PVT sampling and analysis

Chapter 14 : RE herio watt university

 PVT Analysis

CONTENTS

1 SCOPE 12 OIL SAMPLE PVT STUDY

12.1 Separator Tests of Reservoir Fluids
2 SAMPLING 12.2 Fluid Properties at Pressures Above
2.1 Subsurface Sampling The Bubble Point Pressure
2.2 Surface Sampling 12.3 Total Formation Volume of Original
Oil Below The Bubble Point Pressure
3 SAMPLING WET GAS AND GAS 12.4 Differential Liberation Tests
CONDENSATE SYSTEMS 12.5 Calculation of Gas - Oil Ratios Below
3.1 Introduction The Bubble Point.
3.2 Phase Behaviour 12.6 Calculation of Formation Volume
3.3 Sampling Gas And Gas Condensate Below The Bubble Point
Reservoirs 12.7 Viscosity Data
3.4 Separator Sampling Points
3.5 Sample Details 13 GAS CONDENSATE PVT REPORT

4 APPARATUS 14 HIGH PRESSURE / HIGH TEMPERATURE,

HP/HT, FLUIDS
5 RECOMBINATION OF THE SURFACE OIL
AND GAS SAMPLES 15 MERCURY

6 PVT TESTS
6.1 Flash Vaporisation
6.2 Differential Vaporisation
6.3 Separator Tests
6.4 Viscosity
6.5 Hydrocarbon Analysis

7 WAX AND ASPHALTENES

7.1 Wax Crystallization Temperature

8 SUMMARY OF RESULTS PRIOVIDED BY AN

OIL SAMPLE PVT TEST
8.1 Interfacial Tension IFT
8.2 IFT Measurements Methods

9 RETROGRADE CONDENSATION

10 UNDERSTANDING PVT REPORTS

11 PURPOSE OF THE PVT REPORT

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Having worked through this chapter the Student will be able to:

• Describe briefly the scope of PVT analysis.

• Describe the sampling options for oil systems.

• Describe the impact of well flow interruption on the sampling of ‘wet’ and gas
condensate systems.

• List the main items of equipment in PVT analysis.

• List and describe the five main PVT tests for oils systems and their application.

• Be able to use an oil PVT analysis report to determine;

• The gas-oil ratio and oil formation volume factor at the bubble point pressure.

• Determine the bubble point pressure from a set of P vs. V relative volume test
data.

• Calculate oil formation volume factors above the bubble point.

• Determine the total formation volume factors above and below the bubble point.

• Determine the oil formation volume factors and gas-oil ratios for pressures
below the bubble point pressure.

• Explain the two basic PVT tests for gas condensates, constant mass and constant
volume depletion.

2
 PVT Analysis

1 SCOPE

Reservoir fluid analysis provides some of the key data for the petroleum engineer.
The quality of the testing, therefore, is important to ensure realistic physical property
values are used in the various design procedures. As important is the quality of
the samples collected to ensure that the fluids tested are representative of the field.
Clearly, any subsequent high quality testing is of little value if the sample is not
representative.

PVT-analysis of a reservoir fluid comprises the determination of:

(a) the correlation between pressure and volume at reservoir temperature;

(b) various physical constants that enter into reservoir engineering calculations,
such as viscosity, density, compressibility etc;
(c) the effect of separator pressure and temperature on oil formation volume factor,
gas/oil ratio etc;
(d) the chemical composition of the most volatile components.

The physical properties measured depend on the nature of the fluid under evaluation.
For a dry gas, the key parameters are, the composition, the specific gravity, the gas
formation volume factor, compressibility factor, z , and viscosity as a function of
pressure. The isothermal gas compressibility can be determined from the z value
with pressure variation.

For a wet gas, then all of the above parameters for a gas are required. However there
are some variations because of the production of liquids with gas. The formation
volume factor used is the gas condensate formation volume factor, Bgc, which is
the reservoir volumes of gas required to produce one stock tank volume (barrel or
M3) of condensate. The composition, specific gravity and molecular weight of the
produced condensates and produced gas are required. The composition and apparent
specific gravity of the reservoir gas are obtained by recombining the values for the
gas and condensates.

For an oil system, the following information is required; the bubble point pressure
at reservoir temperature, the composition of the reservoir and produced fluids, the
formation volume factor, the solution gas to oil ratio, the total formation volume factor,
and viscosity, all as a function of pressure. The coefficient of isothermal compressibility
of oil. The impact of separation on the above properties. The impact of operating
below the bubble point on the formation volume factor and solution GOR.

For a gas condensate system, properties measured reflect those for both wet gas and
oil analysis. The related property to the saturation pressure for the oil, the bubble
point pressure, for a gas condensate is the dew point pressure. Above the dew point
the compressibility characteristics of the gas are required, and the impact of allowing
the reservoir to drop below the dew point is another important evaluation.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 3

2 SAMPLING

The value to be attached to the laboratory determinations depends on whether the

sample investigated is representative of the reservoir contents or at least of the drainage
area of the well sampled. Therefore, the composition of the fluid entering the well
and of the samples taken should be identical with that of the fluid at all other points
in the drainage area. It is therefore desirable to take samples early in the life of the
reservoir in order to minimise errors caused by differences in relative movement of
oil and gas after solution gas has been liberated.

The taking of samples can be accomplished either by sub-surface sampling or by

surface sampling. There have been considerable advances in recent years in this
area aimed at taking samples under down hole pressure conditions. A brief survey
of these methods is given below, for detailed descriptions of the techniques, which
is outside the scope of this section, service companies providing sample collection
service should be consulted.

2.1 Subsurface Sampling

In this case a subsurface sampler is lowered into the well and kept opposite the
producing layer for a sufficiently long time, Figure 1. Many types of bottom hole
samplers have been devised and described in the literature.

Subsurface samples can only be representative of the reservoir contents when the
pressure at the point of sampling is above or equal to the saturation pressure. If this
condition is not fulfilled, one should take a surface sample. Even at pressures close
to the saturation pressure there is a serious possibility of sample integrity being lost
as a result of the system going two phase during transfer to the sample chamber.

A simple test can be carried out in the field at the well site to find out whether a reliable
sample has been obtained. In this test the sample cylinder is pressurised either by using
a piston cell or using mercury as the displacing fluid. Whereas mercury was the most
common fluid to be used as a pressure transfer and volume change fluid, because of
toxic and other concerns its use is diminishing. From the relation between injection
pressure and volume of mercury injected, the following properties are derived:

(1) the pressure existing within the sampler when it is received at the surface;
(2) the compressibility of the material within the sampler;
(3) the bubble-point pressure of the contents of the sampler.

If two or three samples taken at short time intervals show the same measured properties,
it is highly probable that good samples have been obtained.

In recent years there have been considerable advances on downhole fluid

sampling.

The contents of the sampler are transferred by means of a mercury pump into a high
pressure shipping container. Two fillings of a sampler of 600 ml capacity are usually
sufficient for a complete PVT analysis. In recent years mercury has been replaced
using the application of piston cells by some companies.

4
 PVT Analysis

Subsurface sampling is generally not recommended for gas-condensate reservoirs

nor for oil reservoirs containing substantial quantities of water.

Lubricator To wire line truck

Ground level

Tubing

Packer

Bottom hole sampler

run in tubing
Producing Formation

Subsurface sampling

Figure 1 Subsurface Sampling.

2.2 Surface Sampling

A sample of oil and gas is taken from the separator connected with the well (Figures
2 - 5 give sketches of vertical and horizontal separators and the arrangement for
collecting different fluid samples). The surface oil and gas samples are recombined
in the laboratory on the basis of the producing GOR. Particular care, therefore, must
be exercised in the field to obtain reliable samples and accurate measurement of the
GOR and separator conditions.

In the case of two or three stage separation the samples are taken from the high
pressure separator.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 5

 Gas
outlet
Vertical
Separator
Gauge

Inlet

Sight
Liquid
glass
outlet

Momentum
absorber Guage
Gas
Inlet outlet

Sight Liquid
glass Horizontal outlet
Separator

Figure 2 Vertical and Horizontal Separators.

Sample Vessel

Figure 3 Separator Gas Sampling.

6
 PVT Analysis

Sample Vessel

Figure 4 Separator Liquid Sampling by Gas Displacement.

Figure 5 Separator Liquid Sampling by Water Displacement.

3. SAMPLING WET GAS AND GAS CONDENSATE SYSTEMS

3.1 Introduction
The use and value of any PVT study or other analysis of a reservoir fluid is dependant
on the quality of the sample collected from the reservoir. Many PVT reports show
a variation of results from fluids from the same well. Sampling wet gas and gas
condensate fluids can give rise to errors. During the sampling procedure it is often
possible to alter the conditions such that the fluids sample are not representative of
those within the reservoir, the characteristics of which are being assessed during the
PVT report. It is important, therefore, in sampling reservoir fluids to ensure that the
conditions during which the samples are being taken are not altered to give rise to
false samples.

3.2 Phase Behaviour

The behaviour characteristics of fluids are uniquely described by a phase diagram,
Figure 6. The hydrocarbon mixture with it’s own unique composition will have it’s
own phase diagram and phase envelope. Within the phase envelope the system is in
two phases, whereas outside the phase envelope a single phase exists.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 7

 Liquid Vapour
c
e
rv
cu

t
in
po
le
bb

Dewpoint curve
Bu
uid
Liq

uid
uid
Pressure
0%

Liq
Liq
10
80%

uid
70

Liq

uid
%

ur
80

Liq

o
Vap
uid
%
40

Liq

0%
%

20
d

10
ui

q
Li
5%

Temperature

Figure 6 Phase diagram for a reservoir fluid.

At a particular point within the envelope the composition of each component in each
phase is constant. The separation of oil and gas as predicted by the phase diagram
results in each phase itself having a phase diagram. These phase diagrams intersect at
the separation temperature and pressure, the oil will exist at it’s bubble point and the
gas at it’s dew-point. Therefore, for example, in the separator, gas will be separated
and produce gas at it’s dew-point and the oil separated will be at it’s bubble point.

