (using µg/µo=0.02/0.2=0.1 and a
typical Corey relative permeability relation).
Oil Viscosity
As discussed above, oil viscosity is important in the proper modeling of “condensate
blockage” – i.e. the two-phase gas/oil flow effect on gas relative permeability in the
region around the wellbore. Oil viscosity is usually low for reservoir condensates,
ranging from 0.1 to 1 cp in the near-wellbore region.h Measurement of condensate
viscosities is not made in routine laboratory tests, and it may be difficult to obtain
measurements for lean condensates (where volumes of condensate are small).
Viscosity correlations are typically unreliable for predicting low oil viscosities, and
some approach is needed to ensure accurate and consistent modeling of this
important property.
h
The viscosity of condensate flowing in the near-wellbore region throughout depletion, and
particularly when a well goes on decline, will remain fairly constant at a value close to the condensate
viscosity of the original reservoir fluid in the pressure range 100-200 bara. This viscosity is typically
lower than the viscosity of condensate from a CVD test in the same pressure range, where the
difference may be as much as a factor of 2-3.
i
This idea was suggested by Dr. Jeff Creek, Chevron Oil Company, ca. 1997.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 10
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
sample to tune the viscosity correlation should ensure reasonably accurate oil
viscosity predictions of the condensate actually flowing in the near-wellbore region
when bottomhole flowing pressures drop below the dewpoint.
Gas Viscosity
Gas viscosity for most systems will vary from 0.02 to 0.03 cp for all pressure
conditions. For near-critical gas condensates and high-pressure gases the viscosity
may initially be 0.05 cp, but in most of the near-wellbore region experiencing
significant pressure losses the viscosity will be in the lower range of 0.02-0.03 cp.
Consequently, the absolute value of viscosity does not vary greatly for a given gas,
or from gas to gas system. Viscosity correlations are fairly reliable at predicting
accurate gas viscosities, within 5-10% in most cases.
Ironically, the liquid dropout curve has little direct impact on reservoir and well
performance. Only the CCE liquid dropout Vro=Vo/Vt of a reservoir gas at “lower”
pressures has a (second-order) effect on the modeling of condensate blockage. The
j
The maximum liquid dropout often occurs at a pressure near 150-250 bara (though higher for near-
critical systems), and is approximately correlated to the minimum in equilibrium K-values (Ki=yi/xi) of
heavier components (C5+).
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 11
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
Interestingly, the magnitude of maximum liquid dropout does not determine whether
condensate blockage will or will not be a problem for a given reservoir. It only has a
second-order effect on the relative degree of severity. For example, one reservoir
with 35% maximum liquid dropout may have a condensate blockage effect which has
no importance to well deliverability, while another reservoir with 2% maximum liquid
dropout may have condensate blockage causing a dramatic well deliverability loss.
GAS CYCLING
Traditional gas cycling with full pressure maintenance is almost completely
unaffected by PVT properties. The gas-gas displacement process is fully miscible,
independent of the injection gas, so only the viscosity ratio of the two gases enters
into the displacement performance. For practical purposes, reservoir heterogeneities
(and mainly layering) dominate recovery performance of a gas cycling project –
almost totally for full-pressure maintenance cycling, but also if the reservoir is cycled
below the dewpoint.
As indicated by Coats8 and others, gas cycling projects below the dewpoint are also
affected by the vaporization characteristics of displacement gas on the retrograde
condensate. For most gas cycling projects the injection gas is fairly lean and
recovery efficiency of the reservoir retrograde condensate depends mostly on
vaporization.
If injection gas is rich in intermediate components C2-C5 and gas cycling occurs
below the (original) dewpoint, an efficient condensing/vaporizing mechanism can
develop and, in some cases, develop full miscibility with the gas+condensate
reservoir system. This mechanism is described by Høier and Whitson6.
If above the dewpoint, a gas-gas miscible displacement will yield 100% recovery of
the current condensate in place. A miscible displacement is guaranteed,
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 12
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
independent of the injection gas used, even though the injected gas may be first-
contact “immiscible” with the original reservoir gas. Miscibility develops by a simple
vaporizing mechanism.
If reservoir pressure is below the dewpoint when the displacement front arrives,
ultimate recovery of condensate is dictated by two processes: (1) gas-gas miscible
displacement of the reservoir gas, and (2) partial vaporization of the retrograde
condensate. The condensate recovery by gas-gas miscible displacement is 100% of
the condensate in solution in the reservoir gas at the time the front arrives. The
recovery efficiency of retrograde condensate by vaporization (Ev) increases gradually
as increasing volumes of injection gas sweep this point in the reservoir.
