Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

=&m+-//,, :

,(

.,

Rapid Methods for Estimating Reservoir


Compressibilities
/
H.J. SAMSY, JR.*
MEMBERAIME

.,

ABSTRACT

MOBIL O/L CO.


LOS ANGELES, CAIIF.

l. Better pkumirtgofpv
sssurebuild- upsmaybeachieved
to avoid uMecessar
Ior ch,,fiita marim-le

Conventional
calculation
of total system isothe~mai
compressibility for a system captaining a free gas phase
involves, among other things, evaluation of the change of
oil and gas formation volume factors and the gas in sohtion with pressure. Preferably, this information should be
obtained from laboratory measurements made with particulirr oils and gases. Often, experimental measurements
are not available. In this case, it is necessary to obtain
uressure-voiuns e-temperature
relationshi~s from general
correlations such as~hose of Standing f;r Californ~a oils.
In order tospeed estimatesof
compressibility, generalized
plots have been prepared of the change of both oil forma{ion volume factors and gas in solution, with pressure
frc)m Standings correlations. A generalized piot for estitnating the change in the two-phase (oil and gas) formation
volume factor with pressure is also presented.

yig.u

.-MW.W...W-.

Better and mor= I-WLLUIC GSUIIMWUL


SL2SL1G 1U1111SLL1UIJ
pressures for reserves estimates kmd rate performance
estimates.
3. Reliable information for evaluation of well completion effectiveness, and planningand il;terpretation of well
stimulation efforts.
The purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature of the
totaf system isothermal compressibility, and to present useful methods for estimadon of compressibility, particularly
for systems ,containing a gas phase.

Numero~
publications have presented solutions to
transient sin~e-phase flow of slightly compressible fluids,
stressing pressure build-up applications. In transient flow,
a compressibility* term arises to permit volume content
of fluids in porous rock to change as pressure changes.
The basic ,nature ,of the compressibility term is, usuallY
taken for granted, Problems arise in practical applications
of transient fluid theory because most published works con-
sider only one flowing fluid-in an ideai porous system
containing only one fluid. .
In 1956, r Perrine presented an intuitive extension of
single-phase flow pressure build-up methods to multiphase
Kow conditions. Later, Martin established conditims under which Perrines multiphase build-up method had a
theoretical foundation.
Perrine has shown that improper use of single-phase
build-up amlysis in certain multiphase flow situations can
:
lead to gross errors in estimated static formation pressure, ~
permeability and well condition. It is likely that much
pressure build-up data for oil weHs should.be analyzed on
the basis of mukiphase flow.
For both single-phase and multiphase build-up analysis,
the isotherm+ compressibility term in dimensionless time
groups often shouId be interpreted as the total system:compnmibility, All real reservoirs dontain one or more corn
pressible fluid phases. fn addition, rwk compressibility
can contribute in an important way to the total system
~
compressibility. The proper total. system compressibility.
- expression. may. contain terms. for. eompressibifi~=of oii,.... . -gas, water, reservoir rock. and terms for the. chatige of
,
solubiiity of gas in liquid phases.

During the prpt decade? pressure build-up and draw-.


down techrdques have gaine~an important pIace,inreservoirengineerikig. Build-up anddrawdown anrdysesareody
two special applications of tlie broad field of transient
fluid-flow theory. All solutions of transient fluid-flow problems contain a parameter called the total system isothermal compressibility. This property of fluids and porous
rockis a measure of the change in volume of the fluid
content of porous rock with a change in pressure, and itmay vary considerably with pressure.
Evaluation, of total system isothermal compressibility is
not difficult, but it is tedious and time-consuming. Often
compressibilities are estimated roughly, or transient flow
methods are neglected completely,
Y
The ber@M of using accy:rati?,riystern cornpremibiifty in
Properly-executed build?w or drawdown analjses are:
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers ollice
Ses)L 16, 196% Revised manuscript received Dec. W, 196S.
*Now a professor of petroladm engineering at Texas A&M U., CdIege Station, Tsx.
preferences given at end of paper.

*It will be understrqd that thc term rmmrmrmWilitYref~


mnl compr.rsslbility in the following.
.

APR. IL, 1964

to isotk-

...

. .

,..

-..
,

(~

$47

.,
,-

DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION

~.
.

2.

Usually, the ~fject of gas dissolved in reservoir water


upon the total s~stem compressibility is neglected for~gtw
saturated systems, due to the low sohtbility of gas in water.
Results o./ this study indicate that. the increase in total
system compressibility.caused
by solution of gas in water
is often as large as thekcompressibility
of water, and can
be magtiitudes Iargfr for low pre$xure systems. Generalized results for esthhating the change of gas in solution in
water with pressure are presented in tabular @ graphical.
form.
.

