SPE

SPE 15765
Practical Limitations in Obtaining PVT Data for Gas
Condensate Systems
by D.G.P. Eyton, British Petroleum Exploration Co. Ltd.
SPE Member

Copyright 1987. Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Fifth SPE Middle East Oil Show held in Maname. Bahrain. March 7-10. 1987.
This paper was selected 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. PermissIon to copy is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain consp'cuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper IS presented. Write PublicatIons Manager. SPE. P.O. Box 833836. Richardson. TX 75083-3836. Telex. 730989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the accuracy of

laboratory generated PVT data for gas condensate
reservoir fluids. Although there are recognised
difficulties in obtaining representative samples
from such reservoirs, there are also significant
uncertainties in the results of laboratory studies
performed using the samples. The largest
uncertainties are associated with the measurements
of small liquid volumes, dewpoints and chemical
compositions. Reservoir engineers should be aware
of these uncertainties and should weight PVT data
accordingly, when used as input parameters to
reservoir models.

INTRODUCTION
The choice of the most profitable
development scheme for any gas condensate
reservoir is dependent upon various factors,
including:

field size and location

local market for separated gas and condensate

tax regime

phase behaviour of reservoir fluid

Development schemes vary in the degree of pressure

maintenance 1 and in the pressure maintenance
medium, which can be recycled gas, nitrogen or
even water. Compositional simulation models are
being used increasingly to study gas condensate
reservoir depletion processes 2 ,3, particularly

References and illustrations at end of paper.

when gas injection and recycling are used for

pressure maintenance.
Prediction of the phase behaviour of
petroleum systems using the traditional cubic
equation of state (EOS) is inherentlyunreliable 4
Inaccuracies in the phase behaviour prediction may
be attributed to a poor theoretical baSis of the
model and to a lack of detail in the reservoir
fluid analysis and heavy end (heptanes-plus)
characterisationS. If experimental PVT data are
not used to tune the 20S, then the quantitative
prediction is of little value. Hence, the
development of reservoir simulation mOdels is
critically dependent on the quality of experimental PVT data.
PVT data-are generated in the laboratory
using samples taken in the field during well
testing. Frequently, the users of EOS packages do
not appreciate the practical limitations in both
obtaining samples from a gas condensate reservoir
and, subsequently, measuring the physical and
chemical properties of the samples. This paper
discusses briefly the methods for obtaining
samples from gas condensate reservoirs and then
examines uncertainties in the results of standard
PVT studies, with specific reference to a study
carried out at the BP Research Cen.tre at Sunbury
(RCS). Quantification of these uncertainties is
extremely important because it allows correct
weighting to be put on the experimental results
used when tuning the EOS. It is not possible to
make general statements concerning the accuracy of
PVT data, because different laboratories perform
studies in different ways and no two reservoir
fluid systems or studies are identical.

Practical Limitations in Obtaining PVT Data for Gas Condensate Systems

SPE 15765

GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS

Gas condensate reservoirs are generally
defined as those reservoirs which contain single
phase gas at initial reservoir temperature and
pressure, but in which a liquid phase will form
when the pressure is reduced, at constant
t~mperature1. :hiS Phgse behaviour phenomenon,
f1rst observed 1n 1892 , is termed retrograde
condensation. Figure 1 shows the phase envelope
for a typical gas condensate system. Initial
reservoir conditions can lie anywhere on or
outside the envelope, between the critical
temperature and the cricondentherm. If a sample
of reservoir fluid is expanded at constant
temperature, two phases will be formed at the
upper dewpoint, and the volume of liquid phase
present will increase up to a maximum value. Upon
further expanding the sample, the liquid phase
will re-evaporate until the lower dewpoint is
reached, when the system becomes again a single
phase gas. Reservoir fluid samples are subjected
to the same thermodynamic path in the laboratory
during a constant composition expansion (CCE)
experiment.
Consider the depletion of a gas
condensate reservoir without pressure maintenance.
Once the pressure falls below dewpoint, at any
point in the reservoir, differential mobility of
the two phases will result in the production of
fluid which differs in composition from that of
the original reservoir fluid. Constant volume
depletion (CVD) studies are carried out in the
laboratory to model an extreme case, in which it
is assumed that the reservoir can be treated as a
Single cell; the liquid phase has zero mobility
and, therefore, only single phase gas is produced.

