9jxJ5 SPE

fJ—=fJ~ Ur@mtwaC#AtME

CtMVISl
TIONALVARIATIONS
WITHIN
A HYDR(EARBON
CtMIMN
DUETO GRAVITY

byA.M. Schulte, Konfnklijke/ Shell Exploratie en

Produktie Laboratorium

@Copyright 1960, Ameriinlnsfiiute ofMining,Metallwgi@, and Petroleum Engin8ara, Inc.

rhis paper was preaeiltad at the 55th Annual Fall Technical Carrference and Exhibition of the SWiety of Petroleum En ineersof AIME, held in D?llas, Texas, September 21.24,1980,
h material Is subject tocc+rectiin by the author, Permission to copy is resfrictml to an abstract of not more than 3 d words. Write: 6200 N, Central Expwy., Dallas, Texas 75206,

ABSTRACT In the literature the influence of gravity

on the spatial distribution of components in a
Gravity forces may generate and stabilise reservoir fluid system that is in thermodynamic
variations in composition along the hydrocarbon equilibrium has been analysed before by Sage
column in thick reservoirs. From the condition and Lacey (Ref. 10). They made calculations
of thermodynamic equilibrium in a hydrocarbon assuming ideal solution behaviour. Since the
column in. the field of gravity one may determine simplifying assumptions made are too restrictive,
with an equation of state the variations in we initiated a study on this subject with the aim of
composition with depth, The developed calculational achieving a more satisfactory solution.
procedure uses the Soave and Peng-Robinson
equation of state, Results are shown for various
hydrocarbon systems. Aromatics content, overall Th condition of thermodynamic equilibrium
pressure and the introduction of binary interaction is equivalent to the requirement that for each
coefficients in the equation of state are seen to component in the system the sum of the chemical
have strong influence on the predictions of gravity potential and the gravity potential should be
segregation. Observed compositional variations and constant throughout the column. This leads to
corresponding variations in bubble points/dew a set of non-linear equations. The chemical
points as well as the occurrence of natural potentials can be calculated from an equation
miscibility between cap gas and reservoir oil can of state.
be explained.
In this paper the theory of gravity
INTRODUCTION segregation and the method of calculation are
discussed. Results for a number of hydrocarbon
In thick reservoirs variations in composition systems are presented together with a discussion
along the hydrocarbon column have been observed and general conclusions of this work.
(Refs. 1-9). The mole fractions of the lighter
hydrocarbons decrease, whereas the heavy GRAVITY SEGREGATION
Maction increases from the top to the bottom of
the reservoir. Process description

These variations may affect reservoir fluid When a multi-component syst@p is in true
properties considerably. In the Brent reservoir thermodynamic equilibrium in a grbvity field, the
(Refs. 1-2), for instance, PVT measurements on system should be isothermal and for each ,component
bubble-point pressures/d :w-point pressures of fluid in the system the sum of the chemical potential
samples show these pres ~ures to be well below local and the gravity potential should be constant (Refs.
reservoir pressures at ‘he sampling interval. Fluid 10-11). Compared with the usual vapour-liquid
samples may even show miscibility between cap gas equilibrium condition, which requires the chemical
and reservoir oil under initial reservoir conditions. potential for each component to be equal in both
In studying recovery processes, it is essential to phases, i.e. constant in the whole system, there is
have understanding of the underlying mechanisms. now an additional term due to gravity. For a column
the equilibrium condition for a system in a gravity
An explanation for the phenomena observed field can be expressed by:
may be that gravity forces induce and stabilise the
compositional differences. @i + migdh =0 i=12 >>, ..> n (1)

@
n
a
twm#mfwm_vfmTAT
Vw&lbar w&a sw&u-*-
VA12TATTtWS
------------
WIIWIN
. . . . . . . .
A FTYDROMRBON
-.
COLUMN DUE TO GRAVITY SPE 9236