..
/..

{
.

,-

- -..

------

. .
..

.1.,

if
.
.. .. ... . :

.-

,
/

~
.

A general expression for total system compressibility


can be written in terms of separate phase compressibilities
by volumetric phase saturation weighting. That is:
,
f+=

+s;c,c+s,c+c,

S,,c,,

(1)

By definition, the isothermal compressibility of component


i is

C;=+-i+$-)...
- - 2)

Expressing volumes in terms of formation volume factors, and considering gas volubility effects, Martin presented essentially the, foRowing extension of Perrines expression for total system. compressibility.

AQUIFERS
Water influx and material balance calculations often
require estimates, of the total compressibility of an aquifer,
system, i.e., porous rock totally saturated with water, In
this case, Eq. 1 becomes:
.;
(Cl=c,c+cj,
...
. .. . . . . . . (5)

.f=so[;(*)++(*)]T+ ~

w%-)+%(%)].-
. i3Bv
()
s,

B,

ap

+C, .

Specific information on the compressibility o{the aquifer water will generally not be available. In view of the
uncertain nature of other information on the aquifer (e.g.,
porosity, permeability?, /he precision of estimates of compressibility of the aqulfcr from existing correlations is adequate. Available correlations are listed under Oil Rcservoirs. ~Water compressibilities range. from- 2X 10( to
4X 10-apsi-.

...(3)

Eq. 3 ii deve~oped in the Appendix.

Practically speaking, the greatest uncertainty in estimation of total system compressibility is estimation of the
proper liquid saturations for volumetric weighting. Uncertainty in liquid saturations ofien overbalances uncertainty
in estimation of separate phase compressibilities.
In this connection, clarification of the basis for Perrines
multiphase build-up theory is important, The separation of
oil and gas nobilities proposed by Perrine is actually based
on the field producing gas-oil ratio. equation.
R=$(&)+R.
$

:,

!.

II

f;

. .

(4)

ROCK COMPRESSIBILITY
As pressure is increased within the pores of the rock,
the rock grains are compressed, and the bulk volume of
the rgck is increased due to interaction of internal pressure
and the ,confining overburden pressure. The effect of both
A
factors is to increase pore volume as pressure increases.
., ..
.Thus by the general definition of compressibility given by
Eq. 2, rock compressibility in terms of change in pore
voiume should be negative qua-ntity. I-Iowever, the effect of
an incr~ase in pore volume with an increase in pressure
can be pictured as an increase in the size of the container
holding reservoir fluids. If the container volume is held
constant, the sanie effect could be achieved by additional
shrinking of contained fluids. Thus the eflective rock compressibil~ty may beconsidered a.jositive quantity additive ,,
.=to..fitid compressibifi~o. ... ---- ..- =,
.:::. .-. . ... = ,, -.
It is usualiy necessary to estimate ~ock cdmpresiibilities.
from existing correlations. In regard to rock compressibility, the correlation published by Hall, presenting compressibility as a function of porosity, has been in wide use.

>.

448

,,
GAS RESERVOIRS
There may be two or more phases present in a gas, reservoir: natural gas, comate water, and occasionally con- densate, tar or other forms of liquid hydrocarbons. For the
present, consider only gas and water to be present. The
effect of a liquid hydrocarbon phase will be discussed under Oii Reservoirs. The compressibility of natural gas is
large and ranges from 1,000X 10 psi- at 1,000 psi
pressure, to about lOOXJ0 psi- at 5,000 psi pressure.
The effective compressibility of water with dissolved gas
ranges from 15X 10- psi- at 1,000 psi, to 5 X lo-~,psi-
at 5,000 psi. Rock compressibilities range from 3 X 10 to
10X 10 psi-. Thus compressibilities of rock and water .
are often negligible compared to,. the compressibility of
gas. Eq. 1 becomes: ,. .
,
; (6)
Ct=suc,,
.,...,
. . . ..-.

where R is the instantaneous field producing gas-oil ratio.


Consequently, Perfifses multiphase build-up method imf plies the existence of a .kO/k. vs. saturation relationship.
Thus, liquid and gas satumtions may be estimated from
rnatmials. balances, or from results of the build-up test
and existing k,,/k,,-saturation relationships.
Determination of total system compressibility from %.
3 depends upon the number of fluid phases pre<ent, or the
reservoir type. Thus compressibility will be discussed under the categories, Rock Compressibility, Aquifers,
Gas Reservoirs and Oil Reservoirs.