Gas at dewpoint

Separator

Oil at bubble point

Figure 7 Conditions in a separator.

For a given system, therefore, a change in the temperature or pressure within the
phase envelope will result in alteration of the system and therefore alteration in the
characteristics of the two phases produced. The behaviour just described, therefore,
will have implications on the way samples are taken and on the techniques used to
collect the sample, for example, from the separator.

8
 PVT Analysis

3.3 Sampling Gas And Gas Condensate Reservoirs

The potential locations for sampling these reservoirs are shown in Figure 8, samples
could possibly be taken in the reservoir, at the bottom of the well, at the wellhead or in
the separator. The respective advantages and disadvantages are given in table 1. The
reservoir would be the most ideal sampling point but clearly this is impossible.

4. Separator

3. Wellhead

2. Bottom hole

1. Reservoir

Figure 8 Locations for sampling.

Merits / Disadvantages
Location For Against
1. Reservoir Ideal Impossible
2. Bottom - hole 1- phase Representative?
Technology
Cost
Handling
3. Wellhead Cost 2- phase?
Representative
4. Separator Cost Gas / liquid volumes
1- phase Separator conditions
Buffer Representative?
Sampling
Volume

Table 1 Merits and disadvantages of sampling locations.

The bottom hole sample where the fluid is in single phase, probably, would be an ideal
situation. Present technology, however, is such that it is often difficult to produce a
single phase sample representative of the fluids bottom hole. The necessary pressure
drop to get the fluid from the bottom hole into the sample container can often give

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 9

rise to a two phase situation and an unrepresentative collection of these two phases.
Bottom hole samples are also more costly to collect. The wellhead from a cost point
of view could be the most suitable location point, however, again the question of the
representative nature of the sample is a concern. As a result of the lower pressure
and temperature it is likely that the single phase fluid at the bottom of the well has
gone into the two phase region at the wellhead and therefore the relative proportions
of liquid to gas would be unknown and their sampling would be difficult to produce a
representative sample. The most common sample location is the separator. Considerable
care, however, has to be taken to ensure that the samples taken from the separator are
those representative of the reservoir from which the fluids derive.

The well behaviour can significantly influence the nature and characteristics of the
fluids which eventually arrive from the separator, for example, figure 9 in a flowing
well gas condensate entering the wellbore as it travels to the surface will experience
a drop in pressure likely to give rise to retrograde liquid behaviour in the wellbore.
The flow must be sufficient to lift this uniform liquid and gas fluid to the surface. If
the flow is slow it is possible that some liquid may fall back therefore altering the
overall composition moving up the wellbore.

Gas

Condensate

Flow must be sufficient Condensate

to lift liquid to surface

Gas

Retrograde liquid due to fall

in pressure and temperature

Gas Gas

Condensate

Figure 9 Flowing well.

10
 PVT Analysis

If the reservoir is shut in after flow then considerable changes can rise in the composition
of the fluid in the wellbore. The reservoir gas flowing into the wellbore sets up a
new equilibrium with condensed retrograde liquid which has rained down within the
wellbore. This separation in the wellbore gives rise to a lean gas near the top of the
well with a more than rich mixture at the bottom of the well. Figure 10.

Gas

Condensate

Lean gas

Gas

Retrograde liquid rains

down in the well

Reservoir gas flowing into vicinity

of well sets up new equilibrium
with condensed retrograde liquid. Gas flow

Pressure build up

Condensate

Figure 10 Shut well in after flow

When the well is flowing after a shut-in period, figure 11 and sampling takes place
there will be a variation in the compositions produced at the surface and therefore
unrepresentative samples collected from the separator. For example, in the early
period after shut-in the lean gas at the top of the well enters the separator producing
a fluid with a GOR higher than that representative of the reservoir. As the fluids at
the bottom of the well move to the surface much richer as a result of the liquid having
collected at the bottom of the well fluids they are produced with a GOR lower than
that of the representative reservoir fluid. It is important, therefore, for the well to be
flowed for a sufficient period for all the fluid within the well to have been displaced
and also that in the near wellbore region which also could have been influenced by
the pressure and compositional changes experienced during the shut-in period.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 11

 Gas

Condensate

Lean gas moves

to surface

Higher GOR

Excess liquid in well

moves to surface
Lower GOR

Equilibrium gas flows to

surface richer in heavier
components.

Lower GOR

Figure 11 Well flowed after shut in period

In assessing whether good samples have been taken it is important to know how
long it will take for unrepresentative samples to be displaced from the separator, the
wellbore and the near wellbore reservoir zone. For example, for a 12ft x 5ft diameter
separator with a liquid flowrate of the order of 200 barrels per day, it could take 1
hour to displace an 8.4bbls. If a contaminant enters a separator then the time to reach
1% of the original concentration could be over 4.5 hours. For example, if the tubing
is 4 inches in diameter with a length of 9000ft and an average tubing pressure of
5000psi and a temperature of 170°F and a gas flowrate of 5MM/scf/day, the volume
in the tubing would be 0.23MM standard cubic feet and the time to displace this gas
would be just over 1 hour.

3.4 Separator Sampling Points

A very practical aspect is often ignored in the design of separators and in particular
in relation to the sampling points associated with them. These sampling points are
often located primarily in relation to accessibility rather than the representative
nature of the fluids which can be extracted from them. For example, in the gas line,

12
 PVT Analysis

figure 12a the sampling valve might be located on the lower portion of the valve. It
is likely that entrained liquids in the gas stream could collect at this point giving rise
to a very rich gas composition if these entrained liquids were collected in the sample
containers. Similarly sampling valves in the liquid line figure 12b could be located
on the upper portion of the line any gas which is carried through the line again will
collect in the dead volume of the sampling valve such that when samples are taken
the gas will enter the gas bottle of the container giving rise to an unrepresentative
sample. An alternative would be to locate both of these sampling valves on the side
of the pipe rather than at the top or bottom of the line. Figure 12c.

(a)

Separator
Liquid

(b)

(c)

Figure 12 Location of sampling points

3.5 Sample Details

In taking samples there are some obvious aspects which are often ignored. Clearly
details in relation to the sample should be taken in particular; the date and the time of
a sample, the identification of the cylinder into which the sample is to be collected,
the location of where the sample was taken, the temperature and pressure at which
the sample was taken, details of any other aspects which will be important for those
subsequently handling the sample, for example, the presence of any H2S etc. The
details of the sample including, for example, the gas to oil ratio during the separation
will be transmitted with a sample to the laboratory which will carry out the analysis.
For example, if the sample identification cylinder has not been taken then if sample
details become separated from the sample cylinder then the sample would be wasted.
Prior to any liquid samples being transported to the laboratory it is important to
reduce the pressure within the container to a value below the bubble point to ensure
that a two phase mixture is transported. Very high pressures can occur as a result of
a temperature rise on a single phase liquid sample. Such pressures could go over
safe working pressures of the vessel!

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 13

4 APPARATUS

The apparatus required for PVT analysis consists of:

(a) apparatus for the transfer and the recombination of separator oil and gas
samples;
(b) apparatus for measuring gas-volumes and for performing separator tests;
(c) the PV cell and displacement pumps and dispensing cell;
(d) high pressure viscometer;
(e) gas chromatograph.

Diagrams of the layouts for different systems are given in Figures 13, 14 and 15.

5 RECOMBINATION OF THE SURFACE OIL AND GAS SAMPLES

Analysis

Separator
Viscometer

Trap

Bleed
Oil sample To liquid
Vacuum gage
bottle analysis
To gas
analysis
Gas meter
Displacement
fluid Vacuum pump

PVT cell in
thermal bath

Bleed
Precision pressure
gage Dead weight
Displacement tester
pump

Figure 13 Equipment for the Study of Subsurface Samples

14
 PVT Analysis

Analysis

Separator
Viscometer

Recombination Trap
cell Bleed
Vacuum gage
To liquid
Gas sample analysis
bottle
Liquid To gas
sample analysis
bottle Gas meter

Vacuum pump
Displacement
fluid
PVT cell in
thermal bath

Bleed
Precision pressure
gage Dead weight
Displacement tester
pump

Figure 14 Equipment for the Study of Subsurface Samples

Analysis

9 Trap

Vacuum gage To liquid

11 analysis
To gas
10 analysis
Gas meter

Vacuum pump
3
Gas condensate
cell in thermal bath

Bleed

Precision pressure 4
gage

Figure 15 Equipment for the Study of Gas Condensate Samples

The GOR given by the field refers to the separator tank gas-oil ratio. In order to
recombine the separator gas and the separator oil in the correct ratio, the volumetric
ratio between tank oil and separator oil is determined in the laboratory

85% of the cylinder containing separator oil is occupied by oil. There is a gas cap
on top. This precaution is taken in view of the long transport time and the risk of
great fluctuations in temperature involved.

After the gas cap has been dissolved by pressing water into the cylinder at a pressure
higher than the separator pressure a given quantity of oil is then flashed at pressure
and room temperature through a separator operating under the same conditions as

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 15

the tank in the field i.e. at the same pressure and temperature. The collected tank oil
is weighed and the density determined, after which the volume of oil is known. The
volume and the density of the liberated gas (tank gas) are also determined. From the
above measurements, the tank gas/tank oil ratio is also known. If the volume of tank
oil is lower than the corresponding quantity of separator oil we speak of shrinkage,
in the opposite case of expansion; shrinkage occurs when a large quantity of gas
is produced and expansion occurs when a small quantity of gas is dissolved in the
separator oil. When the shrinkage or the expansion is known, recombination can
take place on a tank-oil basis.

6 PVT TESTS

At this stage we should remind ourselves of the main applications of the PVT data.
The three main application areas are;

• to provide data for reservoir calculations,

• to provide physical property data for well flow calculations
• for surface facility design.

Although all are cited as users of the data, the reservoir calculation requirement has
provided the main driving force for the tests to be carried out. In surface facility
design for example the more simplistic black oil approach around which the PVT
analysis is structured is considered too limiting, and the main data for this application
is the compositional analysis of the fluids.