‘he general expression for the chemical ,Exsmple of an oil system of high aromatics content
Iotentisls is (Ref. 12):
In Table 2 the results are given for a
different initial oil composition. In this case the
,i. ;[( a+i)Tvn - ~ 1 dv compositional variations,
pressures
variations in bubble-point
and molecular weight are much more
j pronounced. The main difference between the two
(2) examples seems to be the aromatics content. The
-RTln(— ) + PifJ oil in Table 2 contains a much higher mole
%~T percentage of aromatic compounds than the oil of
Table 1. In this example too, the molar fractions
Iquation (1) can be solved without knowing the of aromatic compounds show larger variations
~alues of pi since the equations show only than “the other fractions. The increase in the
Mferences % chemical potentials. aromatics fraction is almost equal to the decrease
in the methane plus ethane fraction.
The set of equations (1) has a simple
nalytic solution if an ideal gas behaviour for Illustration of the effect of using different
ach component in the fluid is assumed. As soon equations of state
s the PVT relation of the system is more complex
han that of ideal gases it is no longer possible to As our calculations indicate that the type of
;ive explicit analytic solutions. Sage and Lacey components, i, e, their non-ideal behaviour is
,ttempted to simplify the r$on-linear equations by important in the process, we investigated the
~ssuming ideal solution behaviour. , Since this effect of the use of different equations of state.
wurnption is of rather doubtful validity for fluid We used the initial oil composition and pressure
~Ystems under reservoir conditions, we prefer to of our first example. Figure 1 gives the calculated
;olve the set of equations in a numerical way, methane fraction versus depth. The Soave
ising an equation of sta+.e. equation and Peng-Robinson equation yield
similar results. The introduction of binary
fiethod of calculation interaction coefficients in the Soave equation
(Soave-1) has a large effect on the predicted
As m and g are constants with respect to compositional variations,
~, equatlo‘h s (1) can also be written:
Illustration of the effect of overall pressure
Ji (h=h2) - Pi (h=hl) + mig (h2-hl) = o? (3)
If the components show ideal gas behaviour
,,e. the local equilibria at h=h and h=h can compositional variations turn out to be independent
iirectly be related. The differ%ces in c~emical of pressure, It seemed of interest to investigate
~otentials can be obtained by using an equation whether or not this is also true in the general case
]f state. In our calculations we will use the of non-ideal behaviour. For three different initial
3oave (Ref. 13) equation, with and without binary pressures P we have calculated the compositional
interaction coefficients and the Peng-Robinson variations a~ a function of depth for an initial oil
[Ref. 14) equation. The I.I.’S are functions of composition given in Table 3 first column (the C?+
temperature, mole fraction~ and pressure. If the components are the same as those in Table 1), We
mole fractions x ,x ,.. . ,x -1 ($ xi =1) and the used the Soave- 1 equation of state. The main
pressure p for he %uid ape gi en at h=h , the result is shown in Fig. 2. It can be concluded that
Fluid variables at h=h can be obtained b; solving pressure does influence the segregation process.
the n equations (3). ?tarting from a certain The sensitivity of the segregation process to
composition and pressure at datum level h=O, one pressures well above the bubble-point pressure
can calculate composition and pressure for positive of the oil is much less than to pressures close to
and negative values of h. Fluid properties at the the bubble-point pressure.
various levels like bubble-point pressure, dew-point
pressure can be calculated with the aid of a vapour-
Iiquid equilibrium program like VLEP (Ref. 15). Gas/oil column with a Gas Oil Contact