,1

Hall reported that rock compressibilities range from 3 X


10- to 10- (pore volume/pore volume) /psi. Halls results
and tbi.?seof Fatt$ are summari~ed by Craft and HawkIns.
Rock compressibility covers a range in magnitude from
the compressibility of water to tha} ~of some oils, and is
generally less than the compresslbdlty of gas. However,
rock compressibility is often an important component in
total system compressibility, particularly when gas, saturation is small, porosity is small, or liquid compressibilities
are small; GeertsmaJ van der KnaapN and Dobrynin have
studied the effect of overburden and pore-space pressure
upon rock compressibili~y.

In certain cases; e.g., high pressure and high connate


water saturation, water and rock compressibilities are not
negligible. In this event, Eq. 3 must be used to evaluate
total compressibility. It is recommended that the magni- tude of water and rock compressibility contributions be
!
checked quantitatively before Eq. 6 is used.
Clearly, measured gas compressibilities should be used
if available. If measured values are not available, estimates
can be made by one of several acceptable correlations or
methods. For example, cotipressi13ility of gas for Eqs. 3
or 6 can be computed from the real gas law (see Trube,:
or Craft and Hawki@l ~~
Trube has published reduced
compressibilities for natural gases in convenient graphical
form. His corndation is usually the best source for esti,
mation of gas compressibilities.
/
Often the reciprocal of absolute pressure is used ap an
estimate of gas compressibility. This approximation is
rigorously true for a per!ect gas, and should not be used i
~.-,...
-.-1
.foEprE.ss,uresabove 5!20psi. -., ..-.
_:. . ~. ._.
,:.-..:-,
1,
OIL f&5ERVOIRi
OH reservoirs contain two or more fluid phases in addition to roclc oil, water and possibly gas, Although gas
..
compressibility is much larger than oil, water, or rock
JOURNAL

OF PETROLEUM

TECIIXiJLfl

GV

,,

,.

,
.

,.

-,,

feren~iations indicated by Eq, 3 are not difficult, but arc


tedious and subject to the usual errors inherent in differentiation, It is often necessary to smooth original data and
final results.
Assuming that experimental information is no~ available, the change in oil formation volume factor and gas in
solution with pressure required for ~q. 3 can be obtainer-i
from Standings correlations for California oils, Fig, 4
presents the change of gas in solution in oil with pressure
as a. function of gas iq solution and pressure. Fig. 5 pre~
sents, the change of oil formation volume factor yith- gas
in solution as a function of oil formation vokrme factor.
These figures are general and, in. conjn~ction with Figs, 1,,

compressibilities, gas saturations may be small and it otten


is necessary to consider contributions from each fluid
phase and the rock. Eqs, 1 or 3 ,are generally applicable.
in regard to the formation water contribution to total
compressibility, the correlations of Dodson and Standing,r
or Culberson and McKetta ~ may be used.
The compressibility
data presented by. Dodsors and
Standing provide only the effect of the change in liquid
water volume, the first term in the water contribution in
Eq, 3. In order to obtain the second term involving the
pressure differential of the gas in solution, (aR.,./@),,
either the Dodson and Standing, or Culberson and McK&tta solubility data can be used. Since this term is often
numb larger than the water compressibility,
gas-in-water
solubi[ity, data ,have been, differentiated generally and results are presented in Table 1, and Figs. 1, 2 and 3, Table
1 and Fig. 1 present, the pressure differential of gas in
solution fbr a single nati.rral gas containing 88.51 per cent
methane and 6:02 per cent ethane, This system was studied by Dodson and Standing.
For this system, the pressure differential does not
change much with temperature over the range lQOF to
250F as shown by Table 1, Thus a single, average fine is
shown &i Fig. 1; to cover the &tird temperature range.
Correction for total solids in the brine should be made
by usingthe lower graph oh Fig. 1. If temperature is above
250F, Fig, 1 should not be used. Figs. 2 and 3 can be
used to estimate the pressure differential of soh ion gas
for mixtures of methane and ethane in water. - These figures were prepared from the Culberson-McKetta data and
cover a more extensive range in temperature and pressure
than the Dodson-Standing data. The expression for the
pressure differential of any mixture of ethane and methane
is:

I
ii
m
\
I&
v
m

where the subscript 1 re$ers to methane, and 2 refers to


ethane, Becatke the sol@ilit y of hydrocarbons in water
decreases rapidly with increasing mofecular weight, contributions to the pressure differe!ltial from propane and
higher molecular weight cornponenfs can often be neglected. Again, correction for total solids in ,brine should
be made by using the lower graph on Fig. .f. Eq. 7 is not
rigorously correct, but provides a very good approximation
as can be shown by comparison of Do~son-Standing data
from Table 1 with results from Eq. 7 and the CulbersonMcKetla data from Figs. 2 and 3, Eq, 7 was derived assuming both the mol fraction water in the vapor ~hase
and mol fraction gas in the liquid phase are quite small.
1n regard to oil and gas contributions to the total system compressibility, it is possible to determine total compressibility from Eq. 3 provided formation volume factors
and, gas volubility data are ~~lailable as a function, of pres-
sure at the desired system temperature, The numerous dif._
TABLE I-CHANGE

OF iOLuiSi LITY OF A NATURAL GAS


WITH PRESSURE,(FROM <REF. 10 DATAI

(
-,

P;-., m,..--.-,. (psio)


..-

,-

IOOF
0.006s7
-0.006660.00555
0.00418
lm;fg

500
---1000 --1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
,5000

,\ PRIL,

0.00270
0.00245
~ 0<00231
. o.oo2r2 4

IN!* ,0
FT
().

0.00444
0.00373
0.00290
0.00240
0.00219
0.00204
0.00197
0.001?7

., -.

[-,

FACTOR FOR SALINITY

1.0
CORRECTION
0.s
FACTOR
0.8

10
TOTAL

20

30

60

SOLIDS IN BRINE, PPM n 10-3,

G
a

.:

250F
.
0,00640
-:J$OJ
0:00444.
0,00374
0.00315
0.00270
0,00250
0.00240
0.00231

Fsc. 2CHANGE
.
7

PSIA

2(toF
0.00640
0:005s1
;
0.00480
0.00390
0.00329
0.0027S
0.00262
0.00242
0.00231
(?.00226

1964

..

5000

%.

.a

. ... .

COkRECTION

4000

PURE WATER

scf/[bbl-psi)

15dF
0.00645
. . --0:00571

IN

3000

2000

PRESSURE,

(%).=
1(2).+2
(%-),~~- 7)

1000

.1

PRESSURE- PSIA ,
IN SIJLLiIkITYOF METHANSIN PIJREWALXJI

WITH

PRWSIJRE%9 ]%WSURS.
*-

.- :,
449

,/
,/

!.

,.

,,

,.
?.

2 and 3 and Table 1, provide a rapid means for evaluation


of total system compressibility from Eq. 3 for any system
containing a gas phase. Note that the change of oil formation volume factor with pressure is obtained from results
of both Figs. 4 and 5 and the expression:

a-

,,

DISCUSSION

,Development of the relationships shown on Figs. 4 and


5 from Standings correlations is presented in the Appendix.

The main purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature


and importance of total system compressibility for transient flow problemsand particularly pressure buiid-up
analysis. Often, specific PVT data ard not available to the
field engineer. It is likely that Eq. 3 and Figs, 1 through
5,, and Table 1 will be of most use for field calculations,
with the Dodson-Standing water compressibility correlational Trubes3 correlation for gas compressibility, and the

Gas Saturatiotr Less Than Critical Saturation

For the conr!ition that gas saturation is less than the critical saturation for free gas flow, it is possible to rearrange
Eq. 3 to avoid much of the differentiation associated with
oil and gas phase data. The result i~
,

,..

-+[(%)l.+s[=(%)+

3R.w

T.T )1+-c
9)
B.

where B, is the total, or two-phase (gas and oil) formation


volume factor:
B, = B. + (R.,R,)B,

(10)

Derivation of Eq. 9 is presented in the Appendix.


It should be clear that use of Eq. 9 is limited to systems
where the gas phase saturation is less than the critical gas
saturation for ftow of free gas. For this reason, use of Eq.
9 is quite, restricted. But, for systems wher~, Eq. 9 does
apply, considerable simplification results. It IS possible to
obtain @B,/~p), directly from Standings two-phase volume factors, or from experimental data by methods ,which
do notinvolve differentiation. These features are presented
in the Appendix.
Undersaturated

Systems A hove the BubbIe Point

Compressibility of undersaturated oil and formation


water above the bubble point cah be estimated readily
from existing ,correlations. The required information can
be found in the following -sources: for oil~see Trube~
for reservoir wa~ersee Dodson and Standing.
-,
,,

R;,

Fm. 4-CHANCE

13AS IN SOLUTION, !S.)YF/STB


,,

OF GAS IN SOLUTION IN OIL wrrw


GAS

IN

I?RESSUHE vs

,-

SoLuTIo~.

0.010

0.000

g
1.

d
m..

0.006

k.
u.
u

w.

_+

0.004

3
a
e

~ ~02

/
.. .- . ..0

.
0

.:

$000

4000

6000

8000

10,000

FoRMAT ION

VOLUME

FACTOR

OF

OIL, Ba, RES. SBL/STB/


i.

