SPE 101219
Reservoir Fluid Analysis Using PVT Express
I.A. Khan, K. McAndrews, J.P. Jose, and A.K.M. Jamaluddin, Schlumberger, and H.B. Chetri, Kuwait Oil Co.
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 Abu Dhabi International Petroleum
Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., 58 November 2006.
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. 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
Representative reservoir fluid sampling & characterization has
become increasingly important, as the exploration activities
are moving into the ever-challenging environment around the
world. Proper sampling and understanding of the fluid
characteristics have become very critical, especially, when
dealing with high-risk and marginally economic fields. With a
timely and reliable characterization, unnecessary investments
can be avoided. Unfortunately, with an unreliable
characterization, an economic opportunity may not be
pursued. Even worse, an un-economic opportunity may be
pursued.
This seminar presents and discusses ways to capture
representative reservoir fluid samples and a new fluid
characterization technology that can be deployed on-site in the
early stages of the exploration and development cycle. We
demonstrate the applicability of new surface analysis
techniques that allow for rapid, accurate, and reliable
measurements of key fluid properties, such as saturation
pressure, gas-oil ratio, extended carbon number composition,
viscosity, and density, on-site within a few hours of retrieving
representative reservoir fluid samples at surface.
Consequently, prediction tools used to extend these limited
measurements to a traditional PVT fluid characterization are
also presented. In conclusion, it is shown that the
implementation of the technique can reduce the risk associated
with making key development decisions.
Introduction
Reservoir fluid characterization has become increasingly
important as hydrocarbon exploration activities move into
more challenging and high risk regions around the world. An
appropriate level of understanding of reservoir fluid properties
early in the life of the exploration and development activity
has become critical. For example, the development of a
reliable reservoir fluid property characterization during or
shortly after open-hole logging operations can greatly enhance
and optimize any anticipated well testing program. Possibly
more important, with an adequate knowledge of the reservoir
fluid system obtained during formation testing, it is possible to
assess whether to test or not to test a well. In addition, it
becomes possible to make a complete or not to complete
well decision resulting in further opportunity to avoid making
unnecessary investments in marginal zones. Obviously, the
reliability of any fluid characterization in this exercise is key.
With a reliable characterization, unnecessary investments can
be avoided. Unfortunately, with an unreliable characterization,
an economic opportunity may not be pursued. Even worse, an
un-economic opportunity may be pursued.
A number of recent technological advances have allowed
for the development of fluid characterization with sufficient
reliability for the purposes described above. This work
outlines these individual advancements and demonstrates how
they can be integrated into a full fluid characterization plan for
early in the life of a well. Although not the focus of this
paper, at this point it should be mentioned that any fluid
characterization is reliable only if the fluid considered for
testing has been sampled properly. The options for obtaining
a proper sample vary depending on a wide variety of
circumstances. A summary of the issues associated with
sampling can be found in Smits et al1.
The earliest opportunity to start collecting fluid property
information about a reservoir fluid is during open-hole logging
with formation testers2. Prior to making any physical property
measurements on fluids withdrawn from the reservoir, the
most important measurement for reliable fluid characterization
is the accurate estimation of oil based mud filtrate (OBM)
contamination in formation tester samples. Minimization of
OBM is absolutely essential due to the significant effect this
contamination can have on the measured properties of sampled
reservoir fluids3. Current practice in this area is relatively well
established and involves the estimation of contamination in the
formation tester flow line during the clean-up period. This
and other recent advances in real-time fluid property
measurements are discussed in greater details elsewhere4-9.
In addition to the real-time fluid property measurements,
new technologies are now available to conduct fluid properties
measurements on-site in a matter of hours. These on-site
measurement capabilities are more extensive than the
downhole estimates and can be used to validate downhole
measurements. More importantly, in many cases, the physical
property measurements conducted at the surface are adequate
to provide a confident estimate of all the traditional fluid
properties (PVT) for the reservoir crude under consideration.
2 SPE 101219
With this information at hand, it is now possible to screen
multiple samples on-site so that operators can minimize the
number of samples sent to traditional PVT laboratories. This
data also allows for the immediate development of fluid
models to facilitate reservoir simulation and economic
calculations, without the need to wait for sample transport to a
traditional PVT lab, or the time taken for traditional analysis.
The on-site analysis capability described above, forms part of
commercial service called PVT ExpressTM and is described in
this paper.
On-Site fluid characterization using PVT ExpressTM
Upon retrieval of open-hole fluid samples to surface, it is often
