Journal of Engineering Research and Reports

16(3): 13-18, 2020; Article no.JERR.58666

ISSN: 2582-2926

Evaluating the Challenges in Pressure – Volume –

Temperature (PVT) Analysis of Gas Condensate
Reservoirs
Aniedi B. Usungedo1* and Julius U. Akpabio2
1
Independent National Electoral Commission, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria.
2
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Uyo, Uyo, Nigeria.

Authors’ contributions

This work was carried out in collaboration between both authors. Author ABU designed the study,
performed the statistical analysis, wrote the protocol and wrote the first draft of the manuscript.
Authors ABU and JUA managed the analyses of the study and the literature searches. Both authors
read and approved the final manuscript.

Article Information
Galley Proof
DOI: 10.9734/JERR/2020/v16i317168
Editor(s):
(1) Dr. Djordje Cica, University of Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Reviewers:
(1) Alemu Gurmessa Gindaba, Wollega University, Ethiopia.
(2) Alexander Gilmanov, University of Tyumen, Russia.
Complete Peer review History: http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/58666

Received 02 May 2020

Accepted 06 July 2020
Original Research Article
Published 31 August 2020

ABSTRACT

Aims: The variations in production performances of the Black oil and compositional simulation
models can be evaluated by simulating oil formation volume factor (Bo), gas formation volume
factor (Bg), gas-oil ratio (Rs) and volatilized oil-gas ratio (Rv). The accuracy of these two models
could be assessed.
Methodology: To achieve this objective some basic parameters were keyed into matrix laboratory
(MATLAB) using the symbolic mathematical toolbox to obtain accurate Pressure Volume
Temperature (PVT) properties which were used in a production and systems analysis software to
generate the production performance and hydrocarbon recovery estimation. Standard black oil
PVT properties for a gas condensate reservoir was simulated by performing a series of flash
calculations based on compositional modeling of the gas condensate fluid at the prescribed
conditions through a constant volume depletion (CVD) path. These series of calculations will be
carried out using the symbolic math toolbox. PVT property values obtained from both
compositional modeling and black oil PVT prediction algorithm are incorporated to determine the
production performance of each method for comparison.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: Email: aniediusungedo@gmail.com;

 Usungedo and Akpabio; JERR, 16(3): 13-18, 2020; Article no.JERR.58666

Results: The absolute open flow for the black oil PVT algorithm and the compositional model for
the Rs value of 500 SCF/STB and Rs value of 720SCF/STB were 130,461 stb/d and 146,028 stb/d
respectively showing a 10.66% incremental flow rate.
Conclusion: In analyzing PVT properties for complex systems such as gas condensate reservoirs,
the use of compositional modeling should be practiced. This will ensure accurate prediction of the
reservoir fluid properties.

Keywords: Pressure–Volume–Temperature (PVT); gas condensate reservoir; black oil; compositional

model; flow rate.

1. INTRODUCTION PVT properties, wrong estimation of the amount

of hydrocarbon in place (HIIP) and a wrong
Oil and gas accumulations occur in underground prediction of the production performance of the
traps formed by structural and/or stratigraphic reservoir. Hence the use of BO PVT model in
features. Fortunately, the hydrocarbon determining PVT properties for Gas condensate
accumulations usually occur in the more porous reservoirs is inefficient [5].
and permeable portion of beds, which are mainly
sands, sandstones, limestones, and dolomites; in The proposed solution is to make use of
the inter-granular openings; or in pore spaces Compositional PVT models in determining the
caused by joints, fractures, and solution activity accurate PVT properties of gas condensate
[1]. reservoirs.

A reservoir is that portion of a trapped formation [6] in his work simulated Standard BO PVT
that contains oil and/or gas as a single properties of a gas condensate reservoir based
hydraulically connected system. Hydrocarbon on hypothetical reservoir. Simulation results
fluids are usually in either single phase state or demonstrated that species material balance can
two-phase state. Single phase are the Liquid be violated by the BO PVT model. In [7]
(Oil) with dissolved gas and dry gas reservoirs Galley Proof
procedure, he makes use of the equation of state
while the two phase state are Gas with vaporized (EOS) to predict the stock tank oil and separator
liquids which are recovered at the surface as gas yields by flashing the appropriate reservoir
NGL i.e. Gas condensate reservoirs [2]. simulated oil and gas mixtures. [8] on the other
hand flashed the composition using Standing’s K
If there are hydrocarbons vaporized in this gas value.
phase that are recoverable as natural gas liquids
on the surface, the reservoir is called gas This work is limited to simulation; hence no
condensate or gas distillate (the older name). In experiments will be carried out. Parameters will
this case there are liquid (condensate or be set and keyed into Mat lab (version 9.4)
distillate) reserves as well as the gas reserves to software using the symbolic math toolbox to
be estimated [3]. obtain the accurate PVT properties. The property
values obtained will be uploaded in Prosper
Black Oil Pressure Volume Temperature (PVT) software to generate the production performance
model is widely used for PVT analysis of gas and hydrocarbon recovery [9].
condensate reservoirs because of its relative
simplicity. While using the BO PVT model on gas 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
condensate reservoirs, certain assumptions are
made which leads to violation of species material 2.1 Simulating Standard BO PVT
balance [4]. Properties

