SPE 77405
PVT Sampling With Multiphase FlowmetersTheoretical Justifications
and Field Limitations
S. Jayawardane and B.C. Theuveny, SPE, Schlumberger
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September2 October 2002.
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
Multiphase flowmeter technology probably is the most
significant innovation in surface well testing in more than 30
years. Multiphase flow measurement is becoming a globally
accepted technique for well and reservoir performance
evaluations. The qualification of the validity of samples
collected during these operations is required to validate the
full potential of multiphase well testing techniques.
This paper discusses the new methodology developed for
collection of samples using dual-energy spectral gamma ray
Venturi multiphase flowmeter technology in field operations.
The paper presents some of the theory and assumptions
underlying multiphase flow computations and valid sample
collection with the flowmeter. Field operations are detailed in
the paper and provide operational guidelines to improve safety
and optimize sampling operations. A description of the
laboratory pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) analysis
procedures required to physically recombine these
nonconventional gas and oil samples is provided, and a series
of field examples illustrate the efficiency of using multiphase
flowmeters for well testing.
A sensitivity analysis is conducted for various gas and oil
sample recombinations and resulting PVT properties
computed by equation of state- (EOS-) based compositional
simulations. The parameters considered are possible variations
in sampling temperature or pressure and their impact on the
resulting recombined fluid PVT properties.
Introduction
After decades of traditional well testing and drillstem testing,
multiphase flowmeter technology probably is the most
significant innovation in surface well testing in more than 30
years. Multiphase flowmeters in well testing have been used
since the early 1980s in the U. S., and since the early 1990s
there has been a tremendous effort made to improve the
instrumentation and engineering.1-11 Innovations in the
determination of phase fractions, combined with a better
understanding of multiphase flow dynamics, have improved
confidence in the techniques over the years. Today this
technology is used worldwide.
Many multiphase flowmeters are permanently installed in
production systems to accommodate the increase in periodic
well-testing operations in recent years. Multiphase well testing
is becoming a globally accepted testing standard for well and
reservoir performance evaluation.12-14 Multiphase flowmeters
bring an efficient solution to well testing and have some
benefits over test separators in some field applications,16,19
although some tradeoffs may be inevitable. However, their
main benefits remain improved safety, logistics, shorter
operational time, and quality of data.
Sampling hydrocarbon fluids for use in PVT analyses is
traditionally done either by using downhole sampling tools or
by collecting segregated phase samples from the test
separator. In some cases samples are collected at the wellhead,
but this method is rarely used because of uncertainty about gas
and oil phase representation. When multiphase flowmeters are
used in well-testing scenarios, most operators expect the
capability to collect samples for PVT analyses.
Furthermore, Mus et al.10 emphasized the need for
sampling from the multiphase flowmeter during exploration,
appraisal, or completion of new wells, either when no test
separator is available, or when the test separator is deliberately
underdimensioned and used only for burning purposes.
Representative PVT analysis is possible from samples
collected during a multiphase well test with a dual-energy
spectral gamma ray Venturi flowmeter after proper phase
segregation in the laboratory.
This particular type of multiphase flowmeter allows a
complete decoupling between the fluid properties and the
meter setup, thus allowing accurate determination of the flow
rates of oil, gas, and water as well as correct estimation of the
recombination ratio for reconstructing the reservoir fluid from
collected samples.
New technologies like multiphase metering in surface well
testing bring new challenges to sampling and analysis
2 S. JAYAWARDANE, B.C. THEUVENY SPE 77405

techniques. It is essential to develop the required not been absorbed by the mixture flowing through the
methodology, operating procedures, and analytical techniques Venturi section.
to provide the industry with the full scope of services normally Pressure and temperature measurements are also
performed with a test separator. Sampling counts among these accurately measured for estimating the PVT properties at
essential services. line conditions.
Most experts in this domain are still debating how this The low-energy count rate is related to the composition of
should be done. Since a static-phase equilibrium that is close the fluidthereby responding to the water/liquid ratio
to what is expected in a test separator is never achieved inside (WLR)whereas the high-energy count rate is primarily
a multiphase flowmeter, samples from the gas stream or the related to the mixture density. As the effects of WLR and
oil/water stream are not representative from a compositional mixture density on the two attenuations are coupled, the
and phase behavior point of view. flowmeter solves the set of equations to compute the holdups
However these nonrepresentative samples may be of oil, gas, and water.
properly segregated in a static laboratory environment to
obtain representative sets of samples for recombination. This This is expressed mathematically as
methodology allows qualification of samples collected during
multiphase metering operations for PVT analyses. It thereby AoH AwH AgH o AmH
validates the full potential of these new well-testing L
techniques. Ao AwL AgL w = AmL , (1)
1 1 1 g 1