APPLICATION TO VARIOUS HYDROCARBON The gravity forces are also operative in a

SYSTEMS gas column and influence the composition of the gas.
We have studied the compositional variations and
Example of an oil system of low aromatics content their influence on fluid properties for a combined
oil/gas column. The compositional variations within
In Table 1 the results are summerised of the oil column are illustrated in curve III of Fig. 2
calculations performed on a selected initial oil (initial composition Table 3). Starting from the datum
composition. In the calculations the Soave level at O mtr, we calculated oil compositions above
equation of state was used, Although the this level (negative depths !). The bubble-point
predicted compositional variations are small, it pressure of the oil is below the reservoir pressure
is clear that both methane and ethane fractions at the datum level but, if we go upwards, the
decrease with increasing depth, while the other reservoir pressure decreases whereas the bubble-
fractions kcrease. Furthermore, the reservoir point pressure increases. At the depth where both
pressure increases and the bubble-point pressure pressures are equal we have the gas-oil contact.
decreases, resulting in undersaturation of the oil. Above the GOC our program calculates the
Examination of the various mole fractions reveals variations in the gas column following from the
that the relative increase for the aromatics is larger composition of the equilibrium gas at the GOC.
than for paraffins.
I
r= Ualu .>, . .. . ““..”-*-

‘he results of the calculations are shown in Fig. 3 ~DISCUSSION

nd Table 3. The compositional variations in the
:as column are rather small, but seem to have Role of aromatic components
marked effect on the dew-point pressure. Both
‘eservoir pressure and dew”-point pressure decrease In the examples given in the previous
~ith increasing height, The dew-point pressure, section, the relative variation in mole fraction for
Lowever, decreases more rapidly than the reservoir aromatic components is larger than that for
messure, paraffins. Apparently, the amount of aromatic
components seems to be a key factor in the
;as/oil column without a Gas Oil Contact segregation process. Figure 4 shows the methane
fraction and the aromatics fraction versus depth
Since the composition of an oil within a for the oil system of Table 1, The decreasing
:olumn varies with depth, the corresponding methane fraction is largely compensated by the
~hase envelope and the critical properties of increasing aromatics fraction. The difference
he oil vary as well. The critical temperature of the between the two curves is mainly due to the
d decreases with elevation. In the preceding decreasing ethane fraction. Furthermore, the
;ection the bubble-point pressure of the fluid increase in the aromatics fraction depends on the
!quals the reservoir pressure before the critical amount of aromatics: the higher this fraction,
emperature of the fluid can reach the reservoir the higher its increase with depth.
emperature. An interesting situation occurs if
he critical temperature of the oil equals the In their analysis Sage and Lacey neglect ‘
‘eservoir temperature before the bubble-point cross-terms which account for the mutual influence
n’essure can reach the value of the reservoir of components on their chemical potential. In our
messure. Then, the reservoir contains an oil equation of state approach these terms are large
:olumn and a gas column but there is no dis - for aromatic components and have to be
:ontinuity in composition as in the case of a incorporated.
30C. The hydrocarbon column gradually changes
n composition. In the lower part of the column
:he fluid has the properties of an oil: the Interaction coefficients
:ritical temperature of the fluid is higher than the
?eservoir temperature and if one lowers the The calculated effect of gravity on composition
]ressure a bubble point is found. In the upper is not very sensitive to the equation of state used.
>art of the column, however, the critical The introduction of binary interaction coefficients
temperature of the fluid has become lower than influences the results significantly. These coefficients
:he reservoir temperature and a dew-point can modify the simple geometric mean mixing rules
}e determined. Throughout the column the used in equations of state, For the description of
reservoir pressure may be well beyorid the vapour-liquid equilibria, the introduction of these
!mbble-point/dew-point pressure of the fluid. coefficients has proved to be successful,
Therefore, it is tempting to conclude that the
Soave- 1 predictions are more reliable than the
In order to illustrate this possibility, we have ones of the Soave and Peng-Robinson equations
calculated the composition and associated phase without interaction coefficients.
envelope for a six-component hydrocarbon mixture
(Ref. 16) as a function of depth. In the calculations Comparison with field data
we used the Peng-Robinson equation of state. At
datum level (O ft) the reservoir conditions are 275 bar The remtlts of our calculations show that
and 275 K and the mixture behaves like a liquid: at in thick reservoir gravity may influence reservoir
275 K the mixture has a bubble-point pressure of fluid compositions considerably, A number of
about 200 bar. Table 4 gives the composition of the phenomena observed can be explained, at the
fluid at depths 600 ft, O ft, -600 ft and -1200 ft. least, qualitatively.
In Fig, 3 the phase envelopes together with their
critical point are drawn in one PT-plane. The For the Brent reservoir of the Brent field
gradual change of the phase envelope and especially North Sea (Refs, 1-2), PVT measurements have
the location of the critical point result in a change been carried out on fluid samples recovered from
of character of the fluid: at 600 ft and O ft the various depths. The dew-point pressures and
fluid is a liquid, whereas at -600 ft and -1200 ft bubble-point pressures of these samples show a
the fluid is a gas (retrograde behaviour). Oil as trend which is similar to the one shown in Fig, 3:
well as gas are present in the column, even though the dew-point pressure of the gas column increases
the bubble-point/dew-point pressures are well below with depth while the bubble-point pressure of the
the reservoir pressure. oil column decreases with depth, both pressures
being equal to the reservoir pressure at the GOC.
A second example of a gas/oil column
without GOC is given in Table 5. In this The decrease in the methane fraction of the
calculation (Soave- 1 equation of state) a oil ia about 5 mole per cent over a column of 150 m.
hydrocarbon mixture representing a more The calculated variations are of the same order of
realistic reservoir fluid has been used. The magnitude. The bubble-point pressure decreases
compositional gradients are much larger than with depth at about 0.82 bar/m (3,6 psia/ft).
those for the six-component mixture.
 COMP~~IONAL VARIATIONS WT1’HfNA HYD CARBON COLUMN DUE TO GRAV~Y SPE 9235