We will try to discuss the two mechanisms of condensate recovery for a reservoir
undergoing cycling below the dewpoint. Before the gas front arrives, (1) the amount
of “condensate in place” in the gas-filled pores continuously decreases below the
dewpoint; and (2) the “cumulative retrograde condensate” in the oil-filled pores
continuously increases at decreasing pressures.
After the gas front arrives, (1) the gas-gas miscible displacement has a 100%
efficiency of the condensate remaining in solution in the reservoir gas; and (2) the
recovery efficiency of retrograde condensate by vaporization (Ev) rises quickly but
then flattens quickly after the front passes. This behavior of Ev is due to the
preferential vaporization of “light” C7+ first, leaving behind a heavier condensate
which is less efficiently (more slowly) vaporized. The more volumes of injection gas
passing over the condensate, the less efficient vaporization becomes. Even if
pressure continues to decline, new condensation will not occur because the gas
behind the front is lean and has little dissolved condensate.
1. RFoD is, as previously discussed (Eq. 7), the condensate recovery by pressure
depletion to some reservoir pressure – e.g. the end of production pend, or at the
pressure of gas cycling pcycle.
4. RFoDx is the extra condensate recovery from pressure depletion of the reservoir
volume not swept by injection gas during cycling, (depletion from pcycling to pend).
Note, RFoDx = RFoD(pcycling) – RFoD(pend).
5. RFoult is the ultimate condensate recovery due to (a) depletion prior to cycling, (b)
cycling, and (c) depletion after cycling. For pcycling > pd,
where ES defines the final areal-times-vertical sweep efficiency at the end of cycling,
and EV defines the final efficiency of vaporized retrograde condensate (for pcycling
below the dewpoint).
We already have defined the dependence of RFoD on PVT properties (Eq. 7), where
Z-factors and variation of C7+ in the CVD produced gas phase determine RFoD. It is
also easy to show that RFoM is given exclusively by data in the CCE and CVD tests,
as is RFoV (= 100 – RFoM).
The only other PVT-dependent parameter is EV, which (as mentioned earlier) is
determined by (1) the C7+ molar distribution of retrograde condensate, and (2) the K-
values of C7+ components as a function of pressure and overall composition.
However, EV is only important for cycling below the dewpoint, and often the
contribution of vaporization to overall condensate recovery is relatively small.
In this high-pressure reservoir, the additional recovery due to gas cycling will not be
realized until late into the life of the field, as pressure approaches the dewpoint and
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 14
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
recovery is about 30%. In terms of net present value, and depending on when the
investment for compressors etc. are required, cycling does not appear attractive.
For the same reservoir but initially saturated at the dewpoint of 400 bara, additional
condensate recovery by gas cycling is more attractive, as shown in Fig. 4. Here the
rapid decline in producing liquid yields will have a pronounced affect on project
economy, while successful cycling (high sweep efficiency ES) can provide prolonged
initial liquid yields and higher ultimate recovery. For this case, net present value is
more positive to a cycling project.
In summary, most of the primary evaluation for potential of gas cycling can be
quantified by CVD and CCE data. Vaporization effects are often less significant than
commonly thought, an observation which follows from the calculation of recovery
factors RFoD and RFoM based on CVD and CCE data. When vaporization recovery
(RFoV) is important, special multi-contact vaporization tests should be conducted and
fit with the PVT model, where variation of C7+ in the equilibrium gas is the most
important data.
The most likely candidate for enriched-gas miscible gas cycling below the dewpoint
would be rich or near-critical condensates where injection gas is not available in
sufficient quantities to maintain reservoir pressure.
“ REPRESENTATIVE” SAMPLES
Before a field development starts, the primary goal of sampling is to obtain
"representative" samples of the fluids found in the reservoir at initial conditions. It
may be difficult to obtain a representative sample because of two-phase flow effects
near the wellbore. This occurs when a well is produced with a flowing bottomhole
pressures below the saturation pressure of the reservoir fluids. It is also commonly
thought that “bad” fluid samples result if gas coning or oil coning occurs during
sampling.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 15
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
The most representative insitu samples are usually obtained when the reservoir fluid
is single phase at the point of sampling, be it bottomhole or at the surface. Even this
condition, however, may not ensure representative sampling. And, as shown by
Fevang and Whitson9, samples obtained during gas coning in an oil well can provide
accurate insitu representative samples if a proper laboratory procedure is followed.