Over recent years, as the data is subsequently applied to computer based simulation
tools, the ability to handle more complex descriptions of the fluids has led to more
extended compositional analysis, beyond the C7+ limit which was the basis for many
years. It is common practice in some PVT laboratories to measure co-position to C28
and then define a C29+ component

In reservoir calculations the PVT tests and subsequent report provides the source
of the reservoir engineering properties necessary to describe the behaviour of the
reservoir over its development and production. The tests conducted therefore have to
take into consideration the processes going on both above and below the saturation
pressure.

There are four main PVT tests for oil systems plus associated compositional
analysis:

(i) the flash vaporisation or relative volume tests.

(ii) the differential test.
(iii) the separator tests.
(iv) viscosity measurements
(v) compositional measurements.

A simple layout of a PVT facility is given in figure 16.

16
 PVT Analysis

PVT Facility
Valve 1
V1 Ps1
P
L1 Ts1

T Valve 2
V2 Ps2

L2 Ts2
Displacement
fluid or piston

PVT Cell in
temperature
controlled bath

Figure 16 Simple Schematic of PVT Facility for Oil Tests.

6.1 Flash Vaporisation (Relative Volume Test)

By flash vaporisation is meant the determination of the correlation between pressure
and volume of a reservoir liquid at constant temperature (reservoir temperature) from
high pressure to the lowest possible pressure. The gas liberated below the point of
saturation remaining in equilibrium with the oil throughout the experiment. That
is, the system remains constant (Figure 17). The vaporisation process occurring in
the reservoir cannot be duplicated in the laboratory, since in the reservoir below the
bubble point the system does not remain constant as the increased mobility of the
gas causes it to move away from its associated oil.

The flash vaporisation test gives the relationship between P & V of a reservoir liquid
at constant (reservoir) temperature. Liberated gas remains in equilibrium with the
oil.

Gas

Oil

P
Thermal expansion
Hg
V2 − V1
β=
V2 (T2 − T1 )
V1 = volume of oil at T1
V2 = volume of oil at T2

Figure 17 Flash Vapourisation. Determination of the relationship between P & V of a

reservoir liquid at constant (reservoir) temperature. Liberated gas remains in equilibrium
with the oil.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 17

By plotting the volume of the system versus pressure a break is obtained in the slope.
This occurs at the Bubble Point pressure.

To carry out a relative volume test run, the PV cell is set up as in Figure 18.
Valve 1
closed
P

V P

Tres
Pb

Vb V

PVT Cell
Pump

Figure 18 PVT Set Up for Flash Vapourisation /Relative Volume Test

The PVT cell is filled with a certain quantity of reservoir liquid at a pressure above the
estimated bubble point and room temperature. After the PV cell has been filled (about
90 ml), it is immersed in a temperature bath and heated to reservoir temperature.

During heating, it is necessary to maintain pressure by increasing the content volume

of the PV cell. When the pressure remains constant, the temperature in the cell is
equal to that of the bath. The thermal expansion factor (β) can then be calculated
from the volume withdrawn. It is equal to:

V2 − V1
β=
V2 (T2 − T1 )

where:

V2 = volume of the oil at reservoir temperature T2

V1 = volume of the oil at room temperature T1

The thermal expansion factor is expressed, for example, in ˚C-1. The pump reading
taken at the moment when the pressure became constant is the first reading for the
PV curve. The pressure is now reduced by gradually withdrawing small quantities of
transfer fluid from the PVT cell and after each withdrawal equilibrium is established
by shaking the cell. After each equilibration the pressure and the volume are read.
By plotting the pressures against the volumes a curve is obtained showing a break
at the bubble point (Pb). Figure 18.

The saturation pressure or bubble point pressure is that pressure below which gas
is liberated. Hence, a two-phase system is formed, whereas above the bubble point
pressure a one phase system is present (undersaturated liquid).

18
 PVT Analysis

The compressibility of the oil phase above the bubble point can now be calculated
from the graph.

V2 − V1
c=
V2 ( P2 − P1 )

where:

V2 = volume at pressure P2
V1 = volume at pressure P1

The compressibility is expressed in reciprocal atmospheres, psi, etc. After the

reservoir liquid has expanded to its maximum volume (dependent on the capacity
of the PV cell), the gas cap is removed at constant pressure (lowest possible flash
expansion pressure). Volume, density, gas expansion and gas compressibility factor
of the liberated gas are then determined successively.

The main objectives of the flash vaporisation test are to provide the reservoir bubble
point pressure and together with the information from the separator test, the formation
volume factors above the bubble point.

6.2 Differential Vaporisation

When the reservoir pressure falls below the bubble point the process of gas liquid
separation in the reservoir is one of a constant changing system. A PVT process has
been designed in an attempt to provide a means of in part simulating the changing
systems as separation occurs within the reservoir below the bubble point.

The differential vaporisation differs from the flash in that the liberated gas is removed
from the cell stepwise. At each step below the bubble point the quantity of gas, oil
volume, density, gas expansion and gas compressibility are determined. The objectives
of the differential test therefore are to generate PVT data for conditions below the
bubble point. Figure 19 below indicates the differential process.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 19

Gas Oil

Gas
Oil P = Pb P1 < Pb P = P1 P < P1

Gas
At each stage - volume of oil and gas, density and Oil
composition of gas measured. Mercury /
Remaining oil is called RESIDUAL OIL displacing fluid

Figure 19 Differential Vaporisation. In differential vaporisation. At each successive

pressure drop liberated gas is removed.

The bubble point Pb is the starting pressure for the differential test. The next step
is to reduce the pressure in the PV cell by expansion of the PV cell volume. The
reduction of pressure causes the system to go two phase. All the gas phase is removed
at constant pressure by reducing the cell volume as gas is withdrawn. The volume
of the remaining oil is then determined. The cell pressure is then again dropped by
expansion of the PV cell and the above process repeated until the cell pressure has
been dropped to atmospheric pressure. The pressure steps for the tests cover a range
of around 8-10 steps. All the above steps have taken place at reservoir temperature.
The final stage is to reduce the cell to 60°F keeping the pressure at atmospheric
pressure. The final oil volume is measured. This remaining all is termed residual
oil to distinguish it from stock tank oil which although at the same pressure and
temperature conditions has got there by a different process.

The cumulative weight of the amounts of gas withdrawn are used in the calculation of
the densities of the oil phase in the differential vaporisation process. These densities
can also be determined directly if a pressure pycnometer is available.

Differential liberation is considered to be representative of the gas-liquid separation

process in the reservoir below the bubble point pressure.

Flash liberation is considered to take place between the reservoir and through the
separator.

Differential liberation tests are carried out therefore to obtain oil formation volume
factors and GOR’s that can be used to predict the behaviour of a reservoir when the
pressure has dropped below the bubble point pressure.

20
 PVT Analysis

6.3 Separator Tests

The object of these tests are to examine the influence of separator pressure and
temperature on formation volume factor, gas/oil ratio, gas density and tank-oil density.
These tests are not driven by those who will be responsible for the optimised separation
process if the field ultimately is developed. They are carried out to give an indication
of the oil shrinkage and GOR which occurs when the fluids are produced to surface
conditions. It should be emphasised at this stage that there is not a unique value for
the formation volume factor and solution gas-oil ratio. It depends on the stages and
conditions of separation through which the fluids pass.

With the equipment available, a single test or a multiple separation test can be carried
out.

The systems is set up as shown in the schematic below, Figure 20.

Valve 1
V1 Ps1
Pb
L1 Ts1

Valve 2
V2 Ps2

Vres
Tres L2 Ts2

60 F & 14.7 psia

GOR = (V1+V2) / L2
PVT Cell
Bo = Vres / L2
Pump

Figure 20 Schematic of a Two Stage Separator Test

The procedure for the separation test is as follows. The starting point is oil in the PVT
cell at its reservoir bubble point, ie. the same starting condition as the differential test.
Fluid is displaced from the PVT cell ensuring that the PVT cell contents remain at
bubble point pressure. The gas and liquids are collected from the separation stage(s)
and their respective properties measured. The final stage is at stock tank conditions.
The resulting fluid is termed stock tank oil.

A single separator test is carried out by flashing reservoir liquid at bubble point pressure
and reservoir temperature through the separator operating at the average annual
temperature and at pressures which may be expected in the field. The difference in
results when using a single or a double separator is that in the former case the total
gas/oil ratio is higher, the shrinkage is greater and the density of the tank oil is higher
than in the latter case.

The main objectives of the separator test are in combination with the flash vaporisation
and differential tests to provide formation volume factor and solution gas-oil ratios
over a full pressure range above and below the bubble point. In quoting these values
it is important to recognise that the values are separator condition specific.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 21

In the sketch figure 20 oil formation volume factor Bob is equal to Vres/L2 reservoir
volumes/stock tank volumes.

The solution to gas-oil ratio, Rsb, is equal to (V1 + V2)/L2 Standard cubic volume
(SCF or SM3)/Stock Tank volumes (STB or STM3).

6.4 Viscosity
The viscosity is measured at reservoir temperature and at different pressures both
above and below saturation pressure. It is important for viscosity measurements below
the bubble point to generate the fluid for study by a differential mode to simulate the
nature of the fluid that would exist at these conditions.

Viscosity measurements were largely carried out with a “rolling ball” high pressure
viscometer consisting of a highly polished-steel capillary of 1/4" dia. which can be
closed at the top by means of a plunger and is provided at the bottom with a contact
which is connected with an amplifier. A steel or platinum ball rolls in the capillary, its
diameter hence slightly smaller than that of the capillary. When the ball reaches the
bottom, it makes contact between the wall of the capillary and the point of contact,
as a result of which a circuit is closed and a whistling sound is heard. The time of
rolling is a measure of the viscosity.

In recent years the pressure drop along a capillary tube of known length and internal
dimensions has been used. The viscosity being calculated using the Poiselle equation,
the laminar flow pressure drop equation for a pipe of a particular diameter and length.
Although being used it is clearly restricted by operating under a fixed flow regime,
laminar and velocities to ensure that there is a sufficient pressure drop to measure
and not too large to influence physical properties.