desired to both confirm the properties estimated down-hole
and extend these analyses to provide a full reservoir fluid PVT
characterization. Traditional techniques for PVT
characterization involve the transfer of fluid samples at surface
into transport bottles, shipment to a fixed location laboratory,
and subsequent analysis. This process can typically take in
excess of one month to complete. To facilitate more timely
generation of the required PVT data, Schlumberger has
recently introduced a new mobile analysis unit, PVT
ExpressTM. This new hardware and software platform is
modular and can be easily packaged for offshore or onshore
use. Typical analysis times for full PVT characterization are
on the order of 8-12 hours. A brief description of the system
functionality is provided below.
PVT ExpressTM Equipment and Procedure
The PVT ExpressTM system consists of four key modules. The
first of these is a high-pressure (15 ksi) and high-temperature
(175oC), mercury-free PVT cell (Fig. 1) equipped with a
magnetically coupled mixer to accomplish vigorous mixing.
Included in the PVT cell are the associated pumps and
plumbing to facilitate transfer of pressurized fluid samples into
and out of the measurement cell. The key properties measured
by the PVT cell are the single-phase fluid compressibility, the
saturated fluid density, and the reservoir fluid saturation
pressure (bubble or dew point). Reliable measurement of
bubble point and dew point pressure is made possible by
optical sensor technology that measures the first bubble of gas
liberated from oil and the first traces of condensable liquid in a
gas during constant temperature expansion from reservoir
pressure. The PVT ExpressTM test cell requires a reservoir
fluid sample charge of only 25 cm3 to complete all
measurements.
After completion of the measurements described above,
the test fluid is displaced from the PVT cell to the 2nd PVT
ExpressTM module, the GOR module (Fig. 2). This module
facilitates the single stage separation of the reservoir fluid
sample into gas and liquid samples at controlled conditions of
temperature and pressure that are set to be near standard
conditions (15 C and 1 atm). Upon completion of the flash
process, the volume of the flashed gas and liquid sample are
measured (determining the single stage GOR), samples of the
flashed gas and liquid are collected, and the viscosity and
density of the flashed stock tank oil are measured. Subsequent
to this, each of the collected samples from the GOR are
injected into the 3rd module, a proprietary dual chromatograph
(Fig. 3) featuring patented helium ionization detectors (HID).
The GC module provides traditional hydrocarbon pure
component and grouped carbon number fraction compositional
information on both flashed gas (C12+) and liquid samples
(C36+) obtained from the GOR Apparatus.
All the data measured by the above described modules are
displayed and stored in real time by a digital interface module
(Fig. 4). In addition to providing data acquisition, the
interface module provides operator controls for pressure,
motor, optical phase indicator, gas-o-meter, volume and
temperature. A summary of the key physical properties that
can be measured in 8-12 hours using these modular units are
summarized below:
Saturation pressure at reservoir temperature
Saturated liquid density at reservoir temperature
Single phase reservoir fluid compressibility
Single Stage non-equilibrium gas-oil ratio
Flashed liquid density
Flashed liquid viscosity (Live liquid viscosity
optional)
C12+ flashed gas composition
C36+ flashed liquid composition
Using some of the data obtained above, the overall
reservoir fluid composition is calculated. The molecular
weight of the flashed liquid is required in this calculation and
is estimated using an empirical correlation between dead oil
density and its molecular weight.
The development criteria for the equipment was that the
measured data should be at least equivalent to or superior in
repeatability to analogous measurement techniques utilized in
traditional fixed location PVT laboratories. To demonstrate
this, a large number of measurements were made for a wide
variety of fluids comparing the physical measurements from
PVT ExpressTM to laboratory measurements on the same
fluids. Two selected examples demonstrating an example
comparison are provided in Tables 1 and 2 for a black oil and
condensate system, respectively. These fluid samples were
collected during the openhole MDT formation testing from the
Gulf of Mexico region. For the sole purpose of this fluid
properties comparison, the oil-based mud contamination was
not deemed relevant. As seen in these figures, the PVT
ExpressTM measurements agree well with the laboratory
measurements.
The measurements outlined above would generally be
sufficient to allow the first pass development of an equation of
state (EOS) model for a given reservoir fluid. This model can
then be used to predict the full set of traditional PVT
properties if so desired. In the development of the PVT
ExpressTM service, however, it was desired to predict the
traditional PVT properties without requiring the expertise to
properly tune an EOS model. For this reason a software
application, PVT ExpertTM, was developed to make operator
independent reliable predictions.
PVT ExpertTM Prediction
The PVT ExpertTM system is an operator independent,
multidimensional prediction model that delivers instant and
reliable volumetric phase behavior fluid properties from a
specific set of measured data. The measured data are used as
input to an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model10. The
output from this model is a prediction of a full suite of
SPE 101219
volumetric properties normally associated with PVT reports.
The model also has the unique capability of being able to
