SPE 71726

Effects in the Determination of Oil Reserves Due to Gravitational Compositional

Gradients in Near-Critical Reservoirs
Juan M. Jaramillo, Landmark Graphics Corp. Houston,TX, and Maria A. Barrufet, Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September 3 October 2001.
This paper was sel ected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Several factors, such as gravity, temperature, type of reservoir
fluid, geological structure, accumulation process, etc., may
have important effects on the spatial compositional variation
of hydrocarbon fluids in reservoirs.
Compositional gradients, which may be considerable in
near-critical reservoirs, can have a profound impact on the
estimation of initial in-situ hydrocarbons, the prediction of
oil/gas contact location (OGC), and more important on the
reservoir development strategies.
Some reservoirs have producing intervals with thickness
that cover hundreds of meters from top to bottom, and
sometimes even more than 2,000 meters. Over such a
thickness, due to gravitational segregation, the mole fraction
of the lighter components decreases with depth, while the
mole fractions of the heavier components increase from the
top to the bottom of the reservoir.
Modeling the
thermodynamic behavior of these fluids requires a properly
tuned EOS capable of reproducing the available PVT data and
the gravitational compositional gradation.
We studied a volatile oil from the Cusiana Field in
Colombia. PVT reports consisting of constant composition
expansion (CCE) and constant volume depletion (CVD) tests
were used to calibrate the fluid mo del and the EOS
parameters. We used the Peng Robinson EOS with volume
translation and Whitson's methodology for defining and
characterizing the pseudocomponents.
The result of this study addresses the discrepancies in
original hydrocarbon volumes that take place when the
compositional gradient is not considered. Without considering
a compositional gradient, the original oil and gas in place can

be either over or underestimated depending upon the depth at

which the sample is taken. We show that we can select a
reference sample composition, corresponding to a certain
depth, such that this can be used without compositional
gradient and the estimates of the original hydrocarbons in
place are equivalents to those obtained with compositional
gradient.
We provide guidelines and procedures to evaluate the
effect of isothermal gravitational compositional gradient in the
determination of in-place hydrocarbon content for volatile oil
and gas condensate reservoirs.
Introduction
The effects of gravity upon composition in a static
hydrocarbon fluid column have been studied since the late
1800's when Gibbs[1] provided the theoretical model for
evaluating a gravitational compositional gradient at
constant temperature.
Several investigations [2,3] indicate that the effects of a
gravity field become more significant as the critical point of
the fluid is approached.
In 1980, Schulte[4] evaluated phase equilibrium using a
cubic equation of state rather than the ideal solution model
used by Sage and Lacey.[5] Schulte[4] investigated the effects
that different hydrocarbon characterization schemes have on
the predicted gradient and matched his calculations against
experimental data from the Brent Field. Schulte's results
suggest that the aromatic content of oil can strongly affect the
vertical distribution. Holt [6] et al. investigated the effect of
temperature on compositional variations, however, his
formulations include gravity and temperature independently.
Creek[7] et al. presented a case study of gravitational
compositional grading in a field. Jacqmin [8] discussed the
effect of natural convection and diffusion segregation due to
gravity and showed that the combined effects may result in
significant variation of compositions in both horizontal and
vertical directions. Hamoodi[9] et al. discussed a field case
which exhibited both areal and vertical compositional
variation. Bedrikovetsky [10] used irreversible thermodynamics
to present a comprehensive discussion and the formal
mathematical treatment of compositional gradient including
gravitational and thermal effects; in 1994 Faissat[11] et al. also
provided a theoretical discussion of the equilibrium

JUAN M. JARAMILLO AND MARIA A. BARRUFET

formulation considering gravitational and thermal field effects

for a binary system.
The topic of compositional gradient has attracted the
attention of many researchers whose theoretical study has
paved the way for further research on this topic. For practical
reservoir engineering applications, if a significant
comp ositional gradient occurs, what role will it play? To what
extent will compositional gradient affect reservoir production
strategies? No early papers clearly answer this important
field-related question. Therefore, the main purpose of this
paper is to investigate the effects of a gravity-induced
compositional gradient upon these practical issues.
Equilibrium Criteria In a Gravitational Field
The thermodynamic expression for work in a multicomponent
system under a gravitational field must include not only the
term representing expansion (or compression) by the system
on the surroundings, but also the work associated with
displacing a differential amount of mass (dmi ) in the vertical
direction (h). Therefore the Gibbs free energy under a
gravitational field as given by Firoozabadi [12] is
Nc

dG = -SdT + VdP + mgdh + ( i + Mwi hg )dni ..............(1)

i =1

At equilibrium, dG must vanish. Pressure and position (z) are

related through the hydrostatic equation as
VdP + mgdh = 0 ....................................................................(2)
or
dP = gdh . .........................................................................(3)
For an isothermal system
dT = 0 , ................................................................................. (4)
and equation (1) becomes