WELL TESTING AND SAMPLING

Gas condensate systems are difficult to
sample reliably because:
Large quantities
small quantities
behaviour of the
sensitive to the
liquid phase.

of gas are associated with

of liquid. The phase
system may be highly
amount and composition of the

The flowing system invariably becomes twophase before reservoir fluid reaches the
surface, and frequently before it enters the
wellbore.
Sampling during gas condensate well testing is
usually carried out at surface. Downhole samples
are sometimes taken but their validity is often
dubious. Irrespective of the sampling location,
the following criteria must be met in order to
obtain a representative sample from the flowing
system:
Effective unloading of the wellbore7,
All soluble contaminants removed from the
3ystem (e.g. oil-based mud, hydrate inhibitor,
etc.), and

Reservoir fluid flowing into the wellbore.

The most common way of obtaining reservoir fluid
is to recombine samples taken from the test
separator streams. These samples have the
advantage of being comparatively inexpensive and
plentiful.
It is often the case that samples are
taken when the above criteria are not satisfied
completely and PVT studies are carried out using
unrepresentative samples. Assuming, however, that
these criteria are satisfied, the major sources of
uncertainty in obtaining representative reservoir
fluid by recombining separator samples are:
Separator design and efficiency,
Gas and liquid flowrate measurements, and
Sampling technique.
Of the above, it is likely that the liquid
flowrate measurement is the largest source of
uncertainty. The accuracy of the volumetric
condensate-gas-ratio (CGR) is generally in the
range! 5 to 10%.

STANDARD PYT STUDY

The form of a standard gas condensate
PVT study, as carried out at BP RCS, is summarised
in Table 1. More detailed descriptions of experimental procedures are contained in service company
brochures and other documents 1 ,8,9,10,11. It is
most common for reservoir fluid to be obtained by
recombining pressurised separator gas and condensate samples. This paper concentrates on PVT
studies performed using reservoir fluid obtained
by this method only.
The following are baSic data requirements, prior to conducting a PVT study:
Reservoir conditions,
Separator conditions, and
CGR at metering conditions.
After validation of separator gas and
condensate samples, these fluids are recombined in
the corrected field CGR to obtain reservoir fluid.
The field-measured gas flowrate is corrected using
laboratory measured gas properties at metering
conditions. From the choke equation~2 it can be
shown that the field measured flowrate must be
multiplied by a factor (F):

( g field

(1)

lab

D.G.P. Eyton

SPE 15765

Constant composition expansions (CCE's)

and constant volume depletion studies (CVD's) are
carried out in visual cells, using recombined
reservoir fluid. A schematic diagram of one such
cell is shown in Figure 2. This cell has an
internal volume of about 1000cm3 and is rated to
maximum working conditions of 10,000 psig [69,050
kPa] and 150 0 C. Similar cells are used by other
laboratories. During CCE's, the cell pressure is
reduced in stages by withdrawing mercury from the
top of the cell. The cell is left to equilibrate
for approximately 0.5 hours at each pressure,
before measuring the liquid volume, if any, and
recording the pressure. Liquid volumes as low as
0.02cm3 can be measured, and volumes as low as
0.001cm3 can be seen.

Physical Measurements
Multi-operator repeatability limits have
been calculated from the variability of results of
repeated measurements. When insufficient repeat
measurements have been made to calculate an
experimental repeatability, this term has been
estimated by considering the experimental
procedure, a~plYing the laws of error
propagation 1 and by incluging random errors in
the independent variables' Consider for example
a density measurement:
2

R
(...E.) .. (-!!!)
p
m

ACCURACY OF RESULTS
This section describes the approach
adopted in order to quantify the uncertainties in
laboratory generated PVT data.
Theory
In order to establish the absolute
accuracy of a measurement, it is necessary to
compare the measurement with an accepted
reference, or control, level 13 This is not
standard practice when performing PVT studies
using petroleum fluids. Therefore, it is possible
only to establish the precision of measurements,
i.e. the degree of mutual agreement between
individual measurements. The terms repeatability
and reproducibility are used to describe the
variability of results within a single haboratory
and between labo atories, respectivelyl . It is
common practice 1 .15 to estimate the _95%
repeatability limit (R). which is the largest
difference between two test results that can be
considered a random effect, where:

(~) (2.)

aT

(5)

where the partial derivatives are evaluated at

constant pressure and temperature, respectively.
Estimated repeatability limits of fundamental
measurements (p, T, m and V) are given in Table 2.
If the volume in question is the internal volume
of a cell occupied by a gas condensate system, the
remaining cell volume being occupied by mercury,
then:

2
RV

2
(R V cell calibration)

(6)

L(Rvmercury injection/removal)

2.8 s

(2)

and s is an unbiased estimate of the,poPulation

standard deviation 16 Throughout thIS paper.
values quoted in curly brackets are estimated 95%
repeatability limits for experimental data
generated within the same laboratory by different
operators using different equipment. If it is
assumed that there are no systematic errors or
bias in the measurements, then 95% confidence
limits for the absolute value can be calculated as
- follows:

Lower limit

result mInus 1:4

Upper limit

result plus 1:4

As a general rule. if results from two laboratories. differ by more than twice the estimated
single laboratory repeatability. then it is
recommended that the experiment be repeated.