Because reservoir fluid composition can vary areally, between fault blocks, and as a
function of depth, we are actually interested in obtaining a sample of reservoir fluid
that is representative of the volume being drained by the well during the test.
Unfortunately, the concept of a "representative" sample is usually a sample that
correctly reflects the composition of reservoir fluid at the depth or depths being
tested.
The final EOS fluid characterization of a field should match all (accurate) PVT
measurements of all (uncontaminated) samples produced from the reservoir,
independent of whether the samples are representative of insitu compositions.
EOS MODELING
To make EOS calculations, the minimum required input are (1) molar composition, and
(2) molecular weight and specific gravity of the heaviest fraction (usually C7+ or C10+).
With this minimum information, an EOS can calculate practically any phase and
volumetric property of the mixture - e.g.,
When true boiling point distillation data are available, these data should be used
directly, or to define parameters in the splitting model. TBP data can be used, for
example, to define the molar distribution parameters DQG LQWKHJDPPDGLVWULEXWLRQ
model, and constants in the specific gravity correlation.
k
Material balance methods are often useful for checking consistency of depletion experiments (CVD
and DLE). The material balance starts at the final stage of the experiment, with known amounts and
compositions. Removed gas is then added back from each depletion stage, arriving at the initial fluid.
Comparison with the initial composition gives a direct measure of consistency. Another approach is to
start the material balance with the initial fluid, back-calculating the oil phase properties and
compositions as depletion progresses; this approach is only useful for medium-rich to rich
condensates because small errors in Vro have a dramatic effect on the back-calculated oil properties.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 17
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
Our experience has shown that a single set of components and a single set of EOS
component properties can be used to describe a wide range of reservoir fluids, ranging
from leaner gas condensates to low-GOR oils – fluids which may or may not be in fluid
10
communication initially. Whitson et al. propose one method for developing a
“common” EOS model for multiple reservoir fluids. Another approach is to develop the
EOS model based on a single sample, and then “generate” the other reservoir fluids by
flash calculations (saturation pressure, two-phase split, or isothermal gradient).
The procedure proposed by Whitson and Torp12 is recommended for generating black-
oil PVT tables. They suggest using a reference fluid to conduct a depletion test (e.g.
CVD), sending the equilibrium reservoir phases separately through a surface
separation to obtain (Rs, Bo o) for the oil phase and (rs, BgdDQG g) for the gas phase.
Surface densities are taken from the surface separation of the reference fluid.
The important black-oil PVT properties for IFIP calculations in gas condensate
reservoirs are rs/Bgd = the surface oil in place per reservoir gas volumel, and 1/Bgd = the
surface gas in place per reservoir gas volume. The term rs/Bgd is the quantity required
by “geologists” to convert reservoir gas pore volumes to surface oil – a kind of “oil FVF
(Bo)” for the reservoir gas phase. In fact, for compositionally-grading reservoirs with a
transition from gas to oil through an undersaturated (critical) state, the term rs/Bgd
should equal Bo – exactly – at the undersaturated gas-oil contact, thereby ensuring
continuity and consistency.
Some special problems related to generating black-oil PVT tables with an EOS include:
1. How to extrapolate saturated PVT properties to pressures higher than the original
saturation pressure of the reference fluid.
2. Non-monotonic saturated oil properties Bo and Rs for gas condensate systems.
3. Consistency requirements for comparison of black-oil and EOS simulations.
4. Handling saturated reservoirs with a gas overlying an oil, where black-oil PVT
properties from the two fluid systems can be significantly different.
5. Modeling reservoirs with compositional gradients, and how to initialize these
reservoirs in black-oil simulators.
Methods for extrapolating black-oil PVT tables include: (a) mixing the incipient phase
from a saturation pressure of the reference fluid to increase the saturation pressure,
usually in a number of steps (“reverse DLE”), (b) using a compositional gradient
algorithm, or (c) adding an injection gas in increments and determining the PVT
properties of each incremental mixture, or (d) adding injection gas to a “maximum”
saturation pressure and then conducting a depletion test – either stopping at the
original saturation pressure or continuing all the way to a low (minimum) pressure.
The most appropriate method for extrapolating saturated properties may not be
obvious. It will often depend on the reservoir process. Several extrapolation methods
may be tested in a realistic reservoir simulation model, where results are compared
with a fully-compositional EOS model. The extrapolation method which consistently
gives results most similar to the EOS model can be said to “best represent” the
reservoir process. Comparisons should include initial fluids in place, recoveries, and
GOR profiles of individual wells.
l
rs/Bgd is equivalent to the compositional “equivalent” C7+ content in the reservoir gas, y7+.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 19
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
As more condensate evolves from the reservoir gas, the total reservoir condensate
becomes lighter with higher (API) gravity. The change in the gravity has a stronger
influence than the decreasing pressure, so the net change in Bo and Rs is to increase
with decreasing pressure.