6.5 Hydrocarbon Analysis

A hydrocarbon analysis is made of the methane to an upper paraffin fraction of the
recombined surface (or subsurface) sample. Historically this upper limit was C6
and the remainder lumped as a C7+ fraction. C10 . Higher C numbers are now used as
analytical methods enable even higher levels of characterisation. The plus component
having been separated in a distillation column needs to be characterised by its specific
gravity and its apparent molecular weight. The latter is achieved using a depression
of freezing point method. The different components are determined by means of
gas/liquid chromatography. If the description is based solely on paraffins then non
paraffinic components are added to the next higher paraffin.

The value of a higher characterisation is particularly helpful to process engineering

considerations, say up to C30 because at lower temperatures long chain hydrocarbons
will form a solid phase (such as wax) and adhere to surfaces. At reservoir conditions
they are in the liquid phase and therefore do not effect the reservoir flow process.

In some cases the fluids produced in the final separation stage are identified to a
higher C number together with aromatic and napha components.

Compositions are also made of the produced gases from the various tests.

22
 PVT Analysis

7 WAX AND ASPHALTENES

The formation of solid deposits during oil production is a concern. Some heavy
hydrocarbons as mentioned above at low temperatures can form solid phases waxes and
in transfer lines and process facilities. The wax formation temperature is therefore an
important measurement. Ashphaltene, is another solid phase of concern. Asphaltenes
are large molecules largely of hydrogen and carbon with sulphur, oxygen or nitrogen
atoms. Asphaltenes do not dissolve in oil but are dispersed as colloids in the fluid.

7.1 Wax Crystallization Temperature

Different techniques can be used for this. In the following procedure a sample of
separator oil is transferred to a vessel and then pre filtered by passing through a 0.5
micron filter. The crystallisation temperature (WTC) is measured by carrying out a
series of flow experiments where the oil is flowed through a fine filter (15 microns)
across which the pressure differential is measured. Prior to reaching the filter the oil
is flowed through a temperature equilibrium coil at the same temperature as the filter
at a temperature of 140°F. The temperature of the bath is gradually lowered and the
pressure difference measured. A sudden increased in pressure indicates the onset of
wax crystals building up on the filter giving an indication of the WCT.

From this rough indication constant temperature flows are taken at temperatures
just above and below the indicated WTC to give a more precise value. A plot of
differential pressure vs. flow indicates a more precise value of the WTC. Figures 21
& 22 below from a PVT report provided by Core Laboratories (UK) Ltd gives the
plots used to determine the WTC for a separator oil sample.

The appearance temperature is considered to be affected by super coiling, whereas

the disappearing temperature is considered to be the equilibrium valve. There is a
concern that the appearance temperature may not be so accurate as would be the case
for the disappearance temperature.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 23

 60

50

40
Differential Pressure, psig

30

Approximate Cloud Point

20

10

0
75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145
Temperature, °F

Figure 21 Graph of differential pressure v temperature during constant cooling.

(Core laboratories)

24
 PVT Analysis

45

40

35

Differential Pressure, psig 30

90°F
88°F
25
86°F

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Cumulative Volume Flow, cc

Figure 22 Graph of Cumulative Volume Flow Across Filter v Differential Pressure.

(Core laboratories)

8 SUMMARY OF RESULTS PROVIDED BY AN OIL SAMPLE PVT

TEST

The PVT analysis as described above furnishes the following data:

(1) Saturation pressure. ie. bubble point.

(2) Compressibility coefficient

1 dV
c=
V dP (specify unit of pressure change)

(3) Coefficient of thermal expansion

1 dV
β=−
V dT (specify unit of temperature change)

(4) Relative total volume of oil and gas: vt

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 25

 (5) Cumulative relative gas volume: vg

(6) Relative oil volume: vo

(7) Gas formation or gas expansion factor: Bg or E, i.e. volume occupied under sc
(standard conditions) by that amount of gas which occupies unit volume at reservoir
temperature and pressure.

(8) Gas compressibility factor: z defined by pv = zn RT.

(9) Specific gravity of gases (air = 1)

(10) Liquid density: ρ

(11) Viscosity of the liquid phase at different pressures: µ

(12) Oil Formation Volume Factor or Shrinkage factor C, where C = ratio of the
volume of tank oil produced under specified separator conditions and then measured
under sc to the volume occupied by that quantity of oil and its dissolved gas under
reservoir conditions. depends on separator conditions.

(13) Solution gas to Oil Ratio or Gas-solubility factor D = that volume of gas liber-
ated under separator conditions and measured under sc which is held in solution at
reservoir temperature and any particular pressure by that quantity of oil which will
occupy unit volume when produced; depends on separator conditions.

(14) Shrinkage of separator oil to tank oil.

(15) Tank-gas/tank-oil ratio.

(16) Hydrocarbon analysis of the reservoir and produced fluids.

Figure 23 below illustrates the volume relationship of fluids in an oil PVT tests to the
black oil description of volumes in a reservoir. In PVT analysis the basis of reference
is the bubble point, figure 23a whereas for the black oil system the reference state
is surface or stock tank conditions, figure 23c. The relationships between the two
are given in figure 23b.

V V V

Vt Vt B1
Cb

Vo l Vt Vi
Cb Vo I Vt Vi l Bo Bb Bt Bt
I Cb Cb Cb Cb
P Pb P Pi P Pb P Pi P Pb P Pi
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 23 Nomenclature PVT SYMBOLS

26
 PVT Analysis

(a) All volumes relative to oil volume at bubble point

(b) Same as using black oil notations
(c) All volumes relative to oil volume at standard surface conditions

8.1 Interfacial Tension, IFT

Over recent years, particularly with respect to gas condensates, the impact and
importance of interfacial tension has developed.

Research has demonstrated that the IFT between hydrocarbon liquid and vapour phases
has a significant impact on residual condensate saturation and relative permeability.
Although not yet part of conventional PVT analysis the author considers that such
information will in future be required for PVT reports for more fluids where the
conditions are close to critical conditions and when dealing with gas condensates
fluids.

The determination of the interfacial tension of vapour-liquid systems is very important

therefore for these systems where such phase separation occurs in the reservoir. For
these forces will impact on the forces effective recovery, in particular the balance
between gravity forces. Recent research has shown that liquid drop out in retrograde
condensation is not necessarily immobile as previously considered. Recovery therefore
by gravity drainage, when IFT's are low can therefore be significant. IFT's are very
low for those fluids near critical conditions as the value of zero is approached.

8.2 IFT Measurement Methods

The most common approach of measuring IFT has been using the Pendant Drop
Method. In this method the liquid phase is suspended from a capillary tube in a vessel
containing its equilibrium vapour. Figure 24.

Tube
Tip

ds
Gas

de
Oil

Figure 24 Pendant Drop Method For IFT Measurement.

The dimensions of the suspended droplet are controlled by the balance between the
surface and gravity forces. The equation relating the various parameters from this
method is:

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 27

 gde2 L
σ= (ρ − ρ V ) )


Where s = interfacial tension (dyne/cm)

g = acceleration due to gravity
de = equitoral diameter drop
ds = diameter of drop measurement at height
de above the bottom of the droplet
rL, rV liquid and vapour phase densities
l = shape factor, which is r = ds/de

When the IFT is very low, the droplet size is very small which requires an extremely
fine diameter tube to suspend it. A thin wire may be required for such situations. When
conditions are close to the critical point the pendant drop method may not work.
For very low IFT values other methods have been used. A light scattering technique
where the propagation of thermally stimulated waves in a vapour-liquid system has
been used3. A very successful and low cost method was developed at Heriot-Watt,
based on the curvature of the vapour-liquid interface on the viewing window of a
PVT cell4. Figure 25.

Enlarged veiw
Viewing window
of PVT device

Vapour
Vapour

Liquid θ Liquid film

Liquid

Cross section
of window

Figure 25 Rising film method for IFT measurement

The curvature is seen as a dark band of a specific thickness, due to the scattering
transmitted light across the viewing window of the PVT cell. The thickness, of the band
is directly proportional to the IFT. The equation relating the various measurements
and properties is as follows:

gde2 L
σ= (ρ − ρ V ) )

where q = contact angle (assumed zero at low IFT's)
Then s = (rL - rV)gh2/2

It has been applied successfully to IFT values as low as 10-3 mN/m, where it is difficult
to distinguish the vapour-liquid phases.

28
 PVT Analysis

9 RETROGRADE CONDENSATION

In the phase behaviour chapter we described the characteristics of gas condensates,

ie, those reservoir fluids which show the phenomenon of retrograde condensation,
i.e. liquid is formed from a vapour when the pressure is reduced isothermally. In this
case the system saturation pressure is the dew-point pressure (the pressure at which
condensation starts) instead of the bubble point pressure for oil systems.

When studying the PVT behaviour of gas condensates, use is often made of a PVT
cell with a glass window to observe the dew point condition. Over recent years there
has been considerable developments in the types of PVT cells used in gas condensate
PVT measurements. It is not the intention of these notes to describe the different
cells. The key difference between an oil PVT cell compared to a condensate PV cell
is that the latter requires a window to observe the dew point condition.

This is carried out for two reasons:

(a) the dew-point pressure of most condensates cannot be detected by a sharp

change in the pressure-volume relation as the bubble point pressure can;

(b) the liquid phase constitutes only a small part of the total volume in the PV-cell
A windowed cell makes accurate measurement of small liquid volumes possible.

In gas condensates there are large volumes of gas relative to liquid. The liquids
produced are generally small in volume. The relative small amounts of liquid can
yield errors in measurement.

There are three main aspects of a gas condensate study.

• Compositions of gas, liquid and reservoir fluids.

• Constant mass (composition) expansion
• Constant volume depletion
• Specialised tests. e.g. Interfacial Tension Measurements.
• Compositions of gas, liquid and reservoir fluids.