(3)

(4 )

Chemical Measurements
The methods used for analysing petroleum
fluids are mostly non-standard; analyses have not
been repeated to establish their repeatability.
Therefore, the repeatability limit of these
measurements has been estimated, see Table 2,
based upon experience and a limited number of
references.
Gases are analysed up to C12 This
requires the use of four chromatographic'columns,
as shown in Table 3. The Single-operator repeatability limit of the ASTM 01945 method 1,;! is
represented diagramatically in Figure 3. This
method is applicable only for gases containing
less than 2 mol% hexanes-plus. Frequently, gases
studied in the laboratory do not satisfy this
limitation. Also included in Figure 3 are
repeatability limit values for gas analyses. as
reported by YarborOugh 20 .
In this paper, a power-law relationship.
also shown in Figure 3. is assumed to represent
the repeatability limit of gas analyses:

Practical Limitations in Obtaining PVT Data for Gas Condensate Systems

0.43

RXl.

0.07 xi

(7)

SPE 15765

DISCUSSION
Reservoir Fluid Analysis

Eq. (7) gives a repeatability limit of 0.5 mol% as

the component proportion approaches 100 mol%, and
0.01 mol% as the component proportion approaches
0.01 mol%.
The analysis of hydrocarbon liquids,
stabilised,at atmospheric pressure, comprises two
parts, as shown in Table 3. The whole liquid is
characterised by a simulated true boiling point
(TBP) distillation by gas liquid chromatography
(GLC). These data are used to provide an analysis
for the heptanes-plus fraction. The repeatability
limit of component proportIons from C, to C'2 is
estimated to be 7% of the value, and of the C'3
fraction 4% of the value.
+
Table 4 shows the results of repeated
TBP distillations by GLC on residual condensate
samples, obtained by flashing to atmospheric
pressure two consecutive separator condensate
samples. A full distillation 23 was also carried
out on a gauge tank congensate sample, taken at
the same time. Whitson reported that an increase
of 15.5% in the flame ionisation detector response
to the internal standard (n-hexane) was necessary
to give a good match between true distillation
data and simulated TBP data by GLC. This has not
been found necessary. The repeatability limit of
the C13 + average molecular weight calculated from
the simulated TBP data is estimated to be 12
g/mol. Any residual condensate not recovered
below 525 0 C (boiling pOint of nC40) is assumed to
have an average molecular weight equal to 632
glmol (that of nC 45 ).
RESULTS

An analysis of the uncertainties

associated with experimental PVT data is specific
to each individual study. In this paper, the
results of one reservoir fluid study are
presented; repeatability limits have been included
with all data except those obtained by measurements which are known to include systematic
errors. The study was chosen, because it exhibits
clearly some of the problems associated with gas
condensate PVT studies. From an analysis of the
errors it is possible to make some general
observations concerning the accuracy of PVT data
and their use in EOS modelling.
Table 5 lists experimental PVT data for
the moderately rich, naturally occurring gas
condensate reservoir fluid. Reservoir pressure
and temperature are 9040 psig [62 430 ka] and
148.9 0 C, respectively. Dewpoint at reservoir
temperature was observed at 7660 pSig
[52 920 kPa]. Separation during testing at 778
psig [5360 kPa] and 48.9 0 C gave a liquid yield of
108 bbl [17.17m3 ] condensate per 1 x 10 6 scf
.[28 320 std m3] gas. The visual cell was charged
with 55.0jO.31 g reservoir fluid before conducting
the eCE and eVD experiments.