One solution we have found useful in this situation is to generate a separate set of
black-oil PVT tables, starting with the incipient oil phase of the original reservoir gas at
dewpoint, and using a depletion (DLE or CVD) test with this oil. The “oil phase” PVT
table (Bo, Rs, and o) from depletion of the incipient oil can then be used together with
the “gas phase” PVT table (Bgd, rs g) from depletion of the original reservoir gas.
Fevang and Whitson7 show that some modification of black-oil saturated oil viscosities
may be needed to ensure accurate single-well modeling of condensate blockage. They
show that the oil viscosity in the near-wellbore blockage region is the liquid which
condenses from the flowing wellstream, and not a cumulative CVD-type liquid. The
flowing blockage-area liquid can be significantly lighter than the CVD-type condensate,
and with correspondingly lower viscosity (1.5 to 5 times lower).
The saturated oil and gas phases which form from the two depletion tests are different
below the original saturation pressure. This leads to differences in PVT properties
m
Expected, for example, based on a Standing-type saturated correlations for Bo and Rs.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 20
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
which are not handled consistently in a black-oil simulator. One solution is to use two
PVT regions, one for the cells originally in the gas cap, and another region for cells
originally in the oil. This solution is incorrect for cells which originally are defined as one
“phase” but become the other “phase” due to movement of the gas-oil contact. Still, this
may be the best solution in some reservoirs.
The best way to ensure accurate initialization of surface gas and surface oil in place
is to initialize using Rs and rs versus depth, instead of using saturation pressure
versus depth. The more-common practice of initializing with saturation pressure
versus depth leads to problems of initial fluid in place because of the second
problem mentioned above – i.e. though only one PVT table is used, the black-oil
PVT properties of the different reservoir fluids are not the same.
Our recommended method of using Rs an rs versus depth for initialization may lead
to a small error in recoveries near the initial saturation pressures. However, this error
is usually insignificant and always less than errors introduced by wrong initial fluids in
place caused by initialization with saturation pressure versus depth.
3. Experience has shown that better results are obtained in going from the N-
component characterization to (for example) a 7-component characterization in
several steps, than going from an N-component to a 7-component characterization
in a single pseudoization.
2. Using this tuned EOS, simulate several PVT experiments. Save the results of these
calculations as “data”. The experiments should cover as large as possible the
pressure-, temperature-, and composition-space expected in the reservoir during its
development. If gas injection is being considered, multicontact gas injection
experiments should be included, perhaps several with different injection gas
compositions.
5. In a subsequent step, regress viscosities for the EOS model with the newly-created
pseudocomponents.
a
The number of pseudocomponents will vary according to the application. Simulation of depletion
processes and water flooding will generally require only 4 or 5 pseudocomponents; immiscible gas injection
may require additional pseudocomponents, and developed miscible gas injection will probably require at
least 6 to 8 pseudocomponents.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 22
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
CONCLUDING REMARKS
We have tried to summarize and detail the importance of various PVT properties on
the reservoir and well performance of gas condensate fields.
1. For calculation of initial gas and condensate in place the key PVT data are (a)
initial Z-factor and (b) initial C7+ molar content. In terms of black-oil PVT
properties, the two “equivalent” PVT quantities are (a) Bgd and (b) rs/Bgd.
2. The constant composition and constant volume depletion tests provide the key
data for quantifying recovery of produced gas and condensate during depletion.
Above the dewpoint depletion recoveries of gas and condensate are equal and
are given by the variation of Z-factor with pressure.
3. For calculation of condensate recovery and varying yield (producing oil-gas ratio)
during depletion it is critical to obtain accurate measurement of C7+ (rs) variation
in the produced gas from a constant volume depletion test.
6. For richer gas condensates, the oil relative volume (from a constant composition
expansion test) has only a “secondary” effect on the modeling of condensate
blockage; for lean condensates, Vro has a small effect on blockage.
7. For gas cycling projects above the dewpoint, PVT properties have essentially no
effect on condensate recovery because the displacement will always be miscible.
Only the definition of initial condensate in place is important. Gas viscosity has
only a minor effect on gas cycling.