!.
\

I
i

RESSRE-PSY

FIG,3-CHANGE OF %LuBu,IrY OFETNANEIN PUREwAIER T?ITN


PRESSURSvs PRESSURE,

460

FIG,5CNARGEOF OIL

FORMATION VOLUMp FACTOR WITH GAS IN


SOLUTION vs OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR.
JOURNAL

OF

PETROLEUM

TECHNOLOGY
. .

,,

,,
,,,

/
.,
,.

.i

.,

,
.!

.,
.

Ha;l correlation of rock compressibility. An example


estimation of total system compressibilityy is presented in
the Appendix, Fig. 7 will be of limited hse for reservoirs
at pressures below the bubble point, but still producing at
or near the original solution gas-oil ratio.

R ,. = solubi.lity of gas in water, scf/STB

specific gravity of tank oil at 60F (to water),


gas gravity (to air),
SUBSCRIPTS
1 = methane,
2 = ethane,
b = bubble poin:,
1 = denotes phase i.

CONCLUSIONS
One result of this study of compressibility is worth
emphasis. The (OR,,./3p)* term wtich appears in Eqs. 3
and 9, represents the increase in effective gas compressibility resulting from solution of gas in water. This term

is usually neglected in estimation of total system compressibility. It should be<emphasized that, in most situations
where the magnitude of water compressibility is important,
the effect of solution of gas in water will be even more
important.

The author wishes to express appre&ation to Mobil Oil


Co. for permission to publish this paper. Special thanks
are offered to C. F, Gates for helpful comments and dis-,
cussions concerning this study.
,,

a = constant,

wwinwvinx,

.Iour,

Prt.

TwA.

{ kc.,

1!W ) 134S.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

NOMENCLATURE*
B, = two-phase formation volume factor, res
i
bbl/STB oil (see Eq. 10)
B,, = two-phase volume factor at bubble-point pressure, res bbl/STB oil,
c, = total system isothermal compressibility,
(vol/vol)/psi,
c,P, = pseudo reduced gas compressibility.
d = constant,
R. = volubility of gas in oil, scf/STB oil,
R., = initial, or bubble-point solution gas-oil ratio,
scf/STB oil,
.
--.
..~l.or dhrr symbols definitions, me AIME wmbols lists for: petroleum
AIME
(
1!1;6)
207,
8SS:
md
natural
m!s
rc.wvoi r ,mrineerimr, rra~l~.,

water,

correlating function, see Appendix,


real gas law deviation factor,

REFf3RENCfX
M, B.: Volumetric and Pfwse Behavior 01 Oil ~~ld
Hydrocarbon Systeors, Reinh@d Puldishing Corp., New York
(1952), See also: Dritl. & PruJ. Prae., API (,1947) 275.

L Standing,
[

,2.Perrine, R. L.: Analyses of Pressure


Pl,od. Prac., API (1956) 482.

Buildup Curies,

Dri[l. &

3. Martin, .T~C.: Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Driva Reservoirs and the Theoretical
Foundation
of Multiph=.e
Pressure
Buildup Analyses,
Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 309.
~

4. Hafl, H. N.: CompressiI>ility


AIME (1953) 198,309.

of Reservoir

5. Fatt, I.: Pore Volume Cmnpressilrilitits


Rocks, Trans., ~IhfE ( 1958) 213,362.

Rocks: Trusts.,

of %ndstone Keservoir
/

6. Craftj B. C., and Hawkins, M. F.: Applied PefI-olIw/m Ik.seruoii


Engineering, Prentice.HaR, Iuc., Englewoo(l Cliff,. N.1. f 1959)
.132.
7. Geertsma, j,: 4TIw Effect of Fluid lresmre Declilie ou VolmnW
tric .Changes of Porous Rocks, Tram., Ali[fl (1957) 210, 331. .
8..van der Knaap, W,: *Nonlinear Behavior of, .hrs~ie Porous
Media, Trans., AIME [ 1959) 216, 179; fl 1 Influence nf :1 ,;
Pore Volume Change an, he E, tinmtion of Oil Resemes.
Erdol urrd Kolde ( 1960) 13, 305.

-... .-

9.lMmytin,
Properties
360.

.-

%. M.:, -Effect rrf O{erhurden


l+ressure on %me
of .%mrlstmws. Ser. Pet. En,g. jour. (Dec.. 1962)

.
--CORRELhTINGFACTOR, $
f%.