The calculation of reservoir fluid

analysis requires laboratory measurements of both
phYSical and chemical properties. Of the physical
measurements, liquid densities are the most
accurate and the CGR, obtained when separator
condensate is flashed to atmospheric pressure, is
the least accurate: it is found, in the
laboratory, that the single flash CGR for
separator condensates can be highly dependent on
the rate at which the experiment is performed.
Uncertainties in the analysiS of
separator gas and residual condensate are such
that a variation in the field~measured CGR of ! 5%
would not have a significant effect on the
computed reservoir fluid analysis.
Constant Composition Expansion Study (CCE)
In Table 5, repeatability limits have
been estimated for all CCE data, except relative
liquid volumes. It is known that liquid volume
measurements are systematically low (as discussed
later). The repeatability limits for gas
densities, in the Single phase region, and for
relative volumes are within 1% of the value;
however the repeatability limit for measured gas
Z-factors is larger, apprOXimately 1.5% of the
value, due to high uncertainties in reservoir
fluid composition.
Studies have been performed to establish
the amount of liquid which .is not 'seen' during
CCE's, due to wetting of the internal walls of the
cell. For the cell deSign shown in Figure 2, the
amount varies between 0.1 and 0.2 cm 3 , depending
upon the hydrocarbon system studied. It has been
found that the amount of liquid seen also depends
upon the time the cell is left to stabilise. This
is assumed to be due to drainage. The cell is
normally left to stabilise for about 0.5 hours
between readings. It has been found that an
additional amount of liquid drains to the base of
the cell after the normal 0.5 hours, equal to no
more t~an half of the increase in liquid volume or
'.0 cm , whichever is the lesser. Most of the
liquid drains to the base of the cell within about
the first 2.5 hours.
Figure 4 shows half-hourly measured
liquid volumes, expressed as a percentage of the
total volume, together with estimated maximum
values. The true value probably Hes between
these limiting values.
Figure 4 also shows a detail which is
often observed during gas condensate PVT studies,
namely a liquid 'tail' close to dewpoint.
Although the cause of this phenomenon is not
known, it has been observed that:
The

m~asurements

are repeatable,

SPE 15765

D.G.P. Eyton

The length of the tail is increased markedly

by adding small quantities of C13 + components
to the system, and
The effect is not predicted by EOS models.
When tuning EOS models to experimental
PVT data, it should be remembered that the
measurement of low liquid volumes has a high
associated uncertainty. At lower pressures below
the maximum retrograde liquid volume, measurements
are more accurate. The data should be weighted
accordingly. Although exact specification of gas
condensate dewpoints is of considerable academic
interest, it has to be asked whether the presence
of small (less than 1% by volume) amounts of
liquid has a significant effect on reservoir flow
processes.
Constant Volume Depletion Study (CVD)
It is extremely important to include a
comparison of fluid charged to the cell with that
recovered, including residual fluid, in the
results of a CVD. The comparison should be
carried out on both molar and mass bases as the
values indicate the amount and type of fluid lost
during the study. Values for the CVD shown in
Table 5 are 98.1 and 95.5%, respectively. It is
concluded from these two parameters that fluid was
lost with an average molecular weight higher than
that of reservoir fluid. Repeatability limits have
not been included with the experimental. CVD data
in Table 5, due to the known presence of systematic errors: a Similar approach has been adopted
to that outlined in the previous section in order
to estimate the maximum amount of liquid phase
present in the cell.
Figure 5 shows how the density of the
gas phase at cell conditions varies with pressure,
during depletion. These data have been calculated
by dividing the total mass of fluid evolved at
each stage by the volume of gas depleted at cell
conditions. It can be seen that values obtained
for the first two stages, in the single phase
region, are considerably less than those measured
during the CCE. From a comparison of the mass and
molar recoveries for these stages, which should
have been identical, it is concluded that liquid
was lost due to wetting of the internal surfaces
of the catchment system. Small variations in the
measured amount of liquid condensing from the gas
at each stage have a disproportionately large
effect on the calculated gas Z-factor: losses of
liquid result in the Z-factor being underestimated.
When tuning to the results of a CVD, it
should be remembered that, on average, liquid
volumes, gas densities and gas Z-factors will be
underestimated. Some liquid will be lost during
the study on the walls of the catchment system and
some will remain trapped in the cell at the end of
the study. The accuracy of CVD results is
increased by increasing the Size of charge.

Retrograde liquid densities, calculated

by mass balance, have not been included in Table 5
because the values have an extremely high associated uncertainty and can be misleading.
T~e

Use of Correlations

It is common practice for laboratories

to use correlations for calculating gas Z-factors
and viscosities. The accuracy of t~~ mgre often
used correlations has been reviewed ,2. Ninety
five percent confidence limits for calculated gas
viscosities are no better than ~ 10% of the value.
The average deviation of measured gas Zfactors from calculated values, for the most
reliable correlation, is 0.95%. Therefore, 95% of
calculated gas Z-factors lie within 2.8% of the
true value. If a correlation is used to calculate
the Z-factor of a separator gas, prior to charging
a gas condensate visual cell, then the accuracy of
the reported physical properties of reservoir
fluid is Significantly decreased.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1.