Fhis large gradient cannot be reproduced in the k. The predicted effects of gravity on composition
calculations (three to five times smaller). The are sensitive to the interaction coefficients
}ffect of a decreasing methane fraction on the used in the equation of state. The Soave and
wbble-point pre$sure seems to be compensated Peng-Robinson equation produce similar results,
,argely by the increasing aromatics fraction. This 5. The compositional variations induced ang
?ffect of aromatic components is still the subject stabilised by gravity may be considerable.
)f further theoretical and experimental investigation. Observed compositional variations and
corresponding variations in bubble points/
dew points as well as the occurrence of
The Brent field has another major natural miscibility between cap gas and
Accumulation: the Statfjord reservoir. In this reservoir oil can be explained.
gas/oil reservoir a GOC has not been located.
Analyses of reservoir fluid recovered from NOMENCLATURE
various depths do not seem to indicate that
separate dew-point and bubble-point trends
exist (Ref. 2). Statf jord most likely consists of a Pi = chemical potential component i
mi = molecular weight component i
single-phase hydrocarbon column which gradually = magnitude of the acceleration of gravity
changes its character in a way illustrated in Fig. 4, := height in hydrocarbon column relative
Table 4 and Table 5. In fact, the fluid composition to datum level
in Table 5 is similar to the composition of Statfjord” P .= absolute pressure
fluid. The calculated compositional variations are of T= absolute temperature
the same order of magnitude as the variations R= gas constant
observed. The data on bubble-point/dew-po*t number of moles component i
pressures do not seem to contradict the small $: volume
gradients predicted by our calculations,
Pio = chemical potential of pure i as an ideal
gas at temperature T and pressure P
For both the Brent and Statfjord reservoir, Zqual to one pressure unit.
slim-tube experiments carried out with fluid
samples imply that cap gas and reservoir oil are ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
miscible under initial reservoir conditions (Refs.
1-2). However, gas and oil which are in equilibrium I wish to thank L. N, J. de Jong and
are immiscible by definition. If the model without F. van Poelgeest for the many stimulating
GOC can be applied to Statfjord, the occurrence discussions.
of natural miscibility is a consequence of the
gradually changing composition within the column;
without GOC we have miscibility throughout the REFERENCES
entire column, For the Brent reservoir a possible
explanation may be that the compositional 1. Russell, M.P.M. : l!R@s@rvoir Engineering
variations in both oil and gas-cap column are Aspects of the Brent Field Development
large enough to establish miscibility between the Planning”, presented at Utstein Reservoir
higher part of the gas column and the lower part Engineering Seminar in Norway, May, 1978.
of the oil column. 2. Bath, P. G. H., Fowler, W.N. & Russell, M.P.M. :
“The Brent Field, A Reservoir Engineering
CONCLUSIONS Review”, EUR 164, to be presented at the
European Offshore Petroleum Conference and
From our study the following conclusions Exhibition, London, October, 21-24, 1980.
can be made: 3, Espach, R, H. & Fry, J.: “Variable
1. Characteristics of the Oil in the Tensleep
It is possible to calculate compositional
variations in a hydrocarbon column which is Sandstone Reservoir, Elk Basin Field,
in true equilibrium with a gravity field, The Wyoming and Montana”, Trans. AIME (1951 ),
192, 75-82.
developed calculational procedure solves the
4, McCord, D. R.: ftperformance Predictions
equations following from the exact equilibrium
conditions, using the Soave or Peng-Robinson Incorporating Gravity Drainage and Gas Cap
equation of state. Pressure Maintenance-LL-370 Area, Bolivar
Coastal Field”, Trans, AIME (1953), 198,
2. The aromatics fraction if an oil/gas column
231-248.
is a key factor in the process of segregation.
The larger the aromatics fraction, the larger 5. Clinton, G. W., Ruiz, J.: “Performance of Payoa
the compositional variations are. Basal Eocene Block A Reservoir”, J. Pet.
Techn. , January 1968, 31-35,
3. Compositional variations in an oil column
depend on pressure. When there is a fixed 6. Wadman, D. H., Lamprecht, D. E. & Mrosovsky, 1.
tlReservoir Description through Joint G@ologic-
initial composition of the oil at a datum
Egineering Analysis”, SPE 7531, presented at
level, the compositional variations calculated
the 53rd Annual Fall Technical Conference and
are larger if the initial pressure is lower.
Exhibition of the SPE of AIME, Houston,
October 1-3, 1978.
7, Grant, H, K.: l~Material.B al~ce C~CUlatiOIl~” j
The Oil and Gas Journal, August 1959, 57 (35),
93-99.
8. Havlena, D.: llDvn~ic Reservoir Data”s
J, of C~adian ~etroleum, July-September 1968,
128-144.
Imi!
!- -
!M!!zfi
--”-
A.M.
. . . ..- .——--__— SCHULTE— E