There are different approaches to compositional measurements in gas condensates.

It is only recently that it has been possible to measure the compositions of liquid and
gas phases at reservoir conditions and only now these direct sampling methods have
limited pressure applications. Compositions of condensate phases are often obtained
by blow down techniques and then recombining the compositions of the produced
gas and liquid in the proportion of these two phases. For liquid compositions, the
fluid is flashed at 120°F to obtain gas and liquid components. The resulting gas and
liquids are then analysed by gas chromatography techniques and the compositions
recombined in proportion to the ratio of gas to liquid produced. For gas compositions
gas chromatography is used. The composition of the recombined reservoir fluid
is obtained by recombining the liquid and gas compositions in proportion to the
condensate to gas ratio of the fluids.

Figure 26 below gives a schematic of the two main gas condensate tests.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 29

 (a) Constant Mass Study

Measurement of volume of gas

Gas and oil (condensate) as a function
Vg of preessure.

Dew point when first condensate

Oil Vo appears.
Hg
No fluids removed from the cell.

P = Pd

(b) Constant volume depletion

Gas removed at each step

Pressure is reduced
Gas Gas Gas
below dew point by
Vi V>Vi Vi expanding system.
Oil
Oil Volume is put back to
original volume by
Hg Hg Hg injection of mercury
at constant pressure
and removing some gas.
P = Pd P1 < Pd P = P1
Volume of condensate
measured.

Figure 26 Schematic of constant mass and constant volume depletion gas condersale tests.

There are two basic tests for gas condensates, Figure 26. The constant mass study,
the purpose for which is the z value determination above the dew point and the
determination visually of the dew point pressure. The constant volume depletion test
is carried out in at attempt to examine the potential liquid drop out in the reservoir
by retrograde condensation.

The constant mass study and the constant volume depletion study can be compared
to the flash vaporisation test (relative volume test) and the differential test for oils
respectively.

In the constant mass study, Figure 26, the system remains constant. No fluids are
removed. A portion of the reservoir fluid is charged to the gas condensate PVT cell.
The pressure is raised to that significantly above the anticipated dew point and then
the volume of the gas measured at reducing pressure steps. The dew point is observed
visually as liquid condenses on the PVT cell window. The retrograde liquid build
up is also measured at several pressures below the dew point, although the numbers
have little reservoir significance. Values of the compressibility factors z are obtained
above the dew point pressure.

30
 PVT Analysis

The Constant Volume Depletion, CVD, test is carried out in an attempt to determine
the potential loss of liquids if the reservoir is depleted below the dew point. In the
test the same fluid at reservoir temperature as contained in the cell for the constant
mass test is used. The test consists of a series of pressure expansions and constant
pressure displacements to return the sample to a constant volume. This volume is
equal to the volume of the sample at the dew point pressure. This process is repeated
down to a low pressure.

Starting at the dew point the pressure is reduced by expansion of the cell. Liquids
condense and then gas is displaced at constant pressure until the volume returns to the
original volume. The quantity and compositions of the displaced fluids are determined
using gas chromatography methods. In one approach the produced gas from the cell
are pumped into a pre-weighed flask submerged in liquid nitrogen and condensed.
The condensed gas is then gradually allowed to return to ambient temperature. The
evolved gas and residual condensate are collected separately, weighed and analysed.
These compositions are recombined mathematically to the gas - oil ratio to determine
the produced gas composition. The remaining condensate phase is measured and
expressed as a percentage of the sample volume at the dew point pressure. . The
pressure is then reduced again and the process repeated. A series of relative liquid
amounts are obtained and a liquid dropout curve generated. Figure 27.

Retrograde
condensate

RLV %

Ps

Figure 27 Constant Volume Depletion Liquid Drop Out Curve.

Special tests include the measurement of interfacial tension, described earlier which
has come to be realised an important factor in understanding the behaviour of gas
condensates. Different methods have been proposed including pendant drop and
rising film techniques. The latter method can be carried out as a matter of routine
during the CVD test by observing the thickness of the rising film of the condensate
on the window of the cell. The thickness of this film is directly proportionate to the
IFT and the method can determine IFT values lower than conventional pendant
drop methods.

10. UNDERSTANDING PVT REPORTS

Having considered the various aspects of PVT analysis we will now consider the PVT
report and examine how we can generate the various reservoir engineering parameters
of interest. We will remind ourselves of the reason for the report and then using a
PVT report go through the main tests and interpret the detail.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 31

11 PURPOSE OF THE PVT REPORT

Although the PVT report can be a source of information for a variety of applications
from reservoir, through well to surface facility calculations, the reservoir engineering
application has provided the main basis and structure of the report. The report is
structured to provide the much of the black oil model information together with
limited compositional data. The material balance equation which is covered in a latter
chapter also provides a basis for the PVT report. It is the PVT report which is the
source of much of the data embodied in the material balance equation. Thus, some
of the tabular information is set up to satisfy that need.

The PVT report can be used for a range of purposes; from its use in determining the
potential prospects of a hydrocarbon accumulation to history matching a reservoir
which has been on production for some time. The report should therefore cover all
past, present and future situations which may require calculations. To do this with a
minimum of tables and curves, the data are normalised to a reference state and only
data for the reference state given. In PVT data reporting as indicated in earlier the
reference state is the bubble point. The petroleum engineer must then “work back”
from the reference state to the particular situation.

As described in previously the laboratory tests are carried out in an attempt to simulate
the processes which take place in a reservoir and through the production system.
These will include the flash equilibrium separation of gas and oil in the surface traps
during production and for an oil below the bubble point the differential equilibrium
separation of gas and oil in the reservoir during pressure decline. In interpreting
the data the engineer needs to use both sets of data to provide the information for
reservoir calculations.

The PVT report is clearly specific to a particular fluid, collected from a specific well
under specific conditions. This sample may not be representative of the total field
system and therefore using subsequent reports it may be necessary to to adjust the
data for field application. In a PVT report therefore detail is given as to the manner
of obtaining the sample and the conditions that existed at the sampling time. Also,
the compositional analysis of the sample is given so that equilibrium calculations
can be made for conditions other than studied in the laboratory. In this area there has
been considerable progress in compositional analysis and although the report used in
this section only goes up to C7+ it is now common practise to characterise to higher
C numbers, even as light as e29.

We will now examine two PVT reports. The first is for an oil sample and is commonly
used in textbooks to illustrate the interpretation of a PVT report. The second is a PVT
study on a gas condensate fluid. It should be emphasised that reporting styles vary
from the different service providers. Both reports are provided by Core Laboratories.
Ltd.

32
 PVT Analysis

12. OIL SAMPLE PVT STUDY

The first report is for an undersaturated oil from Texas field attributed to the Good
Oil Company. The report is given at the end of this chapter. Although not covered
in this report there may be a number of data sheets reporting the validation of the
samples used and selected in the PVT report. These sheets would include the various
gas to oil ratios when taking the samples and other information as part of the sample
validation. A text description is usually given to the report describing the various tests
conducted and the principle observations. The source of these principle observations
and calculations will be covered as in the following sections. The pages of the report
often include processed data .

To determine black oil parameters of oil formation volume factor and gas to oil ratios
as a function of pressure, a combination of tables of the report are required.
We will first look at the separator tests the results of which provide the basis for the
Bo and GOR values.

12.1 Separator Tests of Reservoir Fluids

In the separator test, page 7 of 15 of the report, oil at reservoir temperature and the
bubble point pressure in a PVT cell has been carefully displaced from the cell through
a series of pressure and temperature steps. The tests show what quantity of surface
gases and stock tank oil results when one barrel of bubble point oil is flashed through
a certain surface trap sequence. The tabulation also gives the ˚API gravity of the
stock tank oil and, in some instances, the gravity of gas coming from the primary
trap. There are four separate tests reported. The first where the first separation is at
50 psig and 75°F and the tank separation at 0 psig and 75°F, the other tests where
the first stage conditions are at 100 psig, 200 psig and 300 psig. The temperatures
and conditions for the final stage are the same for each test.

Column 1 and 2 give the pressure-temperature conditions of the surface trap tests
that were investigated. These should be specified by the reservoir engineer at the
time the test is planned . A difficulty here is that the engineer specifying to the PVT
service company these separation conditions is unlikely to be involved in the ultimate
optimised surface separation conditions if the field ultimately is developed.

EXERCISE PVT 1.

What is the solution gas-oil ratio and formation volume factor resulting from the sepa-
rator test, at first stage of 300 psig and 2nd stage 0 psig and both at 75˚F ?

SOLUTION.
This exercise illustrate the results using one of these tests, a two-stage separation;
a primary trap operating at 300 psig and 75˚F followed by a stock tank operating at
14.7 psia (0 psig) and 75˚F.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 33

When one barrel of bubble point oil; defined as oil saturated at 2620 psig and 220˚F in
footnote 3, on page 7 of 15 is flashed (processed) through this separation arrangement,
the stock tank has a quality of 40.1˚API (column 5). The formation volume factor
of the bubble point oil, Bob = 1.495 B/BSTO (column 6). This would have been the
volume of oil displaced from the PVT cell divided by the volume collected at the final
stage and then corrected for the thermal reduction from 75˚F to 60˚F. The source of
this bubble point pressure value will be indicated later.

Columns 3 and 4 show the surface gas-oil ratio from the first stage and the tank.
The first stage ratio of 549 ft3/BSTO ( column 4) and the tank stage gas amount to
246 ft3/BSTO. It is important to read the footnotes of the report. Column 3 gives
the results in relation to the volumes at indicated P & T whereas column 4 gives the
volumes with respect to stock tank conditions of 14.65 psia and 60˚F. The solution
gas-oil ratio at bubble point conditions (2620 psig and 220˚F), is therefore Rsb is 549
+ 246 = 795 ft3/ BSTO when flashed through this surface trap arrangement.

If we compare these results for the 50psig, 0psig arrangement we obtain a Bob of
1.481 B/BSTO and a solution GOR of 778 ft3/ BSTO.