These assumptions are that the total amount of In this study, standard black oil PVT properties
stock tank oil will be conserved throughout the for a gas condensate reservoir is simulated by
reservoir’s depletion process and that the total performing a series of flash calculations based
amount of surface gas will be conserved on compositional modeling of the gas
throughout the reservoir’s depletion process. condensate fluid at the prescribed conditions
This violation of species material balance through a constant volume depletion (CVD) path
principle leads to significant errors which include [10]. These series of calculations will be carried
a consistent underestimation of the standard out using the symbolic math toolbox in Matlab

14
 Usungedo and Akpabio; JERR, 16(3): 13-18, 2020; Article no.JERR.58666

software; quantities and properties of each phase Gfg;j {SCF} = (yg;j × ng;j {lb mol}) × 379:56
of hydrocarbon mixtures will be calculated based {SCF/lbmol} (3)
on a given composition, pressure, and
temperature data. =Bo, Bg, Rs, and Rv values Where:
are calculated using the definition presented in
Fig. 1. Gfg,j = Volume of surface gas at every pressure
level j
Find (ng + EG, J) and noJ
( _ × _( , ) { })× _ ^ { / }
Nfg,j{STB} = .
(4)
Amount of moles of reservoir gas before the , , ×{ }

removal of excess gas (ng + EG, j) and moles of

reservoir oil (no,j) at every pressure level j are Where:
calculated based on remaining moles of reservoir
fluid (gas and oil) after excess gas removal at Nfg,j = Volume of stock tank oil in reservoir gas at
every pressure level j – 1 ( nT,j -1) and the overall pressure level j
molar fraction of gas phase at every pressure
level j ( , ),using Equations (1) and (2). Find nT,j and ci,j

+ { }= { }× (1) The remaining moles of reservoir fluid (nT,j) and

, ,
overall composition (ci,j) inside PVT cell at
Where: ng = Amount of gas, Gj = Amount of pressure level j after gas removal are updated by
surface gas, j = Pressure level and fng = gas removing moles of excess gas (nEG,j) and re-
phase fraction calculating overall composition using Equations
(5) and (6) in [6].
, { }= , { } × (1 − , ) (2)
nT,j = nT,j-1 – nEG,j (5)
Where:
where
no = Amount of oil Galley Proof

nT,j = remaining moles of reservoir fluid at

Find Gfg,j and Nfg,j pressure level j

The volumes of surface gas (Gfg,j) and stock tank , × , , × , (6)

,
,
oil (Nfg,j) in reservoir gas at pressure level j are
calculated from the remaining mole of reservoir Where:
gas (ng,j) and the molar fractions of surface gas
(yg,j) and stock tank oil (yo,j) in reservoir gas, Ci,j = Overall composition in PVT cell at pressure
using Equations (3) and (4) in [6]. level j

Fig. 1. Graphical representation of standard PVT properties [11]

15
 Usungedo and Akpabio; JERR, 16(3): 13-18, 2020; Article no.JERR.58666

2.2 Production Performance Simulation The Percentage errors observed by

implementing the BO PVT algorithm compared to
PVT property values obtained from both those using rigorous flash calculations is shown
compositional modeling and black oil PVT in Table 2.
prediction algorithm are uploaded into
PROSPER software to determine the production Percentage errors observed by implementing the
performance of each method and compare their Walsh–Towler BO PVT model compared to those
results. Production performance of each method using the compositional model are presented in
is generated. parentheses. The combination of the
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION underestimated amount of surface gas remaining
in reservoir oil (Gfo) values with overestimated
PVT properties as obtained from flash calculation amount of stock tank oil remaining in reservoir oil
is tabulated in Table 1. (Nfo) values as a result of the violation of the
species material balance principle by the BO
Fig. 2 is a plot of the simulated oil formation PVT model translated into seriously
volume factor (Bo) and solution gas oil ratio (Rs) underestimated Rs.
plotted against the reservoir pressure.

Table 1. PVT properties from flash calculation

Pressure (Psia) Bo (Rb/Stb) Bg (Rb/Mstb) Rs (Scf/Stb) Rv (Stb/Mmscf)

3224 1.20 204
3,000 2.37 1.25 1,570 155
2,750 2.07 1.34 1,207 125
2,500 1.87 1.46 954 105
2,250 1.72 1.61 761 90
2,000 1.60 1.81 720 79
1,750 1.51 2.07 Galley Proof
476 71
1,500 1.43 2.43 366 65
1,250 1.36 2.94 272 62
1,000 1.30 3.72 191 61
750 1.25 5.05 121 65
500 1.20 7.81 59 78

Fig. 2. Simulated oil formation volume factor and solution gas-oil ratio of gas

16
 Usungedo and Akpabio; JERR, 16(3): 13-18, 2020; Article no.JERR.58666

Table 2. PVT properties from BO PVT algorithm

Pressure (psia) BO (RB/STB) Bg (RB/MSTB) RS (SCF/STB) RV (STB/MMSCF)