Reservoir engineers should be aware of the

precision of experimental gas condensate PVT
data which are used to tune EOS models. Some
data are more accurate than others and these
should be weighted accordingly. If increased
accuracy is required, then studies can be
modified, at increased cost to the client.

2.

It is impractical for a single laboratory to

establish the absolute accuracy of the PVT
data it generates; however a laboratory can
either estimate the repeatability of the data
or, at least, highlight the presence of
systematic errors. Repeatability data are
specific to an individual study and should be
reported along with the experimental results.

3.

There are invariably systematic losses of

liquid in PVT eqUipment, due to wetting of the
walls. As a direct result, the measurement of
small liquid volumes and dewpoints has a high
associated uncertainty: it is not possible to
achieve 100% mass balance during constant
volume depletion studies, although molar
balances can approach this value.

4.

There are significant uncertainties in the

chemical analysis of reservoir fluids.
Analytically undetectable variations in the
amount and properties of the neavy end
(heptanes-plus) fraction are known to have a
large effect upon both the observed and
predicted phase behaviour.

5.

If, during a PVT study, correlations are used

to estimate the physical properties of the gas
condensate system, then this should be clearly
stated along with the reported accuracies of
the correlations.

Practical Limitations in Obtaining PVT Data for Gas Condensate Systems

SPE 15765

NOMENCLATURE
2.

Liquid volume expressed as a

percentage of the total volume

Coats, K.H. and Smart, G.T.: "Application of

a Regression-Based EOS PVT Program to
Laboratory Data", Soc. Pet. Eng. Res. Eng.
(May 1986) 277-299.

3.

Cumulative mass recovered expressed

as a percentage of the total mass
charged

Coats, K.H.: "Simulation of Gas Condensate

Reservoir Performance", J. Pet. Tech. (Oct.
1985) 1870-1886.

4.

Clancy, M. et al.: "Estimating the Properties

of Hydrocarbon Mixtures at High Pressures Data and Methods Available", paper presented
at the 1983 I. Chem. E. Offshore Gas
Technology Seminar, November 10.

5.

Whitson, C.H.: "Effect of C7 + Properties on

Equation-of-State Predictions", Soc. Pet. Eng.
(Dec. 1984) 685-696.

6.

Katz, D.L. and Kurata, F.: "Retrograde

Condensation", Ind. Eng. Chem. Volume 32 No.6
(1940) . 817-821.

7.

Turner, R.G., Hubbard, M.G. and Dukler, U.:

"Analysis and Prediction of Minimal Flow Rate
for the Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas
Condensate Wells", Petroleum Transactions,
AIME (Nov. 1969) 1475-1482.

8.

Whitson, C.H.: "Practical Aspects of

Characterising Petroleum Fractions", paper
presented at the 1983 North Sea Condensate
Reservoirs and Their Development Conference,
London, May 24-25.

9.

Williams, J.M.: "PVT (Pressure-VolumeTemperature) Measurements on Gas Condensate

Fluids", paper number 5 presented at the 1983
North Sea Reservoirs and Their Development
Conference~ London, May 24-25.

Correction to field-measured gas

flowrate

Cumulative moles recovered expressed

as a percentage of the total moles
charged
m

mass, g

Average molecular weight, glmol

Average molecular weight of
reservoir fluid, glmol
Average molecular weight of C13 +
fraction, g/mol

Pressure, psig

95% single laboratory multi-operator

repeatability limit

Unbiased estimate of population

standard deviation

Temperature,

Volume, cm3

Volume at reservoir conditions, cm3

xi

Molar percentage of component "i"

Gas compressibility factor
Condensate specific gravity, (water

= 1)

Gas specific gravity, (air

1)

Density, g/cm 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

10. Whitson, C.H. and Torp, S.B.; "Evaluating

Constant-Volume Depletion Data", J. Pet. Tech.
(Mar. 1983) 610-620.
11. Kilgren, K.H.: "Visual Phase Study of a
Condensate Reservoir Fluid". paper SPE 1277
presented at the 1965 Annual Fall Meeting.
Denver. Oct. 3-6.
12. Katz, D.L. et al.: Handbook of Natural Gas
Engineering, McGraw-Hill (1959).

The author would like to thank the

management of British Petroleum Company for
permission to publish this paper and colleagues at
the Research Centre Sunbury, especially Mr. B.
Penny, for their technical support and guidance in
preparing the paper.

14. ASTM E456-83a: "Standard Terminology for

Statistical Methods".

REFERENCES

15. IP: Methods for Analysis and Testing. Volume

2. Heyden and Son Ltd. (1978) Appendix E.

1.