Clearly therefore Rsp, Bob, ˚API all vary with the separation pressure-temperature
situation. There is not one unique result. When reporting Bo and GOR data for a
reservoir therefore it is important to report that these are for a specific separation
route or averaged for a series of tests. The latter is not so useful since it is not so
straightforward to calculate the result for a different separation route using VLE
methods.

The results from the separation test are based on the bubble point condition and to
obtain volumetric information at other pressures we require the results from other
tests.

12.2 Fluid Properties at Pressures Above The Bubble Point Pressure

The source of information for calculations for conditions above the bubble point
is a combination of two tests, the flash vaporisation test (relative volume test ) and
the separation tests. The results of the flash test are presented in table 4 of 15, titled
Pressure -Volume Relations at 220˚F.

Remember in this test, the contents of the cell at reservoir temperature have been
expanded and the volumes measured. None of the contents has been removed, the
system has remained constant. In the style presented here the expansion of the fluid
as measured has been plotted and then the intersection of the two slopes of the liquid
phase expansion and the two phase, gas/liquid phases, has been interpreted as the bubble
point pressure and bubble point volume. All the volumes have then been normalised
to this bubble point condition and presented as a relative volume. (column 2).

The first and second columns of the Reservoir Pressure Volume Relations Data on
page 4 give the pressure volume relations of the original fluid at 220˚F. Note that the
data are presented in terms of a unit volume at the bubble point condition.

This flash vaporisation test gives us therefore the reservoir temperature bubble point
pressure, which in this case is 2620psig. i,e the point where the relative volume is
1.0.
34
 PVT Analysis

Column 2 gives the volume of the system at pressure per unit system volume at 2620
psig and 220˚F. These are listed as relative volumes, relative to the bubble point.

Column 3 presents what is called the Y function, this function should provide a straight
line or a slight curve and can be used to pick out anomalous data.

We will now see how we can use the relative volume data to provide us with some
formation volume factors above the bubble point.

EXERCISE PVT 2.
What is the formation volume factor and the density of the oil at the last reservoir
pressure measured.

SOLUTION.
The well characteristics give the last reservoir pressure as 3954 psig. @ 8500 ft: We
obtain the oil formation volume at 3954 psig by multiplying the formation volume
factor at the bubble point by the relative volume (to the bubble point). Why multiply?
Because:

vol reservoir oil vol bubble point oil vol reservoir oil
Bo = = ×
vol stock tank oil vol stock tank oil vol bubble point oil

and the reference bubble point oil volume cancels out. Therefore Boi, the initial
formation volume factor is 1.495 x 0.9778 = 1.4618 when the 300 psig primary trap
is involved. It is a different value if another separation pressure is used. The 0.9778
was obtained by interpolation between 3500 and 4000 psig in column 2.

Reservoir oil density at pressures greater than 2620 psig also make use of the relative
volume data of column 2, page 4. The added information we have is the density of
the bubble point oil. This is given in the summary data on page 3 of the report. We
see here that the specific volume at the bubble point, vb = 0.02441 ft3/lb. This comes
from direct weight-volume measurements on the sample in the PVT cell. We can
now calculate the density, roi, of the initial reservoir oil as:

1 1
ρoi = =
voi voi ⋅ vrel

1
ρoi = = 41.89lbs / ft 3
0.02441x 0.9778

The compressibility of the oil above the bubble point can also be obtained from the
relative volume test. The definition of compressibility is:

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 35

 1  ∂v 
Co = −  
v  ∂p  T

It makes no difference whether the volume units in the equation are relative volumes
to the bubble point, formation volumes, or specific volume values. To evaluate CO at
pressure p it is only necessary to graphically differentiate the p-vrel data in columns
∂v
1 and 2 to get ∂p at the pressure and divide by vrel. A less accurate value can be
obtained by the assumption:

1  ∆v 
Co = −  
vavg  ∆p  T

For example, to get Co at 4500 psig using relative volume values of 500 psi on each
side of 4500 psig:

1 (0.9639 − 0.9771)
Co = −
0.9639 + 0.9771 (5000 − 4000)
2

1 0.0219
Co = = 13.6(10 −6 )vol / vol / psi
0.9639 1000

The report also lists some compressibility numbers on page 3. These are not the
same as indicated above because they are changes in volume (in the pressure interval
indicated) per unit volume at the higher pressure. For example, the value of 13.48 (10-6)
for the 5000 and 4000 psi interval is obtained as:

1 (0.9771 − 0.9639)
−
0.9639 (5000 − 4000)

The compressibility data on page 2 are set up in this manner because of the way they
are used in one form of the material balance.

12.3 Total Formation Volume of Original Oil Below The Bubble Point
Pressure.
In the liquid properties chapter we introduced the total formation volume factor,
Bt. This factor is of little practical significance since it describes the volume of an
oil and its associated gas both above and below the bubble point, when the system
does not change. In reality below the saturation pressure the system changes as gas
and oil have different mobilities. In some forms of the material balance equation
Bt is used however to express oil volumes. We have just seen that to calculate the
formation volume factor of the oil above the bubble point we multiply the bubble
point formation volume by the relative volume given in column 2, page 4. If we
multiply Bob by vrel at pressures less than pb, we also get a formation volume factor,

36
 PVT Analysis

the total formation volume Bt, of the original system. That is at p < pb we will have
two phases and the Bt is the volume in relation to both gas and liquid phases in
equilibrium at pressure p.

One form of the material balance equation makes use of the expansion of the original
oil between the initial system pressure and any subsequent pressure. This expansion
is given by the term:

Eo = N(Bt - Boi)

where N is the initial stock tank barrels in the reservoir and (Bt - Boi) is the expansion
per unit stock tank oil. Eo is, therefore, the expansion (bbl) of the original oil system.
Sometimes we see the expansion equation written:

Eo = N(Bt - Bti)

Figure 28 below illustrates the change of Bt and Bo with pressure over the total
pressure range.

Bt
Formation Volume

(Rsi-Rs)Bg Bti
5.61
Factor - B

Bo
Boi

p pb pi
Pressure p

Figure 28 Shape of Total Formation Volume Factor Bt and Oil Formation Volume Factor
Bo

Above pb it makes no difference whether we consider the formation volume to be a

total formation volume or an oil formation volume.

12.4 Differential Liberation Tests.

Previously we have considered what happens when reservoir fluid comes to the surface
and is separated into surface gas and oil products. In determining what happens in
the separator test we consider it as flash equilibrium conditions because we believe
that the action going on in the separator is essentially one in which the whole system
entering the trap immediately separates into two components - separator gas and
liquid. This constitutes the elements of a flash separation. However as we discussed
in section 6 in the reservoir the separation below the bubble point is different and the
differential test has been devised to to enable calculation of the appropriate volume
factors and GOR’s.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 37

The standard PVT report includes data referred to as “the differential data”. These are
gas solubility and phase volume data taken in a manner to model what some people
believe happens to the oil phase in the reservoir during pressure decline. Basically,
the argument that differential liberation tests model the subsurface behaviour comes
primarily from two things:

(1) the reservoir pressure changes are not violent and large as are the pressure
changes in entering surface separators. The subsurface changes are more gradual
and might be considered to be a series of infinitesimal changes.

(2) because of the relative permeability characteristics of reservoir rock-fluid

systems, the gas phase moves toward the well at a faster rate than the liquid phase.
Of consequence, the overall composition of the entire reservoir system is changing.
These two ideas promote the idea that a test procedure modelled on a differential
process should be used to study subsurface behaviour. Because of experimental
limitations and time-cost considerations the laboratory cannot perform a true dif-
ferential procedure. Instead, they perform a series, usually about ten, of stepwise
flashes at the reservoir temperature, commencing at the bubble point. Of course, the
greater the number of steps, the closer the true differential process is modelled.

The differential data are reported on page 5. Note that the table is headed by the title
“Differential Liberation at 220˚F”. Probably the best way to understand these data
is to explain again the manner of obtaining the values.

To begin with, the laboratory starts with a known volume of the original system in
the PVT cell. This may be of the order of 100-200cm3. The volume at the bubble
point pressure (2620 psig in this instance) is determined accurately as it is a reference
for all subsequent measurements.

c Initial Bubble Point

Volume

2620 psig
b'

c' 2350 psig

200° F
60° F

Pressure

Resudual Oil

Figure 29 Volume Changes During Differential Liberation

38
 PVT Analysis

Referring to page 5, we see that the first pressure step was to 2350 psig. At this
pressure the original system will be in two phases. Its volume would be at b on the
adjoining sketch. Figure 29.

The first step in altering the overall system composition is made at 2350 psig by
removing the gas phase from the PVT cell while maintaining constant pressure.
The quantity of gas removed is determined by collecting it in a calibrated container.
The volume that the gas phase occupied in the cell is determined by the amount of
mercury or non contacting fluid injected during the removal process. Also, the gas
gravity is measured on the sample bled off. The volume of liquid remaining in the
cell is shown at b' in the sketch.

The above procedure is repeated by taking the 2350 psig saturated liquid to 2100
psig (point c) and removing a second batch of gas at that pressure. Again the volume
of the displaced gas in the cell at 2100 psig is determined as is the gravity of the
removed gas. The volume of liquid phase remaining after the second gas removal
step is illustrated by point c' in the sketch.

This process of removing batches of equilibrium gas continues until the cell pressure
at the last displacement is 0 psig. As indicated by the differential data on page 5,
there were ten equilibrium removals, all at 220˚F. The final volume of liquid phase
remaining in the cell at 0 psig and 220˚F is corrected by thermal expansion tables
(or by cooling the cell) to 0 psig and 60˚F. This 0 psig/60˚F liquid is called residual
oil. Note that residual oil and stock tank oil are not the same fluids. They are both
products of the original oil in the system but are generated by different pressure-
temperature routes.

Having now got to residual oil the data obtained are recalculated and presented on
the basis of a unit barrel of residual oil. By the time 0 psig and 220˚F had been
reached, the original system had liberated 854ft3/B residual oil. Column 2 expresses
the amount of gas in solution at the various pressures. This is the difference of the
854ft3 total liberated and the amount liberated between the original bubble point
pressure and that pressure.