(i + Mwihg )T

=0

i = 1,..., Nc ............... (5)

SPE 71726

This table is being generated separately from an equation of

state (EOS) using compositions at a reference depth, the
reservoir temperature, and top and bottom coordinates of
the reservoir.
The effect of thermal diffusion may be to enhance, reduce,
balance or completely reverse the compositional gradients
calculated by a model based on isothermal gravity/chemical
equilibrium. Firoozabadi[13] et al. provide a detailed analysis
of the main factors, such as natural convection and thermal
diffusion, that affect compositional gradients.
Reservoir Fluid Samples and Characterization
The reservoir fluid samples used were from Cusiana Field in
Colombia, and Brunal[14] reported the experimental PVT tests
which were taken by commercial laboratories. Sector
simulation models were constructed using reservoir
parameters from the Cusiana Field and relative permeabilities
from the third SPE[15] case study.
Fig. 1 presents a schematic cross-section of the Mirador
formation where the samples were taken. Cusiana Field can be
divided into three separate thermodynamic systems, which
correspond to three different lithostratigraphic formations. The
formation analyzed in this work is named Mirador and fluid
samples at this location are labeled with the prefix M.
Samples Oil M1, Oil M2 and Gas M1 were taken from the
same well (Well Buenos Aires-1) and samples Gas M2 and
Gas M3 belong to another well (Well Cusiana-2A). These
wells are separated by approximately 6.7 km. Because of the
depth of the reservoir, between 12,000 and 14,000 ft, pressures
are very high, ranging from 5,000 to 6,100 psia. Pressure
gradients vary gradually from the top of the retrograde gas
zone (0.165 to 0.172 psi/ft) to the bottom of the volatile oil
zone (0.219 psi/ft).
We performed a sector simulation to analyze the depletion
process for a volatile oil reservoir, a gas condensate reservoir
and a volatile oil/gas condensate reservoir; therefore we used
samples Oil M2 and Gas M1, which are close to the oil /gas
contact located at 12,950 ft into the Mirador formation.

This expression provides the Gibbs sedimentation equation

(di + Mwi gdh)T

=0

i = 1,..., Nc ...........(6)

Expressing the chemical potential in terms of fugacities

(di = RTd ln f i )T , and integrating from a reference depth of
zero to h gives
Mwi
o
fi = f i exp
gh
RT

Pressure
(psia )

C-2A

Depth
(ft)
12000

5700
Gas M3
Fluid

5870

Gas M2
ation
Form
or
Mirad

Gas M1

Oil M2

i = 1,..., Nc ............(7)

Equation (7) provides the fugacity coefficient of comp onent i

in a given phase as a function of vertical position, given the
pressure and compositions at a reference point (depth).
Therefore, a system of Nc equations must be solved to
determine compositions and pressure as a function of depth.
Reservoir simulators have recently added the feature of
declaring fluid compositions versus depth in a tabular form.

BA-1

13000

OGC 12950 ft

Oil M1
6150

Fig. 1 Schematic cross-section. Mirador formation.