8. For gas cycling below the dewpoint, the key PVT properties are Z-factor variation
during depletion, C7+ content in the reservoir gas during depletion, and C7+
vaporized from the reservoir condensate into the injection (displacement) gas.
Nomenclature
Bo = formation volume factor (FVF) of reservoir oil phase
Bgd = dry gas FVF of reservoir gas phase
Cog = conversion factor for gas-equivalent of surface oil
C5+ = Pentanes-plus
C6+ = Hexanes-plus
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 23
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
C7+ = Heptanes-plus
C10+ = Decanes-plus
ES = sweep (vertical and areal) efficiency
EV = vaporization efficiency of condensate recovery below the dewpoint
krg = gas relative permeability
kro = oil relative permeability
Ki = equilibrium ratio (K-value) of component i
Mo = surface oil molecular weight
M7+ = C7+ molecular weight
N = total number
nd = moles of gas at initial (dewpoint) pressure
∆npk = incremental CVD moles of gas produced in stage k
p = pressure
pb = bubblepoint pressure
pd = dewpoint pressure
pi = initial pressure
ps = saturation pressure
psc = standard pressure
qo = surface oil production rate
q7+ = Heptanes-plus production rate
R = universal gas constant
rs = solution oil-gas ratio of reservoir gas phase
rsi = solution oil-gas ratio at initial pressure
Rs = solution gas-oil ratio of reservoir oil phase
RFgD = depletion recovery factor of gas
RFoD = depletion recovery factor of condensate
RFoDx = extra depletion recovery factor of condensate (after gas cycling)
RFoM = gas-gas miscible recovery factor of condensate
RFoult = ultimate recovery factor of condensate
Tsc = standard temperature
Vd = oil volume at dewpoint pressure
Vg = gas volume
Vo = oil volume
Vro = oil volume divided by oil volume at saturation pressure
Vt = total (gas+oil) volume
xi = oil composition
yi = gas composition
y7+ = C7+ composition in the produced gas
z7+ = mole fraction of C7+ of produced wellstream
zi = produced wellstream or total mole fraction
Z = Z-factor
Zi = Initial Z factor
REFERENCES
1. Lohrenz, J., Bray, B. G., and Clark, C. R. : “Calculating Viscosities of Reservoir Fluids
From Their Compositions,” J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1964) 1171-1176; Trans., AIME, 231.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 24
C.H. Whitson, Ø. Fevang, and T. Yang
2. Pedersen, K. S., and Fredenslund, Aa., : "An Improved Corresponding States Model for
the Prediction of Oil and Gas Viscosities and Thermal Conductivities," Chem. Eng. Sci.,
42, (1987), 182.
3. Whitson, C. H. and Belery, P. : "Compositional Gradients in Petroleum Reservoirs,"
paper SPE 28000 presented at the University of Tulsa/SPE Centennial Petroleum
Engineering Symposium held in Tulsa, OK August 29-31, 1994.
4. Lee, S. T., and Chaverra, M. : " Modeling and Interpretation of Condensate Banking for
the Near Critical Cupiagua Field," paper SPE 49265 presented for SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30 September, 1998.
5. Høier, Lars: " Miscibility Variation in Compositional Grading Petroleum Reservoirs,"
Thesis for dr.ing., Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NTNU, Nov.,1997.
6. Høier, Lars and Whitson, C. H. : “Miscibility Variation in Compositional Grading
Reservoirs,” paper SPE 49269 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Sep 27-30, 1998.
7. Fevang, Øivind and Whitson, C. H. : “Modeling Gas Condensate Well Deliverability,”
SPE Reservoir Engineering, (Nov. 1996) 221.
8. Coats, K. H. : "Simulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance," JPT (Oct. 1985)
1870.
9. Fevang, Øivind and Whitson, C. H. : "Accurate Insitu Compositions in Petroleum
Reservoirs," paper SPE 28829 presented at the EUROPEC Petroleum Conference held
in London, Oct. 25-27, 1994.
10. Whitson, C. H., Anderson, T. F., and Soreide, I. : "C7+ Chracterization of Related
Equilibrium Fluids Using the Gamma Distribution," C7+ Fraction Characterization, L. G.
Chorn and G. A. Mansoori (ed.), Advances in Thermodynamics, Taylor & Francis, New
York (1989) 1.
11. Pedersen, K. S., Thomassen, P. , and Fredenslund, A. : "Characterization of Gas
Condensate Mixtures," C7+ Fraction Characterization, L. G. Chorn and G. A. Mansoori
(ed.), Advances in Thermodynamics, Taylor & Francis, New York (1989) 1.