6-CHANGE
,*

APRIL,

1964

OF STANDINCS TWO-PHASE FORMATION VOLUME


FACTORS WITH PRESSUaE:

Ftc. 7lSOITiERMAL Pakssma


, .

D~FERENTML OF TWO-PHASE
VOLUME FACTOR.

--

10. Llodson, C. R, and Standing, h!. B.: Prwsure-Volume~Tempertrture and Solufrility Relations for Natural GBs-Water Mixtures,
Drill. & Prod. Prrrc.,API (1944) 173.
O. L, and McKetta, J. J.: Phase E uilibria in
H drocarhorr-WaterSystems,Part II.. ., Trans., AI\ IE (1950)

11. Culberson,

ld9, 319,
r..ll.--.m.>v,,
Uu,,,s,

19

n r

v.

.. uA ,M,.v...,.
MJS.G .,-,

AA

@,,

Equilibria in Hy-

1, J,: Phtr*

.! ,

droearfron-WaterSystems,
Part I 11.,... Trans., AIME (1951)
.1Y4,
,.* 24s.
-.
k% Jrnbe, A. S.: Compressibility

1.

of Natural Gases, Trurrs.,

AIME

(1957) 210, 61.


14. lhbe, A. S.: Colz]llressil]ility of Underwtwrted
Hydmearhon
Reserroir F1nids, Trans., AIME (1957) 210, 34.1.

APPENDIX

()

R,- n

~oosw

tL0537p + 1.408
.-.Y.
where y, is the gas gmvity (to air), T is temperature, F,
and (API) is the tank oil gravity, Taking the natural
logarithm .of b?th sides of this equation, and differentiating analytically with respect to pressure leads to:
R8
aRa
(0,83p
i- 21.75) .
=
~,
()
Solutions of this equation are presented on Fig. 4.

~ ~kol:.

(. A1.1,

Standings Fig. 3* presents B,, vs

(.,

______

avi

()

ap

v,

(1)

. ,(2)

t--...

Since a normal fluid decreases in. volume with an increase in pressure, the definition of compressibility given.
in Eq. 2 indicates a normal fluid will have a positive
compressibi lity. We can write the following expressions
tor the separate compressibilities in Eq. 1:
r,,

-w%=--k(%)

Since gas is soluble in b&h oil and water, as well as conlpressible, the total compressibility term must be considered
an effective- compressibility which ran account for. solution effects. Oil and water formation volume factors con.taiin the effect of solution gas on the change in liquid
phase volumes. Thus terms to reduce the gas phase volume
by the quantify of gas going into solution as pressure is
raised must be added. The change in gas volume due to
scf/STB-psi, or in terms
soiution of gas in c!~iis (aR./ap),
of reservoir barrels per unit pore volume-psi:
(B,, res bbl/scf) . ~f?,
ap
. . S es bbires bb] v)(B,,- res bbljSTB)

()

,.

A similar term may also be written for effect of solution


of gas in watec
~ ~

aR6.

B,, ()~

1 aBr,
B,, aR..
c, .= S,, -
.
,
B,, ap -f-z@[

[4
R.

J%(:)
(,

differentiation

~ + 1.25 T s
1.

..

vs B,, sIS
yields

.
r
~
shown on Fig. 5. Note that y,, is the s~ecific gravity of
tank oil at 60F, and temperature T is in F.

SAMPLECALCULATIONOF TOTAL
SYS1EhfCOMPRESSIBILITY
Given the properties of an oil zone in Table 2, (1) find
all quantities needed to estimate total system compressi- ,
bility as a function of pressure, and (2) estimate the total
system compressibility at a pressure of 1,500 psia assunling pore volume saturatioris ofi oil57 per cent; water40 per cent; and gas3 per cent.
The oil formation volume factor B,, may be estimated
from Standing: Chart 3,* and the solution gas-oil ratio
R. may be estimated from Standing, Chart 2.* The isoobthermal change in solution gas-oil ratio (N?./ap.)r. is..
tained from tFig. 4 of this paper. .The quantity [Vy.,/y,,
(i3Bt,~aR.),]
may be obtained from Fi~. 5. and

,,

Then (M,,/ i3p)r may be obtained as indicated by-.Eq. 8:

The c&ipressibility of gas-saturated water may. be esti~


mated from Dodson and Standing. Tlie quantity (aR,,, /
Z?p), may be taken from Table 1 or e~timated from Frg. 1,
this paper, because no information was given on detailed
composition. The. compressibility dof, gas may be obgiis
tained from Trubes pseud&reduced compressibilities.
The gas formation volume factor may be computed from:
z(T+ 460) res bbl
B,, = 0.00504 --.
Scf
P
Thus~

a~g

()

B,, ~1

,
,,

-...... .. .