Eilerts, C.K. et al.: Phase Relations of GasCondensate Fluids, Monograph 10, Bureau of
Mines, American Gas Association, New York
(1957) 1.

13. ASTM E177-71: "Use of Terms Precision and

Accuracy as Applied to Measurement of a
Property of a Material". reapp~oved 1980.

16. ASTM E691-79: "Standard Practice for

Conducting an Interlaboratory Test Progra~ to
Determine the Precision of Test Methods".

D.G.P. Eyton

SPE 15765

17. IUAPC: Experimental Thermodynamics, Volume 2,

Butterworths, London (1975) 511-514.
18. Ku, H.K.: Precision Measurement and
Calibration, National Bureau of Standards,
Special Publication 300, Volume 1, Washington
(1969) 331-341.
19. ASTM 01945-81: "Standard Method for Analysis
of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography".
20. Yarborough, L.: "Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium
Data for Multicomponent Mixtures Containing
Hydrocarbon and Nonhydrocarbon Components",
J. Chem. and Eng. Data, Vol. 17 No.2 (1972)
129-133.
21. ASTM 02887-84: "Standard Test Method for
Boiling Point Distribution of Petroleum
Fractions by Gas Chromatography".
22. McTaggart; N.G. and Glaysher, P.: "Simulated
True Boiling POints of Total Crude Oils by Gas
Chromatography", D.R. Hodges (ed) Recent
Analytical Developments in the Petroleum
Industry, Wiley, New York (1974) 79-95.
23. ASTM 02892-84: "Standard Test Method for
Distillation of Crude Petroleum (15Theoretical Plate Column)".
24. Sutton, R.P.: "Compressibility Factors for
High-Molecular-Weight Reservoir Gases", paper
SPE 14265 presented at the 1985 Annual
Technical Conference, Las Vegas, Sept. 22-25.
25. Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M. and Sherwood,
T.K.: The Properties of Gases and Liquids,
Third Edition, McGraw-Hill (1977) 391-435.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
psig (psig + 14.7) x 6.894 E +00 ~ kPa
E -01 ~ m3
bbl x 1.590
scf x 2.832
E -02
m3
2

'fABLE 1

S P /57&;5

STAIDARD GAS COlfDEIfSATE PVT STUDY

SAJIPLE

Separator

'Tali dation

PV'r BQUIPIIEH

VALUES RBPOIl'RD

Blind Cell

Zg at

Gas
Separator

~etering

conditions

Yg and analysis
Validation

Blind Cell

Y and saturation pressure

L
at metering temperature

Single Flash

Flash

Separation

Apparatus

Y , YL ' CGR, gas analysis

g
and residual condensate

Condensate

analysis
Reservoir

CCE at reservoir

Fluid

temperature
CVD at reservoir

Visual Cell

'lIVre' Pg Zg' dewpoint

pressure and fL

'Tisual Cell

temperature

Z produced fluid
g

analysis, fL' Gmp Gnp

and (sometimes) Y
L

'l'ABLE 2
1lUL!I-OPOA'rOR HBPBA'fABILI'fY LDII'!S
LABORA.'rORY DASUSRBIIBlI'rS

PROPBR'l'Y

HBPEA.'fABILI'rY LDlIT

Pressure (deadweight tester)

0.0005p

Pressure (gauge)

0.15% full scale deflection

Pressure (manometer)

1mm mercury

Pressure (barometer)

0.1= mercury

Temperature
Volume (calibrated vessels)
Volume (other> 20 c( 3 )
Volume (other < 20 cm 3 )

O.OOlV
0.02 cm 3

Mass difference (0 - 1 kg

0.001 g

Mass difference (1 - 20 kg)

0.02

Gas analysis (mol%)

0.07xi O 43

Liquid analysis (mol% C1 - C1.2 )

Liquid analysis (C 13 +)
C13 + average molecular weight

0.04JCi

0.0005V

0.07xi
12 g/mol

'fABLE 3

SPE 157&5
IB'fHODS lOR AlALYSIS

COIlPODI'fS

COLUD

IIlmlOD

He, H2 , 2
N2 , C1

5a Molecular

ASTM D1945 19

Sieve

Gas

CO 2 , C2

Poropak Q

ASTM D1945 19

Gas

Individual C1 - nC6
Benzene and Toluene

Fused Silica

Non-standard

KCl/A1 20 3

Gas

Gas

10X Molecular

C6 - C12

Non-standard

Sieve
Liquid

Individual C1 - nC6
Benzene and Toluene

OV-101

Non-standard

Liquid

C1 - C40 +

OV-1

Modified ASTM
D288721 ,22

'fABLB 4

lDL'fI-OPBBA'fOR BBPBA'fABILI!Y
SnmLA'HD 'fBP DIS'fILLA'fIOS BY GLC

Simnlated 'fBP Distillation

Cut
(OC)