estimate the relative accuracy of its predictions.
To demonstrate the reliability of the PVT ExpertTM
predictions, a series of comparisons between the predicted
properties (based on PVT ExpressTM input data) and
subsequent laboratory measurements of the full PVT property
set for two different reservoir fluids were completed.
Following are two specific examples of black oil (Case 1) and
rich gas condensate (Case 2) taken from the Middle East
region. The fluid properties as measured using PVT
ExpressTM for the two fluids are presented in Tables 3 to 5.
Case 1 (Black Oil)
Data set in Tables 3 to 5 was used as input to PVT ExpertTM
and a summary of the key predictions are provided in Figs. 5
to 8. Also provided in the figures are predictions obtained
using a tuned Peng-Robinson11 EOS model in the PVT
simulation package PVTPro. The EOS model is tuned by
fitting the model prediction for saturation pressure and dead
oil density. Critical temperature, pressure, acentric factor and
coefficient for volume shift of components heavier than C20
were adjusted to minimize the root mean square error between
the experimental observations and EOS model predictions.
It can be seen that the PVT ExpertTM prediction matches
very well with the experimental relative volume
measurements, as does the EOS model. The oil formation
volume factor predicted by PVT ExpertTM is approximately
5% higher than the experimental as well as EOS model. The
match between solution gas oil ratio predictions from PVT
ExpertTM and experimental data is better than the match
between experimental and EOS model. Compressibility factor
(Z) of the produced gas during reservoir depletion predicted
by PVT ExpertTM agrees reasonably well with the EOS model
and experimental measurements.
Case 2 (Rich Gas Condensate)
The PVT ExpertTM predictions for a rich gas condensate are
illustrated in Figs. 9 to 11. It can be seen that the PVT
ExpertTM predictions provide an excellent representation of the
measured data. RLD (Fig. 10) predicted by PVT ExpertTM,
experimental measurement and EOS prediction agrees well at
higher pressures however the PVT ExpertTM under predicts the
RLD at lower pressures. It should be noted however that the
maximum RLD is correctly predicted by PVT ExpertTM.
Applicability of PVT ExpressTM Results
Case 2 discussed above is for an exploration well and the
information obtained from PVT ExpressTM paved the way
forward for further testing of the same zone and other zones in
the well in a safe manner after detailed compositional analysis
was available. Quick decisions regarding the flow testing of
the well through the existing facility could be made. Seeing
the conformance of the PVT express results with the
conventional full fledged laboratory work, PVT ExpressTM
was made a part and parcel for the testing of all exploratory
HP-HT wells.
3
Conclusions
Onsite fluid characterization using PVT ExpressTM has been
presented. This technique allows for an adequate fluid
characterization much earlier in the life of a field development
than has been available using traditional lab measurements.
Two cases are presented, demonstrating the comparison of
PVT ExpressTM predictions to traditional techniques. These
comparisons confirm that an adequate fluid characterization
for typical engineering and economic assessments can be
made using PVT ExpressTM. It would be expected that
implementation of these techniques in a complementary
program with traditional fluid analysis characterization can
reduce the risk associated with making key development
decisions that are based on an understanding of reservoir fluid
properties.
Nomenclature
Bo = Oil formation volume factor, m3/m3
GLR = Gas liquidl ratio, standard ft3/Stock tank barrel
GOR = Gas oil ratio, standard ft3/Stock tank barrel
P = Pressure, psia
Pb = Bubble point pressure, psia
Pd = Dew point pressure, psia
Psat = Saturation pressure, psia
RLD = Retrograde liquid dropout as percentage of volume
of liquid relative to total volume of gas at dew
point, unitless
T = Temperature, F
Z = Gas compressibility factor, unitless
References
1. Dong, C., Hegeman, P.S., Advances in Downhole
Contamination Monitoring and GOR Measurement of
Formation Fluid Samples paper presented at the 44th Annual
SPWLA meeting in Galveston, Texas, June 22-25 June (2003).
2. Dong, C., Hegeman, P.S., and Carnegie, A., Downhole
Measurement of Methane Content and GOR in Formation Fluid
Samples, paper SPE 81481 presented at the SPE 13th Middle
East Oil Show & Conference, Bahrain Apr. 5-8 (2003).
3. Dong, C., Mullins, O.C., Elshahawi, H., Hegeman, P.S.,
Kurkjian, A. and Tigue, R., In-Situ Contamination Monitoring
and GOR Measurement of Formation Fluid Samples, paper
SPE 77899, presented at the 2002 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas
Conference and Exhibition (APOGCE), Melbourne, Australia,
October.
4. Fujisawa, G., Mullins, O.C., Dong, C., Carnegie, A., Betancourt,
S.S., Terabayashi, T., Yoshida, S., Jaramillo, A.R., and Haggag,
M., Analyzing Reservoir Fluid Composition In-Situ in Real
Time: Case Study in a Carbonate Reservoir, paper SPE 84092
presented at the SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Denver, Colorado, Oct. 2-5 (2003).
5. Jamaluddin, A.K.M., Dong, C., Hermans, P., Khan, I.A.,
Carnegie, A., Mullins, O.C., Kurkjian, A., Fujisawa, G.,
Nighswander, J., and Babajan, S., Real-Time Characterisation
using Spectral Analysis and PVT Express, APPEA JOURNAL
(2004) 605-616.
6. Mullins, O.C., Beck, G.F., Cribbs, M.E., Terabayashi, T., and
Kegasawa, K., Downhole Determination of GOR on single-
phase Fluids by Optical Spectroscopy, paper M presented at the
42nd Annual. Symposium of SPWLA, Houston, Texas, March
2001.
7. Mullins, O.C., Schoer, J., and Beck, G., Real-Time
Quantification of OBM Filtrate Contamination During Openhole
4 SPE 101219