14000

EFFECTS IN THE DETERMINATION OF OIL RESERVES DUE TO GRAVITATIONAL

COMPOSITIONAL GRADIENTS IN NEAR-CRITICAL RESERVOIRS

Sample Oil M2 is a volatile oil fluid, with 59.2 mole % of

C1 and 16.6 mole % of C7+, while sample Gas M1 is a
retrograde condensate gas fluid, with 69 mole % of C1 and 8.2
mole % of C7+. The chromatographic analysis for these two
fluids indicated 33 components and a C30 + fraction. The
experimental data for sample Oil M2 consisted of a constant
composition expansion test (CCE) with 26 stages, and a
constant volume depletion test (CVD) with 11 stages, both at
256F. For Gas M1 we had a CCE test at 254F with
30 stages.
These two samples, close to the critical region, were
selected to characterize the fluid, calibrate the EOS, and
perform the compositional simulation runs.
We analyzed the effects of a non-isothermal reservoir by
obtaining the compositional gradient at different temperatures,
corresponding to the thermal gradient observed in Cusiana,
and by comparing the distributions of lighter and heavier
fractions versus depth at these temperatures.
Development of the Fluid Model
Reservoir simulation studies with an extended hydrocarbon
description are impractical, costly, and time prohibitive. A
common practice is to reduce the number of components by
grouping them while still maintaining an adequate description
of phase equilibria and volumetric properties. The EOS with
the smaller number of pseudo-components must achieve the
same, or acceptable, accuracy in all PVT properties.
Therefore, this problem requires rules such as how to select
the number of pure components to be lumped in each
pseudocomponent and what mixing rules to use to determine
the EOS parameters for the new pseudocomponents.
We based our lumping using Whitson [16] methodology, and
ended up with six hydrocarbon groups and CO2 . Usually CO2
is grouped with ethane, but we left it alone to analyze the
effect of injecting this gas in the recovery of the field (Guerra
[17]
). The pseudocomponents were defined as two pseudogases g1 and g2; a gasoline group, g3 and three pseudo-heavy
fractions, g4, g5 and g6.
The critical properties and the acentric factors for the
pseudo components were defined using molar mixing rules
and the procedures of Pedersen et al. [18] and Edmister.[19]
Calibration of the EOS. We selected the Peng Robinson[20]
equation of state with volume translation to improve
volumetric predictions as proposed by Peneloux et al.[21] and
Jhaveri and Yougren.[22] Experimental data from the CCE and
CVD tests were used to calibrate the EOS.
Since the fluids selected belong to the same reservoir, the
calibrated EOS should be able to track the variation of
saturation pressures and compositions with depth.
Because the saturation pressures and the liquid saturation,
or liquid dropout, dominate the reservoir behavior during
depletion, calibration of the EOS was weighted towards these
two properties.
Binary interaction coefficients (kij ) were used to tune the
saturation pressure, while the liquid saturation was matched by

adjusting shift parameters (s) and acentric factors (). We

also adjusted the critical properties for the heaviest group
since these are the most uncertain.
We obtained better results when the EOS was calibrated
with the volatile fluid (sample Oil M2). Therefore, we selected
this as the reference fluid for the rest of the simulations.
Table 1 shows the molar composition and the molecular
make up of the pseudocomponents used for sample Oil M2.
TABLE 1 PSEUDO-COMPONENTS FOR SAMPLE OIL M2

Group

Components

Molar Fraction

CO2
g1
g2
g3
g4
g5
g6

CO2
C1-N2
C2-C3
C4-C6
C7-C12
C13-C19
C20+

0.04104
0.59803
0.13593
0.05942
0.08510
0.04854
0.03194

Validation of the Tuned EOS. This section illustrates some

of the experimental and calculated properties for both samples
after tuning the EOS.
Fig. 2 shows the observed and predicted relative volumes
from the EOS for the CCE experiment performed on the
sample Oil M2. The average error was 0.2 % with a maximum
error of 0.4%, the maximum error for the liquid densities for
the same test was 0.9%.
1.8
Calculated PR EOS
1.7
Observed
1.6
1.5
Relative Volume

SPE 71726

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Pressure, psia

Fig. 2 Observed and calculated relative volume from a CCE at

256F for Oil M2 with the tuned EOS.

Fig. 3 shows the observed and predicted liquid saturations for

the CCE experiment at 256o F (errors were less than 2%).
Fig. 4 shows the performance of both equations (M2) and
(M1) to predict the compositions of C1 -N2 with depth. We
observed that the oil equation was better at matching the

JUAN M. JARAMILLO AND MARIA A. BARRUFET

experimental compositions, with the lightest and the heaviest

components experiencing the most-pronounced effect.
1.1
Predicted

SPE 71726

correspond to the Cusiana Field. Fig. 5 indicates that for this

fluid, and for a hydrocarbon column less than 2,000 ft, the
effect of temperature upon its vertical distribution
is negligible.

1.0
Observed
12000
12200

0.8
Depth below sea level, feet

Liquid Saturation, fraction

0.9

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
2,000

12400

260F
256F
254F
252F
249F
OGC (12950 ft)

12600
12800
13000
13200

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Pressure, psia

Fig. 3 Observed and predicted liquid saturation using tuned PR

EOS for CCE at 256F Sample Oil M2.

13400
0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

Molar composition, fraction

Fig. 5 C1-N2 compositional gradient for various temperatures.

The dashed line in Fig. 5 corresponds to where the oil/gas

contact was defined. Below the OGC the fluid is a volatile oil,
while above is a gas condensate. Notice that the pay zone is
about 1,200 foot.