9. Evans, C, R,, Rogers, M.A. & Bailey, N. J. L.:

“Evolution and Alteration of Petroleum in Western
Canada”, Chem. Geol. (1971), 8, 147-170.
10 t Sage, B. H, & Lacey, W,N.: “Gravitational
Concentration Gradients in Static Columns of
Hydrocarbon Fluids”, Trans. AIME (1939),
132, 120-131.
11, Haase, R.: Thermodynamic der Irreversible
Prozesse, Dietrich Steinkopff Verlag, Darmstadt,
1963.
12. Prausnitz, J .M. : Molecular Thermodynamics of
Fluid-Phase Equi.lfibria, Prentice-Hall Inc. ,
Englewood Cliffs, 1969.
13. Soave, G,: “Equilibrium Constants from a
Modified Redlich-Kwong Equation of State”,
Chem. Eng, Sci. (1971), 27, 1197-1203.
14. Peng, D,Y & Robinson, D. B.: “A New Two-
Constant Equation c,f State”, Ind. Eng. Chem.
Fundam. (1976), 15 (1), 59-64.
15. Kao, J,: llAn Algorithm for Calculating Vapour-
Liquid Equilibrium”, SPE 7605, presented at
the 53rd .4nnual FalI Technical Conference
and Exhibition of SPE of AIME, Houston,
October 1-3, 1978.
16. Yarborough, L.: llVaPour-Liquid Equilibrium
Data for Multicomponent Mixtures Containing
Hydrocarbon and Non-Hydrocarbon Components,
J. Chem. Eng. Data (1972), 17 (2), 129-133.