Wireline Sampling by Optical Spectroscopy, paper presented at

the 2000 SPWLA Annual Meeting, Dallas, Texas, June 2001.
8. Mullins, O. C., and Scheroer, J., Real-Time Determination of
Filtrate Contamination during Openhole Wireline Sampling by
Optical Spectroscopy, paper SPE 63071 presented at the 2000
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
Texas, Oct. 1-4 (2000).
9. Smits A.R., Fincher, D. V., Nishida, K., Mullins, O. C.,
Schroeder, R. J., and Yamate, T., In-situ Optical Fluid Analysis
as an Aid to Wireline Formation Sampling, paper SPE 26496
presented at the 1993 Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Oct. 3-6 1993.
10. Varotsis, N., Gaganis, V., Nighswander, J., and Guieze, P., A
Non-Iterative Method for the Prediction of the PVT Behavior of
Reservoir Fluids, paper SPE 56745 presented at the 1999 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas,
Oct, 3-6 1999.
11. Peng, O.Y., and Robinson, D.B., A New Two Constant
Equation of State, Industrial and Engineering Chemical
Fundamentals, 1976, Vol 15 (1), 59-64.
SPE 101219 5

Fig. 4 Acquisition board and controls

Table 1 Comparison of PVT ExpressTM properties with laboratory results (Black Oil System)

Fig. 1 Pump module with HPHT PVT cell. Parameters Units PVT Express Laboratory
C1 Mole % 43.0 45.0
C12+ Mole % 23.0 22.0
Reservoir Fluid Molecular Weight emu 119.0 115.0
STL Molecular Weight emu 278.0 270.0
STL Density kg/m3 913.0 911.0
Gas-Liquid Ratio (GLR) m3/m3 133.0 136.0
Saturation Pressure, Pb MPa 24.0 23.8
STL Viscosity m.Pa.s 9.8 9.3
Viscosity at Pb m.Pa.s 1.8 1.2

Table 2 Comparison of PVT ExpressTM properties with laboratory results (Condensate System)

Parameters Units PVT Express Laboratory

C1 Mole % 83.0 83.0
C12+ Mole % 1.3 1.2
Reservoir Fluid Molecular Weight emu 25.0 25.0
STL Molecular Weight emu 170.0 165.0
STL Density kg/m3 838.0 832.0
Gas-Liquid Ratio (GLR) m3/m3 93,580.0 91,250.0
Saturation Pressure, Pb MPa 37.4 37.3