12000
Oil M2
Gas M1

12200

Observed
Depth below sea level, ft

12400

12600

12800

13000
13200

Compositional gradient for

C1-N2 at 256F

13400
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Molar Composition, fraction

Fig. 4 C1-N2 compositional gradient calculated from Oil M2 and

Gas M1 tuned PR EOS at 256F.

The properties predicted with the EOS tuned with the gas
condensate sample had larger errors than those obtained with
the EOS tuned to the volatile oil (i.e. error in saturations were
about 15%). The problems with sample Gas M1 can be
attributed to two reasons: First, the data may not be of the
same
quality,
and
second,
the
grouping
into
pseudocomponents should probably be different for volatile
oil and for gas condensate. This is an issue that should be
investigated in future studies.
The temperature effect upon the gravitational gradient was
evaluated by calculating and plotting the vertical
compositional gradient at 249F, 252F, 254F, 256F and at
260F with the oil-tuned PR EOS. The temperatures used

Sector Compositional Simulation

We simulated three different sectors, which are either close to
or contain the oil gas contact, OGC (12,950 ft). The first
sector is named "Volatile Oil Reservoir" and it was selected to
observe the performance of a volatile oil reservoir below to
the OGC. This reservoir exhibits a bubblepoint and is 100%
liquid phase at initial conditions.
The second sector simulation model is referred to as "Gas
Condensate Reservoir" and it was located just above the oil
gas contact, OGC (12,950 ft). This sector was selected to
analyze the performance of a gas condensate reservoir. This
reservoir exhibits a dewpoint and is 100% gas phase at initial
conditions. In addition, we constructed a third sector model,
which combines the two sectors mentioned above. This sector
is called "Two-Phase Reservoir" and the oil gas contact OGC
(12,950 ft) is included in this reservoir. This reservoir exhibits
oil and gas phases at initial conditions. Fig. 6 illustrates these
sector models.
To evaluate the effect of grid size upon depletion, the
vertical grid was either coarse (50 ft), medium (16.66 ft), or
fine (10 ft). The thickness of the three reservoirs was 250 ft.
Tabl e 2 shows the permeabilities used for the 5-layer
reservoirs. The porosity for all layers was 13%. Fig. 7 shows
the number of grids used and the location of the
produced well.

EFFECTS IN THE DETERMINATION OF OIL RESERVES DUE TO GRAVITATIONAL

COMPOSITIONAL GRADIENTS IN NEAR-CRITICAL RESERVOIRS

SPE 71726

Compositional Simulation Sectors

Coarse Grid (9x9x5)
Top 12680 ft
x-direction

Producer Well

Two Phase
Top 12970 ft

y-direction

z-direction

Gas Condensate
Reservoir

Top 12825 ft

Bottom 12930 ft

Reservoir
Medium Grid (9x9x15)
Producer Well

x-direction

Bottom 13075 ft

Bottom 13220 ft

y-direction

OGC 12950 ft

z-direction

Volatile Oil
Reservoir

Fig. 6 Spatial location of the three reservoir sectors.

Fine Grid (9x9x25)

Medium
Grid
Layer

Fine
Grid
Layer

Kx=Ky
(md)

Kz
(md)

1
2
3
4
5

1, 2, 3
4, 5, 6
7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12
13, 14, 15

1, 2, 3, 4, 5
6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15
16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25

130
40
150
20
140

13
4
15
2
14

For all the reservoir types the initial reservoir pressure was
5,876 psia at 12,985 ft. The initial reservoir temperature was
256F and it was considered constant over the entire reservoir.
Simulation Cases
Simulation runs were designed to analyze the effects of
refining the vertical grid, the location of the well completions,
and the inclusion or not of the compositional gradient upon the
liquid production. We observed that the discrepancies in the
estimation of oil and gas in place when the compositional
gradient was ignored depended upon the location (and
composition) of the reference sample. Therefore, we
investigated a procedure to select a priori a fluid composition
and depth that provides equivalent results without including a
compositional gradation. We simulated all the cases only
under a depletion scenario. We did not include either gas or
gas cycling injection because either by itself would represent a
separate study.
In all the sectors we included a producer well located at
cell 5,5 in all the grids. We analyzed three ways to complete
the producer well. First, all the layers producing; second, just
the upper 40% of the layers producing; and third, just the
lower 40% of the layers producing.