,.
+ C,..,....
.,

From :he pseudo+ritical properties. of natural gases. at u


gas gravity of 0.83, the pseudo-critital temperature and
pseudo;critical pressure are 432R and 664 psia. Thus
pseudo-reduced temperature and pressure are:

VI.*1,1

s,

B,, = 0,00504 (155 -k 460) ~


~. = 3.1;.

Thus we may combine the previous to obtain Marti&


expression for total effective isothermal compressibility
for a mukiphase system of oil, water and gas:

.,~~

Graphical

y.

._

Eqs. 1 and 2 state:


c, = .sOc,,
+s,rc,r+sycr+c,

DETERMINATIONOF (2R./~P) , FROM STANfUNGS


PVTCORRELATIONSFOR CALIFORNIAOILS .
Standingsi Fig. 1, a correlation of bubble-point pressure and gas-oil raticr, may be expressed analytically by

l)EfERMINAHONOF (W./tUt,) r.FRON S~A.~lHN[;.S ~~


OILS
,

PVT CORRELATIONSFOR Cc4LJf?0RhlL4

DERIVATION OF GENERAL TOTAL SYSTEM


ISOTHERMAL COMPRESSIBILITY EXPRESSION

and

-4

(3)

*Ref. 1 fimrre numbers refer to the API wblication:


.Chart mrmbers
refey tn the pm-ket rhwts xttached to the Reinhold rmbhcutkrfi.
!.

JOlll{N.i

J, OF PETltsJt.EIJM

.f Ef:l{NOI,OGY

TABL14 2-01

L zONE

(0,57)
--(6x
10-)+3.98X 10--I-3X 10-0
c ,(1.267)
=2.77 X 10-4 psi-.
This answer is 2S.3 per cent higher than the previous
value of 2.21 X 10- psi. The disagreement results principally because the formation gas saturation was specified to be lower than the two-phase volume factor would
indicate. Thus the assumption that the gas saturation is
less than the critical does not apply.
Certain of the results in Table 3 are worth inspection.
Notice that in both Parts A and B, the terms involving
(8RJ8pJ~ are large, and particu~arly so at low pressures.
This group actually controls the waler and oil compressibility at ~500 psia. For both oil and water, the effect of
solution of gas is about 10 times aS large as the effeci due
to change in liquid phase volume at 500 psia.

PROPERTIS3

Porosity

;$i:

Fermatlen temperature
011 sravlW
Gas eravily
Formation water salinity

per cent

39,8 API (0.S26


1308:$P;:)

to water]

From Hall the rock compressibility is estimated to be


3 X 10-0 pore volume/pore volume-psi.
Table 3 summarizes calculation bf <the various components of total system compressibility required in Part
8
1 of this problem.
The total system compressibility at 1,500 psia and fluid
saturations given may be calculated by use of ~q. 3, rock
compressibili~ of 3X10-0 psi,- and values tabulated in
Table 3:
..

cO[-.+(%)T+~(%);]+
s[-& TOTAL S%TEM

(%-).
+wal-w%)~+i

SAT~RATION

DERIVATION
The oil and gas terms in Eq. 3 may be combined to
yield a much simpier result f&r totdl compressibility. Considering only the oil and gas terms

(3)

Substituting numerical values:


c, = (0,57) (0.000334) + (0.4) (9.94,x 10-0)+ (0.03)
(0.000798) + 3 Xlo-
or
C, =

Ct =

v+%+%%-%%

190x10-
+ 3.98 X10.0 + 23.9X104
+ 3X1 O-
221 X 1Oa psi-, or 2.21X 10-4 psi-.

If gas saturation ]s below critical, and the system was


initially at the bubble poirit:
s.
STB oil
-.
B,, ~bbl res PV =
(S. res bbl gas/bbl res PV)
: (B, res bbl gas/scfl (R.i -R. scf/STB)

An approximate answer for total system compressibility


may be obtained by means of Eq. 9 and Fig. 7., Assuming the bubble-point
gas-oil ratio to be 600 cu ft/bbl and
using Fig. 5:

..()
=-+(%91
s+++$-).
+
.(, )1

aB,
= 6.0 X 10- @-.
ap .,
From Eq, 9:

aR#m
.
-I-C,,........(9)
,ap
~
,

,
or

and

s
_a=

(R, - R,)
+
B.
*
where R., is the solution gas-oil ratio at the bubble point.