True Distillation23

GLC

Saaple 1.1 Saaple 1.2 Saaple 2.1 Saaple 2.2

(wt%)
(wt%)
(wd)
(wt%)
(wt%)

II

(g/mol)

below 15

1.1

1.0

1 .5

1.5

1.1

15-95

9.8

10.5

10.2

10.1

10.7

84

95-149
149-200

15.0

15.2

15.9

15.6

135

13.7

13.6

13.3

15.3
12.2

138

200-232

7.3

7.3

7.2

6.9

7.8

167

232-342

26.1

26.0

26.0

25.0

25.0

231

342-369
above 369

5.1

4.9

5.0

4.8

5.0

300

22.2

21.5

20.6

22.8

23.0

427

M13+

283

281

278

288

283

108

MoU 002

~
C,

TABLE 50

ARAL'tS1!5

COISTAIT COKPOSITIOI KXPAISIOI AT 148.90

ILASIIID

mmmu.

SWARMlUl

SWARMlUl

R8S1JM>m

GAS

00IIIBISIl'K

GAS

IWID

l.48\.re}

1.44\.re}

.52\.051

.49\.05}

.92 \~I

2.'1> \.11}

\~I

.26

.re

\.01/

9.4\.21

3.43\.12}

9040*

1.000

1.43

\.05}

.571.(5)

3.55\.111
.64\.(5)

7775

1.062\.001

3.25

\.12}

1.00 \.m}

1.18\.m}

7570

1.073\.0011

0.08\+.13}

\m}

.31\.04}

.42\.~)

7490

1.078\.001 }

0.09\+.13}

.34\.(4)

.51\.(4)

7400

1 .084\.001 )

0.07\+.13)

.37\.05}

.68 (.05}

7300

1.091\.001 1

0.07\+.13}

.62\.05}

7185

1 .098\.001 }

0.091+13}

1 .105\.001 }

0.13\+.14}

l.n\.rel

un

nC4

5.6

\.2}

2.2 \.21

iC5

1:-/5

\.(3)

l:n\.13}

1.76

nGs

1.00 \.031

2.8 \.2}

2.53

\.14}

C6

1.52 ( .re}

5.7 \.4)

4.4

\.3}

1.52 Ire}
.02 [.01}

Tol.

.11

(.031

5.1

\.4}

.24 (.04}

360 \31

1.44\.021

339\31

1.30 \.02}

10.5 (.8)

7.2

\.5}

.03\.02}

.64\.05}

9.3 (.71

6.4

\.5}

.04(.021

.53\.~}

6990

1 .112\.001 }

0.14\+.14}

7-3 (.5}

5.0

\.4}

.39\.03}

6895

1.119(.001}

0.23\+.17}

6.0 \.4}

4.1

\.3}

.32\.02}

6800

1 .127\.001 1

0.39\+. 20 1

.26\.02}

6620

1.141 (.001}

0.89\+.25}

1.163(.0011

1.75(+.551

".9 \1.6}
33 \.2}
3.2 \.21

33
23.1

\.2)

1.81\.101

2.39

\1.21
(.171

6370

.16\.03)

.33\.03}

6000

1.201\.002}

3.03\+.67/

2.20

\.15}

.~\.021

.21\.031

5515

1 260 \.002 I

4.51\+.64}

5030

1 .332\.003}

5.54\+.60 }

1.434 (.0031

6.38\+.56)
6.78\+.52/

M'3+

2ffl(12} g/Illll

4505

f4r

28.9(.3} g/Illll

4015

1.5591004}

3710

1.660 \.005\

6.95\+.37)

3415

1.777\.006}

6.91 \+.29/

TAILK 58
SI1PARMrI<JI DlTA

arm

3105

1.938 \.008}

6.70 \+.32}

2.291 (.011}

5.86(+.09)

2.82 (.02)

4.84\+ .09}

395 \.03)

3. ~9\+ .03}

or

rna

GAS

LIQUID

2575
2080

(p&1&)

(~)

(bbl/llb:f)

WAVI'lY (y )

WAVI'lY (YL)

1505

el

7090

4.9 (.4}

.40 (.05}

(%)

9.63\.191

.34\.06}

\.21
\.11}

Ca

tL

\.14}

\.3}

132

C9
ClO
C
C"
'2
C 3+
"
Ben.