z-direction

Coarse
Grid
Layer

x-direction

y-direction

Producer Well

TABLE 2. PROPERTIES OF THE GRIDS USED

Fig. 7 Schematics of the reservoirs used

Original Oil and Gas Volumes

From each initialization we obtained the original gas and oil in
place at surface conditions. Table 3 summarizes the original
volumes in place (oil and gas) for the volatile oil, the gas
condensate and the two-phase reservoirs with and without
compositional gradation.
Both the original oil volume and the original gas volume
were essentially the same for all the grid cases. As expected,
the size of the z-grid does not affect the hydrocarbon volume
calculations. However, the size of the vertical grid affects the
recovery predictions once the reservoir is set into production.
If we compare the original hydrocarbon volumes with and
without vertical compositional gradation, there were
significant differences as indicated in Fig. 8 and 9. If we
assume as correct the volumes evaluated with the
compositional gradient, we noted that for the volatile oil
reservoir not including the compositional gradient the original
oil volume would be underestimated by about 12 %, while the
original gas volume would be overestimated by about 9.40%.

JUAN M. JARAMILLO AND MARIA A. BARRUFET

TABLE 3 ORIGINAL HYDROCARBON VOLUMES FOR

THE THREE RESERVOIRS

Volatile Oil

SPE 71726

Gas Condensate

Two-Phase

15%
C - Coarse Grid

Volatile Oil Reservoir

Original Oil Volume
(MMstb)
14.619742
16.64119

Original Gas Volume

(MM Mscf)
36.379911
33.270291

Gas Condensate Reservoir

Compositional
Gradient
No
Yes

Original Oil Volume

(MMstb)
14.544608
9.452134

Original Gas Volume

(MM Mscf)
36.192947
42.887076

Original Oil Volume

MMstb)
13.309239
13.616491

Original Gas Volume

(MM Mscf)
38.042961
37.577882

For the gas condensate reservoir, the oil volume would be

overestimated by about 54 % while the gas volume would be
underestimated by about 15.60%. For the two-phase reservoir
there would be a compensation and the amounts would be just
about right (+/- 1%). However, taking a sample at just this
location may not always be feasible.
The effect of well completion location, as expected, has a
profound effect on the hydrocarbon recovery. For all the cases
we set the production to be controlled by the same amount of
gas production (5,000 MSCF/day), and when this rate cannot
be sustained, controlled by a min imum bottomhole pressure of
500 psia.
Fig. 10 shows the cumulative oil production over 15 years
of production for the volatile oil reservoir. The plot at the top
shows when all the layers were completed, the middle when
40% of the top interval were completed, and the bottom when
the bottom layers (40%) were completed for the fine grid.
Volatile Oil
60%

Gas Condensate
C

Two-Phase
C - Coarse Grid
M- Medium Grid

50%

F - Fine Grid

Volume variation, %

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
C

-10%
C

M- Medium Grid
F - Fine Grid

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%
C

-20%

Two-Phase Reservoir
Compositional
Gradient
No
Yes

5%
Volume variation, %

Compositional
Gradient
No
Yes

C
10%

-20%

Fig. 8 Variation of initial oil volume when CG was not included

Fig. 9 Variation of initial gas volume when CG was not included

As expected, the upper part of the reservoir contains a

lighter hydrocarbon fluid and this is translated into a lower oil
production; conversely, at the bottom a larger amount of oil is
produced while still producing the same amount of gas. When
all the layers are completed, the oil production is somewhere
in between. Fig. 10 also shows the effect of including or
ignoring the gravitational gradient. If we consider as correct
the oil production when the gravity gradient is included, Fig.
11 summarizes the underestimation in oil volumes produced
for the volatile oil reservoir as well as the effect of grid
coarsening. It can be observed that there are minor diffe rences
between the fine and the medium grid, while the coarse grid
for this particular reservoir size yields differences of about
3%. A similar analysis was done for the other two reservoir
sectors. Fig. 12 indicates that the oil recoveries for the gas
condensate reservoir were too optimistic when the gradient
case is taken as the correct one. The oil recoveries would be
too optimistic with over- predictions as high as 135%. The
effect of grid coarsening is also more pronounced in this case
with differences between coarse and fine grid as high as 30%.
For the two-phase reservoir results are not as dramatic, but
again, it is unlikely to have samples just at the right location.