It is important to understand why the solution gas-oil ratio determined from surface
flash by taking oil at its bubble point directly to separator and surface conditions
conditions compared to differential removal will be different, although the starting
and finishing conditions are the same. It is because the process of obtaining residual
oil and stock tank oil from bubble point oil are different. The first is a multiple series
of flashes at the elevated reservoir temperature ( the differential test); the second is
generally a one or two-stage flash at low pressure and low temperature (flash tests).
The quantity of gas released will be different and the quantity of final liquid will
be different because the changing composition of remaining liquid at each stage
will influence the distributions of components between the phases. Also, the quality
(gravity) of the products will be different (compare ˚API of residual oil vs ˚API of
stock tank oil). The only thing that will be the same for the two processes is the total
weight of end products.

Column 3 are the relative volumes of the liquid phase measured during the differential
liberation of gas. Note that (per the footnote) these are volumes at pressure p are

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 39

expressed per unit volume of residual oil. Again, these relative volumes must not
be confused with formation factor volumes because formation factor volumes are
specified per barrel of stock tank oil. Note on page 5 that relative volumes start
at 1.000 at 0 psig/60˚F and that the value of 1.075 at 0 psig/220˚F is the thermal
expansion of 35.1˚API residual oil from 60˚F to 220˚F.

Above 2620 psig, the original bubble point, the system remained constant in
composition. Therefore, the relation of the relative oil volume at p to the bubble
point value, 1.600, must be the same as the relative volume in numbers in column
2, page 4 of the report.

The other data on page 5 are differential liberation that refer to the oil and gas phases
in the reservoir at 220˚F. Column 8 shows that the gravity of the gas liberated between
2620 psig and 2350 psig was 0.825. The next batch between 2350 psig and 2100 psig
was 0.818. The gas deviation (compressibility) factor of the first liberated gas was
0.846 at 2350 psig. The oil density at 2350 psig/220˚F was 0.6655 gm/cc.

Now we understand the basic difference between flash and differential data as given in
the standard PVT report, we can calculate flash solubilities and oil formation volume
factors below the bubble point from a combination of the differential and flash data.
It is important to appreciate that there are two separation stages in separating the oil
from its original solution gas when the fluid in the reservoir has dropped below the
bubble point. The drop of the reservoir pressure from the bubble point pressure to
a lower pressure is considered to be by a differential process. The separation of gas
from the reservoir pressure to the surface is then by the flash process.

12.5 Calculation of Gas - Oil Ratios Below The Bubble Point.

If we examine the separator and differential tests there seems to be a confusing result
since the initial and final pressures are the same.

(a) Differential solubility data at the bubble point state (2620 psig/220˚F) and
eleven pressures below the bubble point pressure gives a bubble point value at
854ft3/B residual oil. All fluids at pressures above pb have this amount of gas.

(b) The flash solubility of the bubble point oil for four different surface trap situ-
ations, where these vary from 778ft3/B stock tank oil to 795ft3/B stock tank oil for
a 300 psig primary trap-tank situation. These are shown on the sketch. Figure 30.

The 59 ft3/B difference in values is not experimental error but is a result of the total
differential process of the test. In reality there is only a small differential element
in the early stages of depletion.

The pressure depletion starts at the bubble point and the solution GOR is that from
the flash separator tests. We now need to develop the GOR curve below this value.

We will use the 300 psig primary - 0 psig tank situation and will examine the GOR
for the reservoir pressure of 1850 psig.

40
 PVT Analysis

854 ft3/B residual oil

200°F
795 ft3/B stock tank oil
Differential

Rs ft3 /bbl
Two stage
surface flash

2620 psig

Pressure

Figure 30 Comparison of data from flash differential tests.

EXERCISE PVT 3.
Calculate the solution GOR at 1850 psig using the 300/0psig separator data.

SOLUTION.
Looking at the differential liberation data in column 2, page 5, we see that 242ft3 of
gas has come out of solution, per barrel of residual oil, when the pressure declined
from 2620 psig to 1850 psig. 854 - 684. In other words, we can say that the 1850 psig
saturated oil contains less gas by this amount. If this liquid were taken to the surface
and processed through the traps, it would also show somewhat less gas solubilities
than the 795ft3/B stock tank oil that the bubble point oil shows; but it would not be
242ft3 less because we now have a different oil base.

If we let (∆Rs)diff be liberated gas-oil ratio by differential vaporisation, we can convert

this to a (∆Rs)flash as follows:

(∆Rs)diff = ft3/B Residual Oil (1)

ft 3 B Re sidual Oil ft 3
⋅ =
B Re sidual Oil B Bubble Po int Oil B Bubble Po int Oil (2)

ft 3 B Bubble Po intoil ft 3
⋅ =
B Bubble Po int Oil B Stock Tank Oil B Stock Tank Oil (3)

ft 3
= ( ∆Rs ) flash
B Stock Tank Oil (4)

B Re sidual Oil 1
=
In equation (2) B Bubble Po int Oil 1.600

B Re sidual Oil
= 1.495
In equation (3) B Stock Tank Oil

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 41

 Therefore:

1.495
(∆Rs ) flash = (∆Rs )diff ⋅ 1.600

and
1.495
( Rs )1850
flash
= 795 − ( ∆Rs ) flash = 795 − 242 ⋅
1.600

( Rs )1850
flash
= 795 − 2261 = 569 ft 3 / BTSO

Solution gas to oil ratio at 1850 psi = 569 scf/STB.

For those who prefer equations, this can be generalised as:

Bob
( Rs ) flash = ( Rsb ) flash − ( Rs )diff ⋅ V
b / VR

12.6 Calculation of Formation Volume Below The Bubble Point

Examination of the formation volume factors between the bubble point pressure
and surface pressures also show a distinct difference between the flash tests and the
differential data. This is illustrated by the figure (figure 31). The bubble point state
has a relative oil volume of 1.600 B/B residual oil. We also have the formation
volume factor at the bubble point state, Bob, with a value of 1.495 B/B stock tank oil
(300/0 separator combination).

1.660

Differential 1.495
Volume Factor

@ 200º F
Two Stage
Surface Flash
2620 psig

1.0
Pressure

Figure 31 Comparison of differential data with flash for volume factor volumes.

The result from the separator test is the correct value, since it is based on stock tank
volumes. The differential data is used to calculate the change in this separator value
below the bubble point.

42
 PVT Analysis

We can see that the relative oil volume and the formation volume factor at pressure
p can be related by transferring to the common point - the bubble point.

Let:

V/VR = relative oil volume at pressure p, B/B residual oil.

Then:

B Saturated Oil B Re sidual Oil

⋅
B Re sidual Oil B Bubble Po int Oil

B Saturated Oil
=
B Bubble Po int Oil

B Bubble Po int
= Bo
B Stock Tank Oil

Therefore:

Bob
Bo = V VR .
Vb VR

EXERCISE PVT 4.
What is the oil formation volume factor at 1850 psig.

SOLUTION
At 1850 psig we would have: from page 5 relative volume of 1.479 B/B residual
oil

B1850 1 B residual B Bubble po int

Bo1850 = 1.479 x x 1.495
Bresidual 1.600 B at bubble po int B stock tan k oil

Bo1850 = 1.3819 B / B stock tan k oil

12.7 Viscosity Data

Page 6 of 15 presents the viscosity data for the fluid measured for the oil and calculated
for the gas. It should be noted that the pressure for the data below the bubble point are
the same as those for the differential tests, since the viscosity is also measured below
the bubble point having generated the fluid pressure through a differential process.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 43

13 GAS CONDENSATE PVT REPORT

Parts of a gas condensate report attributed to the Good Oil Exploration and
Production Company is given for a North Sea field. Not all the report is given,
information not included is the sample validation section. Table B1 is the summary
sheet giving information on the reservoir and the sampling details. Table C4 gives a
comprehensive compositional analysis of separator products and the calculated well
stream composition. The table C7 is the compositional analysis of the reservoir fluid
sample. This sample was generated by recombining the separator fluids and then
blowing down the recombined fluid to determine the fluid composition. This provides
a quality check against the calculated well stream composition obtained from the
composition of the separator fluids. Examination of the well stream and reservoir
fluid compositions show they are in close agreement.

The compositional analysis of these condensate fluids is far more comprehensive

than the oil report results. This is because the heavy fraction has a significant impact
on the properties of the condensate and therefore it is important to have the data for
modelling the behaviour of these fluids.

The two key tests for gas condensates is the constant mass test or the constant
composition expansion test and the constant volume depletion test. Table D1 is the
constant composition expansion test. In the oil test the saturation pressure is obtained
by a distinctive change in slope of the pressure volume curves for the single phase
and two phase regions. For gas condensates no such distinct change in slope occurs
at the dew point. The dew point is obtained by observation of the condensation on
the window of the PVT cell. The distinctive nature of the condensation depends on
how near to the critical temperature the fluid is. If the fluid is near to the critical
temperature than the dew point is clearly observed, whereas for those fluids away
from the critical point the dew point is less distinct. Colour changes of the fluid also
occur around the dew point, getting darker as the dew point is approached.

For the constant composition expansion at 275 °F on page D1 relative volume results
are given over a pressure range from 8,000 psi g to 1198 psig. In the same way as
for the oil PVT analysis volumes are related to those at the saturation pressure, the
dew point. At each pressure step not only is the relative volume calculated but also
the compressibility factor, z. The dew point was observed to be at 5454 psig. The
table also records pressure steps below the dew point and down to 4,900 psig the
retrograde liquid volume is also reported. Clearly these values are not of great value
since in the reservoir constant composition does not occur below the dew point
because the system is considered to be changing as immobile condensate separates
from its associated gas.