Fig. 2 GOR module Table 3 Field parameters for two cases

Reservoir Properties
Fluid
T(F) P(psia) Depth(ft)
Case 1 172 2800 10652
Case 2 278 10800 15000

Fig. 3 Gas chromatograph

6 SPE 101219

Table 4 Reservoir Fluid Composition for the two example cases PVT Expert Lab PVTPro
Case 1 Case 2
Components 1.50
Field Lab Field Lab
1.40
N2 0.18 0.16 0.09 0.05
CO2 0.22 0.16 2.80 2.90 1.30
H2S 0.00 0.00 10.78 7.87 1.20
C1 9.47 10.94 61.57 63.91 1.10
C2 3.19 2.80 7.60 8.30

Bo
1.00
C3 4.58 3.46 3.87 3.65 0.90
iC4 0.99 0.60 0.77 0.77
0.80
nC4 3.14 1.90 1.60 1.63
0.70
iC5 1.60 0.93 0.71 0.68
nC5 2.31 1.36 0.83 0.83 0.60
C6 4.02 2.84 1.07 1.12 0.50
C7 3.74 3.14 0.90 1.06 0.00 1000 2000. 3000. 4000. 5000
C8 3.68 3.23 0.99 1.14 Pressure (psia)
C9 3.31 3.21 0.88 0.98 Fig. 6 Comparison of formation volume factor of oil from PVT
TM
C10 3.60 3.58 0.83 0.81 Expert , laboratory and EoS simulation for Case number 1
C11 3.48 3.84 0.73 0.59
C12 3.27 3.73 0.64 0.47 PVT Expert Lab PVTPro
C13 3.51 4.09 0.56 0.43
140.00
C14 3.36 3.86 0.46 0.36
C15 3.41 4.02 0.40 0.33
120.00
C16 3.12 3.61 0.33 0.27
C17 2.85 3.27 0.23 0.23
100.00
C18 2.52 2.96 0.20 0.20
GOR (scf /STB)

C19 2.44 2.87 0.21 0.19 80.00

C20+ 28.01 29.45 0.95 1.27
Molar mass 60.00
C7+ 313 288 176 176
C20+ 526 460 362 344 40.00
Fluid 233 225 36.87 36.39
Density (g/cc) 20.00
STO 0.902 0.897 0.809 0.797
0.00
Table 5 Measured and predicted results 0.00 100 200 300 400 500 600
Pressure (psia)
Psat (psia) GOR (scf/STB) TM
Fluid Fig. 7 Comparison of solution gas oil ratio from PVT Expert ,
PVT Express Laboratory PVT Express Laboratory PVTPro laboratory and EoS simulation for Case number 1
Case 1 556 566 104 99 93
Case 2 5275 5365 7034 6478 6423
PVT Expert Lab PVTPro
PVT Expert Lab PVTPro
1.000
2.0 0.990

0.980
1.8
0.970

1.6 0.960
Relative Volume

0.950
Z

1.4
0.940

1.2 0.930

0.920
1.0
0.910

0.8 0.900
0.00 100.00 200 300 400 500 600
0.00 2000. 4000. 6000. 8000. 10000.
Pressure (psia)
Pressure (psia)
Fig. 8 Comparison of compressibility factor of the produced gas
TM
TM during reservoir depletion predicted by PVT Expert , measured
Fig. 5 Comparison of relative volume obtained from PVT Expert ,
in laboratory and EoS simulation for Case number 1
laboratory and EoS simulation for Case number 1.
SPE 101219 7

PVT Expert Lab PVTPro

3.0

2.5

2.0
Relative Volume

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Pressure (psia)
Fig. 9 Comparison of relative volume from CCE for Case number 2
TM
predicted by PVT Expert , measured in laboratory and from EoS
simulation.
PVT Expert Lab PVTPro

30.0

25.0

20.0
RLD (% VL/Vd)

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (psia)

Fig. 10 Comparison of retrograde liquid deposit from CCE for

TM
Case number 2 predicted by PVT Expert , measured in laboratory
and from EoS simulation.
PVT Expert Lab PVTPro

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8
Z

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (psia)
Fig. 11 Comparison of produced gas compressibility for Case
TM
number 2 predicted by PVT Expert , measured in laboratory and
from EoS simulation.