EFFECTS IN THE DETERMINATION OF OIL RESERVES DUE TO GRAVITATIONAL

COMPOSITIONAL GRADIENTS IN NEAR-CRITICAL RESERVOIRS

SPE 71726

All Layers

6.0E+06

Upper Layers

Lower Layer

160%

All Layers Completed

Compositional Gradient

C - Coarse Grid
140%

5.0E+06

M- Medium Grid

F - Fine Grid
120%

4.0E+06
3.0E+06
2.0E+06
All Layers Completed
Without Compositional Gradient

1.0E+06

Overestimation, %

Cummulative Oil Prod., STB

7.0E+06

100%
80%

60%
40%

0.0E+00
0

8
10
Time, years

12

14

16

20%

0%

Upper Layers Completed

Compositional Gradient

2.5E+06

Fig. 12 Overestimation of the cumulative oil production volume

when not using the compositional gradient for the gas
condensate reservoir.

2.0E+06
1.5E+06
1.0E+06
Upper Layers Completed
Without Compositional Gradient

5.0E+05
0.0E+00
0

8
10
Time, years

12

14

16

9.0E+06
Lower Layers Completed
Compositional Gradient

Cummulative Oil Prod., STB

8.0E+06
7.0E+06
6.0E+06
5.0E+06
4.0E+06
3.0E+06
2.0E+06

Lower Layers Completed

Without Compositional Gradient

1.0E+06
0.0E+00
0

8
10
Time, years

12

14

Selection of Reference Sample Composition

The differences in oil production and in the OOIP and OGIP
depend upon where the reference sample composition was
taken and the size of of both reservoirs (oil and gas).
Depending upon the reference sample composition, oil and gas
in place predictions could be over or underestimated.
Therefore, we investigated a procedure to select the optimum
reference sample composition that would provide equivalent
results without using a table of compositions versus depth.
Here we present only the results for the volatile oil reservoir.
Fig. 13 shows the predicted OOIP and OGIP using different
reference sample compositions at the depths indicated in the xaxis. This figure also shows the correct OOIP and OGIP
determined by using compositional gradation. The
compositions versus depth were determined from the
thermodynamic relations indicated by the Gibbs
sedimentation equations.

16

19.00

Fig. 10 Cumulative oil production for three different well

completions, using fine grid, with and without CG (Volatile oil
reservoir).
Upper Layers

C
25%

C - Coarse Grid

Lower Layer
C

M- Medium Grid
F - Fine Grid

18.00

OOIP (MMSTb)

All Layers
30%

38.00
OOIP
OGIP

True OOIP
True OGIP
36.00

17.00
34.00
16.00
32.00

15.00
Underestimation, %

OGIP (MMM SCF)

Cummulative Oil Prod., STB

3.0E+06

20%

14.00
12950

15%

13050

13100

13150

13200

30.00
13250

Depth (ft)

10%

5%

13000

0%

Fig. 11 Underestimation of the cumulative oil production when

not using the compositional gradient for the volatile oil reservoir.

Fig. 13 Variation of Oil and Gas in Place for a Volatile Reservoir

when CG is not Included as a function of reference depth sample

The objective is then to select a reference fluid composition

such that we can predict the same OOIP and OGIP without
having to use a CG. The procedure used was to generate a

JUAN M. JARAMILLO AND MARIA A. BARRUFET

table of compositions versus depth using the interval of

interest. Fig. 14 shows the compositional variation for
pseudocomponents C1 -N2 . The trend for all the pseudo
components, except for C4 -C6 , could be fitted with a cubic
polynomial with correlation coefficients greater than 0.999.
Fig. 15 shows the variation versus depth for C4 -C6 .
We used the mean value theorem and determined the
average depth corresponding to Fig. 13. We repeated this
procedure for all the pseudocomponents (except C4 -C6 ) and
selected the average of all the average depths. Table 4
indicates the coefficients used for the cubic polynomials and
the average depth obtained using the mean value theorem as
follows:

SPE 71726

12,970
C4-C6
13,020

Depth, ft

13,070

13,120

13,170

13,220

ci ,top

0.0590

0.0591

0.0592

h( ci )dci

hi =

c i,bottom

(c

top

0.0593

0.0594

0.0595

0.0596

0.0597

Molar Composition

cbottom

) , ............................................................. (8)

The functional form of h i (c i) was a cubic polynomial and

the coefficients are indicated in Table 4. Once the average
depth was selected, we calculated the compositions
corresponding to this depth and performed the simulations
with this composition. Table 4 also indicates the OOIP and
OGIP obtained with this reference composition. It can be
observed that the deviation from the case in which CG is
considered are negligible.