The constant volume depletion test data is given on D8. In this test a series of
depletion steps have been carried out. Starting at the dew point pressure of 5454
psig the pressure was dropped to 4900psig. Between 5454 psig and 4900 the liquid
proportion was measured. At 4900psig gas was removed at constant pressure until
the volume at the dew point was obtained. A series of further depletion steps were
carried out at 4000, 3100,2200,1400 and 726 psig. At each stage gas was removed
to bring the contents back to the dew point condition volume.

44
 PVT Analysis

The important liquid drop-out curve is presented in the curve on page D9. The dotted
line is the relative volume data from the constant mass test. The curve shows a very
high maximum liquid drop out of 44% at a pressure of 3900psig.

14 HIGH PRESSURE / HIGH TEMPERATURE, HP/HT, FLUIDS

Over recent years as exploration activity has moved deeper into the sub-surface,
high pressure and high temperature hydrocarbon fluids have been found. A number
of these are now being produced providing a number of challenges in production
and design. Conventional PVT facilities do not cover the pressure and temperature
ranges covered by these fluids and special facilities are required. The temperature
and pressure ranges for such fluids are up to 250°C and 20,000 psi.

In order to handle these fluids and conditions and to enable visualisation of phenomena,
like for example IFT, very low volume apparatus are required. The move to Hp/HT
fluids has also put in question some of the physical property prediction methods which
have been based on pressure and temperature data not extending to HP/HT conditions.
An important feature of high pressure and high temperature is the role of water which
in conventional PVT practice is ignored. At these more extreme conditions recent
measurements are showing that the presence of water cannot be ignored because its
presence will contribute to the physical properties of the hydrocarbon fluids.

15 MERCURY

Historically the transfer fluid in PVT tests has been mercury. It has proved to be a
very effective fluid to generate variable volumes in PVT apparatus as well as being
non contamination with respect to the hydrocarbon fluids. Unfortunately health and
safety concerns with respect to personnel exposed to increased levels of mercury,
and it's incompatibility with certain materials e.g. Aluminium, are such that mercury
is being replaced by alternate systems. Such alternate systems are not as simple to
replace the "flexible metal" which mercury has proved to be. Although in these notes
we refer to mercury, the principals are the same, where for example the mercury is
replaced by a rigid piston driven by a safe fluid e.g. Water.

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 45

46
 PVT Analysis

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 47

48
 PVT Analysis

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 49

50
 PVT Analysis

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 51

52
 PVT Analysis

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 53

54
 PVT Analysis

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 55

56
 PVT Analysis

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 57

58
 PVT Analysis

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 59

60
 PVT Analysis

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 61

62
 PVT Analysis

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 63

64
 PVT Analysis

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 65

66
 PVT Analysis

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 67

68
 PVT Analysis

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 69

Solutions to Exercises

EXERCISE PVT 1.
What is the solution gas-oil ratio and formation volume factor resulting from the
separator test, at first stage of 300 psig and 2nd stage 0 psig and both at 75˚F ?

SOLUTION.
This exercise illustrate the results using one of these tests, a two-stage separation;
a primary trap operating at 300 psig and 75˚F followed by a stock tank operating at
14.7 psia (0 psig) and 75˚F.

When one barrel of bubble point oil; defined as oil saturated at 2620 psig and 220˚F in
footnote 3, on page 7 of 15 is flashed (processed) through this separation arrangement,
the stock tank has a quality of 40.1˚API (column 5). The formation volume factor
of the bubble point oil, Bob = 1.495 B/BSTO (column 6). This would have been the
volume of oil displaced from the PVT cell divided by the volume collected at the final
stage and then corrected for the thermal reduction from 75˚F to 60˚F. The source of
this bubble point pressure value will be indicated later.

Columns 3 and 4 show the surface gas-oil ratio from the first stage and the tank.
The first stage ratio of 549 ft3/BSTO ( column 4) and the tank stage gas amount to
246 ft3/BSTO. It is important to read the footnotes of the report. Column 3 gives
the results in relation to the volumes at indicated P & T whereas column 4 gives the
volumes with respect to stock tank conditions of 14.65 psia and 60˚F. The solution
gas-oil ratio at bubble point conditions (2620 psig and 220˚F), is therefore Rsb is 549
+ 246 = 795 ft3/ BSTO when flashed through this surface trap arrangement.

If we compare these results for the 50psig, 0psig arrangement we obtain a Bob of
1.481 B/BSTO and a solution GOR of 778 ft3/ BSTO.

Clearly therefore Rsb, Bob, ˚API all vary with the separation pressure-temperature
situation. There is not one unique result. When reporting Bo and GOR data for a
reservoir therefore it is important to report that these are for a specific separation
route or averaged for a series of tests. The latter is not so useful since it is not so
straightforward to calculate the result for a different separation route using VLE
methods.

The results from the separation test are based on the bubble point condition and to
obtain volumetic information at other pressures we require the results from other
tests.

EXERCISE PVT 2.
What is the formation volume factor and the density of the oil at the last reservoir
pressure measured.

SOLUTION.
The well characteristics give the last reservoir pressure as 3954 psig. @ 8500 ft: We
obtain the oil formation volume at 3954 psig by multiplying the formation volume
factor at the bubble point by the relative volume (to the bubble point). Why multiply?
Because:

70
 PVT Analysis

vol reservoir oil vol bubble point oil vol reservoir oil
Bo = = ×
vol stock tank oil vol stock tank oil vol bubble point oil

and the reference bubble point oil volume cancels out. Therefore Boi, the initial
formation volume factor is 1.495 x 0.9778 = 1.4618 when the 300 psig primary trap
is involved. It is a different value if another separation pressure is used. The 0.9778
was obtained by interpolation bewteen 3500 and 4000 psig in column 2.

Reservoir oil density at pressures greater than 2620 psig also make use of the relative
volume data of column 2, page 4. The added information we have is the density of
the bubble point oil. This is given in the summary data on page 3 of the report. We
see here that the specific volume at the bubble point, vb = 0.02441 ft3/lb. This comes
from direct weight-volume measurements on the sample in the PVT cell. We can
now calculate the density, roi, of the initial reservoir oil as:

1 1
ρoi = =
voi vob ⋅ vrel

1
ρoi = = 41.89lbs / ft3
0.02441× 0.9778

The compressibility of the oil above the bubble point can also be obtained from the
relative volume test. The definition of compressibility is:

1  ∂v 
Co = −  
v  ∂p  T

It makes no difference whether the volume units in the equation are relative volumes
to the bubble point, formation volumes, or specific volume values. To evaluate COat
pressure p it is only necessary to graphically differentiate the p-vrel data in columns
∂v
1 and 2 to get ∂p at the pressure and divide by vrel. A less accurate value can be
obtained by the assumption:

1  ∆v 
Co = −  
v avg  ∆p  T

It makes no difference whether the volume units in the equation are relative volumes
to the bubble point, formation volumes, or specific volume values. To evaluate COat
pressure p it is only necessary to graphically differentiate the p-vrel data in columns
∂v
1 and 2 to get ∂p at the pressure and divide by vrel. A less accurate value can be
obtained by the assumption:

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 71

 1  ∆v 
Co = −  
v avg  ∆p  T

For example, to get Co at 4500 psig using relative volume values of 500 psi on each
side of 4500 psig:

1 (0.9639 − 0.9771)
Co = − 0.9639 + 0.9771
(5000 − 4000 )
2

1 0.0219
Co = = 13.6(10−6 )vol / vol / psi
0.9705 1000

The report also lists some compressibility numbers on page 3. These are not the
same as indicated above because they are changes in volume (in the pressure interval
indicated) per unit volume at the higher pressure. For example, the value of 13.48 (10-6)
for the 5000 and 4000 psi interval is obtained as:

1 ( 0.9771− 0.9639)
−
0.9639 (5000 − 4000)

The compressibility data on page 2 are set up in this manner because of the way they
are used in one form of the material balance.

EXERCISE PVT 3.
Calculate the solution GOR at 1850 psig using the 300/0psig separator data.

SOLUTION.
Looking at the differential liberation data in column 2, page 5, we see that 242ft3 of
gas has come out of solution, per barrel of residual oil, when the pressure declined
from 2620 psig to 1850 psig. 854 - 684. In other words, we can say that the 1850 psig
saturated oil contains less gas by this amount. If this liquid were taken to the surface
and processed through the traps, it would also show somewhat less gas solubilities
than the 795ft3/B stock tank oil that the bubble point oil shows; but it would not be
242ft3 less because we now have a different oil base.

If we let (∆Rs)diff be liberated gas-oil ratio by differential vaporisation, we can convert

this to a (∆Rs)flash as follows:

(∆Rs)diff = ft3/B Residual Oil (1)

ft3 B Residual Oil ft 3

⋅ =
B Re sidual Oil B Bubble Point Oil B Bubble Po int Oil (2)

ft3 B Bubble Po int Oil ft3

⋅ =
B Bubble Point Oil B Stock Tank Oil B Stock Tank Oil (3)

72
 PVT Analysis

ft3
= (∆Rs ) flash
B Stock Tank Oil (4)

B Residual Oil 1
=
In equation (2) B Bubble Point Oil 1.600

B Bubble Point Oil

= 1.495
In equation (3) B Stock Tank Oil

Therefore:
(∆Rs ) flash = (∆Rs )diff ⋅ 1.495
1.600

and

1.495
(R ) = 795 − ( ∆R s )flash = 795 − 242 ⋅
1850
s flash
1.600

(R )
1850
s flash
= 795 − 226.1 = 569ft 3 / BTSO

Solution gas to oil ratio at 1850 psi = 569 scf/STB.

For those who prefer equations, this can be generalised as:

Bob
( Rs ) flash = ( Rsb ) flash − (Rs ) diff ⋅
Vb / VR

EXERCISE PVT 4.
What is the oil formation volume factor at 1850 psig.

SOLUTION
At 1850 psig we would have: from page 5 relative volume of 1.479 B/B residual
oil

B1850 1 Bresidual B Bubble po int

Bo1850 = 1.479 x x1.495
Bresidual 1.600 Bat bubble po int B stock tan k oil

1850
Bo = 1.3819 B / B stock tan k oil

Institute of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University 73