(s/ca')

(paiS)

76.6\.41

Zg

4.9:\

18.9

7.1 \.5}

pg

6.2

C2
C3
iC 4

1.00 \.03}

V/Vre

\.51
\.20}

\.4}

.71\.05}

81.8 \.5}

15.8

49.8

SPeJ576:J

~MDlTA

'(!8

48.9

20.0

1m

35OO\00}

.691\.W3/
1.orn\.03}

.7363\.0014\
:7<JJ3[.CXXB }

Reserve Pressure

SPE /5 ?/r;$

'fAlIB ~

IllIISlWIr WW18 JlI>ImCII SJUIJ{ AT 148.~

RESERVOIR
CONDITIONS
~

tL

j:8

(psi,g)

00

W~)

Zs

Gnp
00

<\.p

PR

----------------------~

00
CRICONDENBAR

1.29

2.2

1.7
3.4

9J4(I't

360(31

1.44(.021

$45

312

8250

323

138

4.0

7tfj5

340

1.27

6.2

. 5.5

7r;ffi

0.17(+.131

346

1.18

7.7

6.9

7z:f5

0.07(+.131

316

1.10

9.6

85

6835

0.60(+.401

342

1.16

12.2

11.1

6415

1.72(+.691

302

1.07

15.0

13.6

5935

3.37(+.001

294

1.12

18.5

17.0

5450

4.93(+.001

a36

0.97

22.8

20.9

10

4975

6.37(+.001

242

1.02

27.1

24.6

11

4470

7.97(+.001

219

097

32.5

29.1

12

4015

8.67\+.491

094

37.5

33.7

13

3530

9.34\+.471

181

0.91

44.1

38.7

14

3015

9.53\+.231

162

0.91

51.1

44.6

15

2495

9.55\+.141

125

0.90

58.8

50.6

16

2010

9.45\+.131

96.3

0.94

66.0

56.3

17

1490

9.00{+.131

70.7

0.93

73.9

62.4

18

1035

9. 67\+.131

49.1

0.94

00.9

67.8

19

650

8.21 \+.131

32.2

093

86.8

72.5

20

290

7.52\+.13)

18.0

0.77

92.3

76.9

~1

96.3

005

98.1

95.5

Residual Condensate

Reservoir pressure

CRITICAL POINT

Pc

GAS

LIQUID

w
a:
:::>

CJ)
CJ)

w
a:
0..

20% LIQUID
I

LIQUID + GAS

I
I
I
I
I
I
II

:i

a:

UJ

::t:

I-

UJ

0\1\\

a:
0

Oe'" 9

Tc

TEMPERATURE

TR

Fig. I-Typical gas condensate phase envelope.

S(JE /5705'

MERCURY

INLET

GAS SAMPLE PROBE

VERNIER

UPPER

PISTON

SCALE

CHAMBER

------t.:~~lI'J"'/

GLASS CAPILLARY

WATER----~~~~~~~

rr~E~~t

HIGH PRESSURE
WINDOWS

SAMPLE

LowER MERCURY
CHAMBER

---fft

Fig. 2-Gas condensate PVT cell.

VALVE

MERCURY INLET A

100~------~--~------------------------------------------------~
,-=,-_ _

R 3:1

0.073:1

."3

ASTM

01945

YARBOROUGH

10

-]
~

I-

~ 1.0

2
:E
o(.)

O. 1

0.01~

0.1

______________

~~

1.0

______________

~~

__-*__________

10

REPEATABILITY LIMIT ( % OF VALUE)

Fig. 3-Repeatability of gas analyses.

~~

____

~~

8000~----------------------------------------------------------~

---- -

EXPERIMENT AL OAT A

MAXIMUM PROBABLE VALUES

: : . OEWPOINT TAIL
1000

"

6000

JI

.....

.21 5000
rn

71

0.

w
a:
::)
(JJ
(JJ

~ 4000

--

3000

2000

1000~

____

______

______

______

______

____

~~

____

VOLUME OF lIaUID AS % TOTAL VOLUME

Fig. 4-CCE liquid volumes.

~~

____

10000~------------------------------------------------------~

CVD DATA
)(
CCE DATA (SINGLE PHASE)

,I

90001-

lC

lC

8000 I-

lC

7000 I-

"
"

6000 I-

"

01

'0

Q.

"

5000 I-

(J)
(J)

"

a:

a.

"

4000~
x

"

30001If

20001-

"
lC

10001-

"
lC

O~

____________

~~

100

__________

~~'

____________

200

GAS DENSITY (kg 1m 3 )

Fig. 5-CVD gas densities.

~~

300

____________

400