12,970

Fig. 15 Compositional Gradient for C4-C6. Reference depth is at

12985 ft
TABLE 4 SELECTION OF REFERENCE SAMPLE DEPTH AND
PREDICTIONS OF OOIP AND OGIP WITH COMPOSITIONAL
GRADIENT (CG) AND WITH EQUIVALENT SAMPLE
COMPOSITION (e).
Compositions at Top (T) and Bottom (B) of the formation
T = 12985 ft , B = 13219 ft
C1-N2

CO2

C2-C3

C7-C12

C13-C19

C20+

0.598

0.041

0.136

0.085

0.049

0.032

0.550

0.040

0.134

0.097

0.065

0.056

C1-N2

Coefficients in polynomial

Depth, ft

13,020

hi ( ci ) = a3 ci 3 + a 2 ci 2 + a1ci + a o

13,070

(ci = compositions)

13,120

C1-N2

13,170

y = - 3 0 1 7 3 0 x + 576601x
R

- 368317x + 91568

=1

13,220
0.54

0.55

0.56

0.57

0.58

0.59

0.60

0.61

Molar composition

Fig. 14 Compos itional Gradient for C1-N2. Reference depth is at

12985 ft

CO2

C2-C3

C7-C12

C13-C19

C20+

a3

-3.02E+05

-1.39E+10

5.48E+07

a2
a1

5.77E+05

1.76E+09

-1.37E+07 -1.35E+06

-3.68E+05

-7.44E+07

-1.14E+05 1.16E+06

6.03E+04

-5.44E+03

a0

9.16E+04

1.06E+06

2.85E+04 -1.97E+04

1.20E+04

1.30E+04

Depth
(ft)

13079.47

13080.73

13101.01 13073.82

1.11E+07

13078.29

-2.93E+05
1.91E+05

13087.02

Reference Composition at Average Depth = 13083 ft

OOIP(CG)
(MMstb)

16.6412

OGIP(CG)

OOIP(e)

OGIP(e)

OOIP% OGIP%

(MM Mscf) (MMstb) (MM Mscf)

33.2703

16.6365

33.3103

0.18

-0.040

SPE 71726

EFFECTS IN THE DETERMINATION OF OIL RESERVES DUE TO GRAVITATIONAL

COMPOSITIONAL GRADIENTS IN NEAR-CRITICAL RESERVOIRS

Nomenclature
CCE = constant composition expansion test
CG = compositional gradient
CVD = constant volume depletion test
EOS = equation of state
G = Gibbs energy (BTU/lb-mol)
OGC = Oil Gas Contact
OGIP = Original Oil in Place
OOIP = Original gas in Place
fi = fugacity of component i (psia)
fi o = reference fugacity of component i (psia)
g = gravitational constant
h = depth (ft)
m = mass (lbm)
Mwi = molecular weight (lb/lb-mol)
Nc = number of components
n i = moles of comp. i
I = chemical potential of comp. i (Btu/lb-mol)
P = pressure (psia)
S = entropy (BTU/lb-mol o R)
T = temperature (o R)
Subscripts
bottom = at the bottom of the formation
top = at the top of the formation
i = component i
o = reference
Conclusions
As few as seven pseudocomponents in a calibrated EOS were
enough to simulate compositional gradients and to match key
PVT properties from near-critical fluids observed in the
Cusiana Field (Colombia).
Compositional gradients have a significant impact on the
estimation hydrocarbon in place, fluid properties prediction,
and gas and liquid recovery due to depletion.
Ignoring this gradient may lead to erroneous, either too
optimistic or pessimistic, estimation of in-place hydrocarbons
depending upon the location where the fluid sample is taken.
The location of the well completions significantly affects
the oil recovery, which is higher when the completion is at the
lower layers of the reservoir. However, when there is an
aquifer, water encroachment is to be avoided and water
production delayed, and completions cannot be made at the
bottom.
The results presented in this paper are for a reservoir of a
specific size. Further studies need to be made to generalize
these effects for a reservoir of any size. If a significant
compositional gradient occurs, use of refined grids,
particularly near the wellbores, are strongly recommended in
simu lation since they give a more accurate description the
production performance.
We provided a procedure to select a single reference
sample composition and the depth at which it should be
located such that the estimates of the original hydrocarbons in
place are equivalent to those using the compositional gradient.