Table 1 Table 2
Composition of oil of low aromatics content Composition of oil of high aromatics content
as a function of depth, T = 361 K as a function of depth, T = 366 K
Component depth (metres) Component depth (metres )
50 100 0- 50 100
methane . 6;09 ,5941 .5874 methane ,5199 .4860 .4638
ethane .0564 ,0559 ethane ,0743 .0716 .0696
propane ,0492 .0492 .0492 propane .0564 .0549 .0537
i-butane .0187 .0187 .0187 i-butane ,0080 .0078 ,0076
n-butane .0244 .0245 ,0246 n-butane .0239 .0235 ,0231
i-pentane .0141 .0142 .0142 i-pentane .0075 ,0073 ,0072
n-pentane .0125 .0126 ,0127 n-pentane .0110 .0109 .0107
n-hexane .0181 .0183 .0184 n-hexane .0121 .0120 .0117
n-octane .0200 ,0205 n-heptane .0412 ,0407 .0398
n-dodecane .0200 .0204 .0207 n-decane .0124 .0120 .0116
n-tetradecane .0260 .0270 n-tetradecane .0222 .0207 .0192
eicosane .0219 .0224 .0228 naphthalene .1569 .1839 .2020
n-C28 .0213 .0218 .0223 biphenyl ,0100 .0123 .0139
butylcyclohexane .0250 .0256 .0262 terphenyl .0367 .0494 ,0593
toluene .0163 .0167 ,0171 carbon dioxide .0036 .0035 .0035
naphthalene .0136 .0142 ,0148 nitrogen .0039 .0035 .0033
biphenyl .0144 .0152 .0160
terpheny~ .0246 .0266 ,0287 molecular weight 57,96 63,52 67.38
carbon d!ldtide .0012 .0012 ,0012
nitrogen .0015 .0015 ,0015 pressure (bar) 386.10 389,14 392.31

molecular weight 59.63 60.90 62.12 bubble-point

pressure (bar) 377,76 370,59 .364 .59
pressure (bar) 310.26 312.74 315.29

bubble-point
pressure (bar) 288.89 285.51 282.34
*

Table 3
Composition of gas/oil as a function of depth, T = 361 K
Component depth (metres)
liauid
. gas
-22 -22 -50 -1oo
methane .5:98 ,5559 .8415 .8429 ,8454
ethane .0544 ,0547 .0551 ,0549 ,0547
propane .0488 .0489 .0373 .0371 .0367
i-butane ,0188 .0180 .0119 ,0118 .0116
n-butane .0248 .0248 ,0141 .0140 .0138
i-pentane .0145 .0145 .0068 .0067 ,0066
n-pentane ,0130 .0130 .0056 ,0055 .0054
n-hexane ,0191 .0190 ,0063 .0062 .0060
butylcyclohexane .0294 .0288 ,0029 .0028 .0027
C?+ paraffins .1216 .1203 .0087 .0084 .0077
C7+ aromatics .1033 .0987 ,0058 .0057 .0054
carbon dioxide .0012 ,0012 ,0012 .0012 .0012
nitrogen .0013 .0014 .0028 .0028 .0028

molecular weight 69.04 67.94 22.35 22.23 22,05

pressure (bar) 399.89 291,84 291.84 291.23 290,13

dew/bubble point
pressure (bar) 290.14 291.84 291.84 289.16 284.61

Table 5
Composition of reservoir fluid as a function of depth, T = 369 K

ComDonent deDth (metres)