12. Whitson, C. H. and Torp, S. B. : "Evaluating Constant Volume Depletion Data," JPT
(March, 1983) 610; Trans AIME, 275.
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 25
C.H. Whitson, Ø . Fevang, and T. Yang
Pressure rs Bgd Visg npw/nd Z-factor Vro RFoD RFgD RFoM RFoV
bara Sm3/Sm3 m3/Sm3 cp % % % % % %
900 8.07E-04 3.69E-03 0.062265 0.0 1.928 0.000 0.0 0.00 100.0 0.0
800 8.07E-04 3.83E-03 0.057694 0.0 1.778 0.000 3.6 3.64 100.0 0.0
700 8.07E-04 4.01E-03 0.053105 0.0 1.628 0.000 7.9 7.89 100.0 0.0
600 8.07E-04 4.24E-03 0.04843 0.0 1.477 0.000 13.0 12.97 100.0 0.0
500 8.07E-04 4.56E-03 0.043548 0.0 1.325 0.000 19.2 19.17 100.0 0.0
450 8.07E-04 4.78E-03 0.040966 0.0 1.249 0.000 22.8 22.84 100.0 0.0
398 8.07E-04 5.07E-03 0.038125 0.0 1.171 0.000 27.2 27.21 100.0 0.0
375 7.62E-04 5.21E-03 0.035959 3.3 1.138 2.581 29.5 29.43 96.0 4.0
350 7.09E-04 5.39E-03 0.033592 7.1 1.105 5.222 32.1 32.14 91.5 8.5
325 6.45E-04 5.61E-03 0.031119 11.4 1.075 7.973 34.7 35.22 86.3 13.7
300 5.75E-04 5.89E-03 0.028633 16.1 1.049 10.401 37.3 38.73 80.8 19.2
275 5.06E-04 6.24E-03 0.026314 21.2 1.027 12.042 39.8 42.64 75.8 24.2
250 4.46E-04 6.70E-03 0.024242 26.6 1.008 12.933 42.1 46.89 71.7 28.3
225 3.95E-04 7.28E-03 0.022415 32.5 0.993 13.297 44.3 51.45 68.4 31.6
200 3.52E-04 8.04E-03 0.020816 38.6 0.980 13.317 46.4 56.27 65.9 34.1
175 3.16E-04 9.06E-03 0.019427 45.1 0.970 13.108 48.4 61.35 64.0 36.0
150 2.86E-04 1.04E-02 0.018235 51.9 0.963 12.738 50.2 66.62 62.6 37.4
125 2.64E-04 1.24E-02 0.017226 59.0 0.958 12.246 52.0 72.06 61.7 38.3
100 2.52E-04 1.55E-02 0.016382 66.2 0.957 11.674 53.6 77.62 61.3 38.7
Gas Condensate PVT – What’s Really Important and Why? 26
C.H. Whitson, Ø . Fevang, and T. Yang
600
Surface Gas
500
Surface Oil
CVD (Reservoir) Pressure, bara
400
300
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Surface Gas and Surface Oil Recovery Factors
0.6
Lean GC Rich GC
0.4
krg
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.1 1 10 100
Vro = Vo / Vt of Flowing Mixture (=Produced Wellstream), %
(Vro not equal to Normalized Oil Saturation !)
100
90
80 RFoV
Recovery of Condensate, % IOIP
70
60
RFoM
50 RFoDx
40
30
RFoD Initial
20 Pressure
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Pressure, bara
100
Recovery of Condensate, % IOIP
80
RFoV
60
40 RFoM
RFoDx Initial
Pressure
=
20 Dewpoint
RFoD
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Pressure, bara
C1 C1 CO2C2 C02C2
C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C1N2CO2C2-C6 C1N2CO2C2-C6
C3 C3 C3 C3 C3 C3
IC4 IC4
IC4NC4 IC4NC4 IC4NC4 IC4NC4
NC4 NC4
C3-C6
IC5 IC5
IC5NC5 IC5NC5 IC5NC5 IC5NC5
NC5 NC5
C6 C6 C6 C6 C6 C6
C7 C7 C7
C7C8
C8 C8 C8
C10+ F1 F1 C9F1F2
F2 F2
C7C8C9F1-F8
F3 F3
F4 F4 F3-F5
F5 F5
F3-F8 F3-F8 F3-F8 F3-F8
F6 F6
F7 F7 F6-F8
F8 F8
F9 F9 F9 F9 F9 F9 F9 F9