3224 1.20 204
3,000 2.33 (-1%) 1.25 1,529 (-3%) 155
2,750 2.02 (-2%) 1.34 1,152 (-5%) 125
2,500 1.82 (-3%) 1.46 887 (-7%) 105
2,250 1.66 (-4%) 1.61 684 (-10%) 90
2,000 1.53 (-4%) 1.81 500 (-14%) 79
1,750 1.43 (-5%) 2.07 379 (-20%) 71
1,500 1.34 (-6%) 2.43 259 (-29%) 65
1,250 1.27 (-7%) 2.94 154 (-43%) 62
1,000 1.20 (-8%) 3.72 61 (-68%) 61
750 1.14 (-9%) 5.05 -22 (-118%) 65
500 1.08 (-10%) 7.81 -96 (-261%) 78

The plot showing the IPR curves of both models is shown in Fig. 3.

Rs =500

Galley Proof

Rs =720 SCF/STB

Fig. 3. IPR curve showing production performance of both models

When the data from the BO PVT algorithm production conditions to provide insight
prediction was used, where Rs = 500 SCF/STB, into the limitations of black-oil PVT
the production prediction obtained in terms of formulations. Simulation results
liquid flow rate was 130,461 STB/day, When data demonstrated that species material
from the result of the rigorous flash calculation balance conservation of surface gas and
carried out in obtaining accurate PVT properties stock tank oil pseudo-components can be
was used, where Rs = 720 SCF/STB, the liquid violated by the BO PVT model, while still
flow rate was 146,028 STB/day. A significant honoring overall material balance. The
difference of over 10,000 STB/day is obtained. limitation stems from assumption inherent
to the pseudo-component model, which
4. CONCLUSION requires the composition of every pseudo-
At the end of this research, conclusions based on component to remain the same regardless
the results obtained are drawn, these include: of pressure.
b) The violation of the species material
a) Standard BO PVT properties of a gas
balance principle by the BO PVT model
condensate reservoir have been rigorously
leads to significant errors in standard BO
simulated based on hypothetical reservoir
PVT property estimations when techniques
fluid and prescribed reservoir and surface

17
 Usungedo and Akpabio; JERR, 16(3): 13-18, 2020; Article no.JERR.58666

that rely on species material balance 3. Barnum RS, Brinkman FP, Spillette AG.
statements are used. Gas Condensate Reservoir Behavior.
c) A case example shows that calculated Presented at the Society of Petroleum
reservoir oil-related PVT properties such Engineers Annual Technical Conference
as oil formation volume factor (Bo) and and Exhibition, Society of Petroleum
solution gas–oil ratio (Rs) using BO PVT Engineers, Dallas; 2000.
property prediction algorithms can be 4. Ronald ET, Rogers JB. Applied Petroleum
significantly underestimated due to the BO Reservoir Engineering. New York: Pearson
PVT model limitations as shown in Table 2. Education Incorporated. 2015;7-10.
5. Samuel PA. Assessment and Modelling of
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Reservoir PVT Properties.
Available:www.academia.edu. Accessed;
The authors wish to acknowledge everyone who 2016.
contributed in one way or the other to the 6. Pichit V, Abraham D, Luis F. Identification
successful completion of research. Specifically, of Pitfalls PVT Gas Condensate Modelling
we want to acknowledge Dr. Charles I. C. Using Black Oil Formulations. Journal of
Anyadiegwu who supported this work but was Petroleum Production Exploration
later indisposed to complete it secondly, all the Technology. 2014;4:457–469.
lecturers in the department of Chemical and 7. Coats KH, Smart GT. Application of a
Petroleum Engineering, University of Uyo. And Regression-Based EOS PVT Program to
finally, Mrs. Kufreabasi Aniedi for her support Laboratory Data, Society of Petroleum
and encouragement. Engineers Reservoir Engineering Journal.
1986;2:277-299.
8. Whitson CH, Torp SB. Evaluating Constant
COMPETING INTERESTS
Volume Depletion Data. Journal of
Petroleum Technology. 1983;62:610–620.
Authors have declared that no competing 9. Schlumberger N. Eclipse Compositional
interests exist. Simulation; 2015.
Galley Proof
Available:http://www.nexttraining.net/Cours
REFERENCES es/Details/OG-SW2-SIS11360/ECLIPSE
10. Usungedo, AB. Evaluation of the
1. Chopra A, Carter R. Proof of the Two- Challenges in Pressure – Volume –
Phase Steady-State Theory for Flow Temperature (PVT) Analysis of Gas
through Porous Media. Society of Condensate Reservoirs, a Masters
Petroleum Engineers, paper 14472. dissertation of the department of Chemical
1985;2-4. and Petroleum Engineering, University of
2. Akpabio JU, Udofia EE, Ogbu M. PVT Uyo, Nigeria; 2018.
Fluid Characterization and Consistency 11. Walsh MP, Lake LW. A Generalized
Check for Retrograde Condensate Approach to Primary Hydrocarbon
Reservoir.Society of Petroleum Engineers, Recovery. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 2003;3-
paper 172359. 2014;9-10. 15.

© 2020 Usungedo and Akpabio; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.sdiarticle4.com/review-history/58666

18