Substitution
in the above yields:
,.
s _~aBo
+. B08R,
.
o

..

p+io

500
1000
1500
1900

m+),

-(~)=

scf/ST8
{1]
126
280
460.
60<>

(&&) ,

f,.,

--w-1 !29
1.173
1.267
1.3A0

NOTES
(1) From Ref. 1,
i21 From Ref. 1,
[3) From f%!. 4,
[4) From Fig. 5,

Ckrt 3, Reinhold
Chert 3, Reinkld
This Paper
This Poper

(5) Vwo

pT

j:\
0.29
0.23
0.37
0.38

5:00
5.41
5.56

0.0!%45
0.000500
0.000541
0.000556

Preisure
+. ps!a
.1000.

1500
1900

,.

..

-+(%:

Pure
Water

Pure
Wafer
.ji 12 x 10-6
3 to x~.,o:o
10-S
.,3:03

8rine
4.1
4.3
7.5. . ,
7.+.

10.9 : 3.01 x 10P

R,)

~
(

7
)

~=

[-war,,

*K*);

%%%.1

&
[s)

O. O!%}l29
0.000145
0.000157
0.000161

0.0001175
0.0001236
0.0001238
0.0001201

0.754
1.51
2.26
2.86

0.910
0.828
0.762
0.733

0.~7~65
0.00257
0.00157
0.00120

0.001372
0.000599
0.000334
0.000221

0.00149
0.000723
0.000458
0.000341

0.79
0.53
0.375

(6) Use Ea. 8. ThisPowr


(71a = 3.1 21P
(8) From Ref. J 3, cq pm c cmr
(9) co ~
1/500 = 0.002 for 500 PSiO

,.

%%7
+($.L)
~
,$-=
,::;;
% ~,yw)
.
Far Gas
P
Water
8rlne
bbl
8rine
in SOlutiOn*
33,sxlfl-3
-.
E
.1.019
~
~~
13.6x
10-n
0.0057
0.0Q54. - 1.017
. -,;053.
.I.obo
.. 3.26 x 10-.
~.FJJ:- - 6.6SK10-a
&29 X 10= - U.00.65-- 0:0043-

1.095

+(R,i

FOR SAMPLE PROBLEM


!,

,,,

K:T, uf/bbl*

10.0
11,3

+-{*)T

publication
publication

8. RESERVOIR WATER

(+2)

. .

OF TOTAL SYSTEM COMPRESSi81LllY

A. OiL AND GAS

Pressure R.

Boap*.

B. ~

or

>
TA8LE 3-CALCULATION

Compressibility
WHEN GAS
1$ LESS THAN CRITICAL

3.30 x 10-0

0.003S 0.0036

4<26xlo-f~

[-+++)
,>(&J)

~
]
,,

6P

37.0 x 1o-u
16.9x 10-n

--- -.,

9.94x ~0a7.56x lo+

.
----~ - 1

- -1

Sa

+ (R,,
[
But

by

and

-R,)~+B,!$-

B.

. .

d~firsition, the two-phase volume factor B, is:


B, = B, + (R,, R,)

.E

B,

The change of the two-phase vph.srne.factor with pressure may be evahsated in severaI ways other than direct
differentiation. One way is by means of the empirical Y
correlation. o That is, from

and

= B,b + (B, B,J(Y

+~)-,

B,, Y

Either form may be used. The interesting feature is


that the oil and gas compressibility terms including the
solution effect may be ldetermined as a function of pressure without differentiation. This procedure permits
smoothing data since values of Y should ,be determined
from the best straight line through the data points. Calculatioris are tedious, however. This method is probably
of most use in connection with experimental data and for
application to some forms of the rntiterial balance.

EVALLJATIOk OF (aB,/ijp) .

a,

.( )
(-%)=[-%-R-R%+B*17
T~r

-%(%)T
sO[-+%+%%-%(%),
which may be substi~uted in Eq. 3 to yield Eq. 9.

We

-d)

or

and by differentiation,

Thus

B,b -i- (B, -B,J(2Y


BopY

aB,

FT.

()

The partial (aB,/i3p)r can also be evaluated by direct


differentiation of Standings B, correlation; Standings correlation of B, vs pressure can. be differentiated generally
to yield Fig. 6. Fig. 7 presents a nomographic solution
of results on Fig. 6 to aid determination of (aB,/i3p)T. It
shouId be emphasized that Fig. 7 is of only limited use
in determination of total system compressibility due to
the restriction of gas saturation to less than the critical
value for free gas flow. However, Fig. 7 may be of considerable use in connection with certain material balance
**
calculations.
:

=ix:)=ap+d

achieve

=1{(%9+
}=B1{$P=+$+l}
m,
~=-pY

7 (%-l)(Y*P)I

.(

.-.
.

,!

\.

..

.,

.>
.,

,.
?

S-ar putea să vă placă și