References
1. Gibbs, J.W., The Scientific Papers of J.W. Gibbs, Vol. 1, Dover
Publications (1961)
2. Chang, R.F., Levelt Sengers, J.M.H., Doiron, T. and Jones, J.:
Gravity-Induced Density and Concentration Profiles in Binary
Mixtures Near Gas-Liquid Critical Lines, J. Chem. Phys.
(1983) 79, (6), 3058-3066.
3. Block, T.E., Dickinson, E., Knobler, C.M., Schumaker, V.N. and
Scott, R.L.: Sedimentation and Density Gradients Near the
Liquid-Liquid Critical Solution Point in High Gravitational
Fields, J. Chem. Phys. (1977) 66, 3786.
4. Schulte, A. M., Compositional Variations within a Hydrocarbon
Column due to Gravity, SPE9235, 1980.
5. Sage, B.H. and Lacey, W.N., Gravitational Concentration
Gradients in Static Columns of Hydrocarbon Fluids, Trans.,
AIME (1938) 132, 120-131.
6. Holt, T. et al., The Effect of Gravity and Temperature Gradients
on Methane Distribution in Oil Reservoirs , unsolicited paper
SPE 11761 (1983)
7. Creek J.L., M.L. Schrader, East Painter Reservoir: An Example of
a Compositional Gradient from a Gravitational Field,
SPE14411 (1985)
8. Jacqmin D., Interaction of Natural Convection and Gravity
Segregation in Oil/Gas Reservoirs, SPE Reservoir Engineering
(May 1990).
9. Hamoodi, A.N. and Abed, A.F., Modeling of a Large Gas-Capped
Reservoir With Areal and Vertical Variation in Composition,
paper SPE 28937 (1994)
10. Bedrikovetsky, P., Mathematical Theory of Oil and Gas
Recovery, Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, Dordrecht
(1993)
11. Faissat, B. et al., Fundamental Statements about Thermal
Diffusion for a Multi-component Mixture in a Porous Medium,
Fluid Phase Equilibrium (1994).
12. Firoozabadi, A., Thermodynamics of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs,
McGraw-Hill (1999)
13. Firoozabadi, A. D. L. Katz, H Soorosh and V. A. Sajjadian.,
Areal and Vertical Composition Variation in Hydrocarbon
Reservoirs: Formulation and One-D Binary Results, Entropie
No. 198/199, p.109 (1996).
14. Brunal, A. J.: Phase Behavior and Miscible Process Analysis of
Cusiana Field Hydrocarbon System Using a Reduced
Component Equation of State, M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M
University, College Station (May 1995).
15. Kenyon D. E. and Behie G. A., Third SPE Comparative Solution
Project: Gas Cycling of Retrograde Condensate Reservoirs,
JPT (August 1987) 981-997.
16. Whitson, C.H.: "Characterizing Hydrocarbon Plus Fractions,"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J., (August 1983) 683-694.
17. Guerra, A. Analysis of the Dynamics of Pressure and Saturation
Profiles as a Tool to Optimize Liquid Production in Gas
Condensate Reservoirs. M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M University,
College Station (May, 2001).
18. Pedersen, K.S., Thomassen, P. and Fredenslund A.:
Characterisation of Gas Condensate Mixtures, Adv.
Thermodynamics, Vol. 1, (1989) 137-158.
19. Edmister, W.C., Applied Hydrocarbon Thermodynamics, Pet.
Refiner, (1958) 173-179.
20. Peng, D. and Robinson, D.B.: "A New Two-Constant Equation of
State," I. & E.C. Fundamentals (1965) 15, No. 1, 59-64.

10

JUAN M. JARAMILLO AND MARIA A. BARRUFET

SPE 71726

21. Peneloux, A., Rauzy, E., and Freze, R.: A Consistent Correction
for Redlich-Kwong-Soave Volumes, Fluid Phase Equilibria
(1982) 8, 7-23.
22. Jhavery, B. S. and Youngren, G. K.: Three-Parameter
Modification of the Peng-Robinson Equation of State to
Improve Volumetric Predictions, SPE Reservoir Engineering
(August 1988) 1033-1040.

(B)
This paper stresses the importance of using Vertical Composition Gradients when simulating the performance of near-critical
reservoirs under depletion. This is illustrated by comparing the differences in the determination of oil and gas in place with and
without compositional gradient for a synthetic reservoir with a real fluid from Cusiana field.
The effect of well completion locations and size of the vertical grid is also illustrated.
Reserves can be over or underestimated depending upon the location of the reference sample. A procedure is outlined to select a
single composition for the entire reservoir such that the predictions would be equivalent with and without gradient.