-30 0“ 30 61
(-lGift) (0-ft) (loOft) (200ft) (3!ift)

methane .7219 .6987 .6638 ,6300 ,5873

ethane .0805 .0806 .0800 .0787 ,0765
propane .0524 .0536 .0547 .0551 .0549
i-butane ,0069 .0072 .0075 ,0077 .0077
n-butane .0198 .0207 .0218 .0225 .0230
i-pentane .0056 .0060 .0064 .0067 .0070
n-pentane ,0086 .0092 ,0100 .0105 ,0110
n-hexane .0098 .0107 .0119 .0128 .0137
C7+ paraffins .0508 .0615 .0771 .0906 .1036
C7+ aromatics .0311 .0396 .0551 .0742 .1048
carbon dioxide .0056 .0056 .0056 .0056 ,0055
nitrogen .0070 .0066 ,0061 .0056 .0050
molecular weight 33.24 36.57 41.97 47.’57 54.99

pressure (bar) 419.40 420.58 421.82 423.26 424.71

dew/bubble-point
pressure~(bar) 399.82 404.03 404.72 403.20 403.75

Table 4
Composition of a six-component hydrocarbon mixture as a function of depth
T= 275 K, Pressure at datum level: 275 bar

Component depth (metres)

183 -183 -366
(600 ft) (O”ft) (-600ft) (-1200ft)
methane .7908 .8097 .8293 .8480
ethane ,0578 .0566 .0551 .0533
propane .0322 .0306 .0288 .0268
n-pentane .0507 .0457 ,0403 .0351
n-heptane .0384 .0330 .0276 .0225
n-decane .0301 .0244 .0189 .0143

molecular weight 27.63 26.12 24.60 23.21

 ---- SOAVE
— .— PENG ROBINSON

— SOAVE-1

o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 904

DEPTH (metres)
Figure 1
Methane fraction versus depth using different
equations of state. Conditiona at datum level
given in Table 1

I PO=399,89 bar
U PO =330.9S bar
~ P- = 293.02 bar

\ \

0 so 100 150 200

DEPTH [ metres )

Figure 2
Effect of different reservoir pressures P at the
datum level. Composition of oil at datum %vel
given in Table 3
-1oo

.
g

\ RESERVOIR PRESSURE

DEW - POINT
PRESSURE

GO C
---- ---- -----

N
\
\
\
\
\
\ RESERVOIR PRESSURE
1
\
\
\
\
\
. \
\
BUBBLE-POINT \
\
\
\
1
\\

J
\
1 1 , 8 , , 1 , 1 , 1 * 1 ,

283 285 290 295

PRESSURE (bar)

Figure 3
Bubble-point pressure oil, dew-point pressure
cap gas and reservoir pressure versus depth.
Compositions are given in Table 3
 .

......... .......... .......... d

c
P

........ !...

......... t !.

I
:
:
:. /
:
0

......... !...

......... ●
,...

:
s
:

~
......... ,...

:
:
:
:
:
:
*
......... ,...

:
:
:
0
:
t
:
......... ,...

:
:
:
;

......... . . . .

.. ...... . . . .

......... . . . .

:.
:
d :
-

i-’+-b-~
3 309 .350 a 450 SW ( o
TEMPERATURE (K)

Figure 4
Phase envelopes for six~component hydrocarbon
mixture at 183 m, O m, -183 m, -366 m
 0)07
z 0.60
0
i= E
— METHANE i=
:
a 2
&
- --- AROMATICS E
I&! w
z
a
r 0,”;0 E
1- <
z
E a
a
<

0.5s
\
\
\
\

0.15

0.50

0.20

.
0.46 8 1 I 8 1 t 1

500 600 700 800 900 1000

0 100 200 300 &oo
DEPTH ( metres)

Figure 5
Methane fraction and aromatics fraction as a
function of depth. Conditions at datum level are
given in Table 1