Phase-Fraction Computations
H ,L
Phase fractions ( o , w, g for oil, water, and gas respectively) N vac
where AoH,w, L, g ,m = ln are the attenuations at high and
can be computed using the new flowmeter technology. Fig. 1 N oH,w, L, g ,m
shows a cross section of the Venturi section and the dual- low energies of oil, water, gas, and mixtures, respectively, and
energy spectral gamma ray detector. H ,L
N vac ,o , w, g , m are the detected photons in vacuum, oil, water,
gas, and the mixture passing through the Venturi throat.
,o , w, g ) and solving
H ,L
By measuring nuclear attenuations ( N vac
Venturi
the above equations, phase fractions o, w, and g are
obtained.
When there is no slip between oil and water, the WLR is
w
Detector WLR = . ... (2)
o +w
Source
Graphical interpretation of the above equations is
presented on a compositional triangle (Fig. 2), where the
P apexes are the single-phase attenuations. An operating point
example is shown at 50% gas volume fraction (GVF) and
P Composition 50% WLR.
Meter

T
- Low energy attenuation
Flow -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
0 Vacuum
00
-0.1
Solution Triangle gas
-0.2
- High energy attenuation

Operating Point
Operating point -0.3
Fig 1: Cross Section of the Multiphase Flowmeter GVF = 50%
WLR = 50 % -0.4
-0.5
The Venturi section measures the total mass flow rate Constant GVF line (50%) -0.6
using differential pressure sensors, and the dual-energy Constant WLR line (50%) -0.7
spectral gamma ray detector is combined with a radioactive -0.8
oil
chemical source measures the oil, water, and gas fractions. -0.9
-1
The radioactive chemical source emits gamma rays at water
-1.1
numerous energy levels, and the attenuation of the gamma -1.2
rays by the fluid is measured at two different energy levels. A
scintillation detector combined with a photomultiplier located Fig. 2: Compositional Triangle
on the other side of the pipe detects the gamma rays that have
SPE 77405 PVT SAMPLING WITH MULTIPHASE FLOWMETERS THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATIONS AND FIELD LIMITATIONS
The corners of the solution triangle correspond to single
phases. The constant GVF lines are parallel to the water/oil
line and the constant WLR lines intersect the gas point. Fluid
properties define the position of the apexes of the
solution triangle.
Fluid Properties Required For Tool Calibration
To compute accurate volumetric flow rates of phases flowing
through the flowmeter at a given pressure and temperature,
phase densities, nuclear attenuations, and elemental
composition of water must be known or else measured or
computed as accurately as possible.
The availability of fluid properties can be categorized
as follows:
Well-test applications with no or very limited
knowledge of reservoir fluid properties
Well-test applications with limited knowledge of
reservoir fluid properties
Periodic monitoring applications with reservoir fluid
properties known from previous well tests.
Depending on the scenario, available fluid properties are
either drawn directly from the PVT reports or converted as
necessary. Often fluid parameters are not available before
operations at the wellsite begin.
The fluid properties required for flowmeter tool calibration
and for quantification of the individual phase fractions are
phase densities and nuclear attenuations (both for high- and
low-energy levels) of oil, water, and gas at line conditions
(flowing pressure and temperature).
Phase densities. Phase densities are computed from the
densities of each individual phase at standard conditions using
atmospheric fluid samples and empirical correlations.
Accurate handheld densitometers are used for that purpose.
Gas density is measured using a densitometer on the gas
sample collected from the tool along with N2, H2S, and CO2
content using detector tubes for Z-factor corrections.
Computation of densities of each phase at line conditions
is performed using published empirical correlations similar to
the ones used in traditional well-testing operations. Oil
viscosity at standard conditions is measured using a handheld
viscometer. Ion analyses on water samples are performed
using a portable spectrophotometer. Extended analyses of
water samples may be required because certain ions have high
preponderance on the overall mass attenuation computations.
If these ions exist in water and are not measured, a significant
discrepancy may be observed. Adhering to American
Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice 45 will provide
coherent results.
To convert volumes at line conditions to standard
conditions and vice versa, a set of PVT relationships based on
empirical correlations or EOS, depending on the fluid type,
are again utilized.
On the other hand, for volatile oils and gas condensates,
phase densities at line conditions are computed using an EOS
3
compositional model of the fluid under consideration. This
EOS model is used to account for phase-property variations
resulting from line flow condition fluctuations, to identify
gross changes in produced fluid composition or production
conditions, and to provide reliable estimates of standard
condition volumetric flow rates. To achieve these objectives,
knowledge of the fluid composition from a previous PVT
analysis is necessary. The key to maintaining these predictions
during the anticipated variations in flow conditions during
longer-term production is building a reservoir fluid model
based on knowledge of the molecular composition and some
fluid properties.
However, if pressure and temperature variations result in
significant variations in line phase densities and compositions,
then one must continuously adjust the model parameters to
account for these variations. Models utilized to convert line
flow rates to standard condition flow rates must therefore be
flexible enough to adapt these gross variations and recompute
the flow rates as necessary.
Nuclear attenuations. Nuclear attenuations of oil, gas, and
water are either computed from the elemental analysis of each
phase or measured in situ as the meter is filled with each
successive phase.
If the elemental composition method is selected, the mass
attenuation of the mixture or compound is determined as the
mass fraction-weighted average of the mass attenuations of its
components or elements using the following relationship that
applies to oil, water, gas, and solids:
H ,L H ,L
o,w. g
= wi
i
(3)
i
On the other hand, if the in-situ measurement is selected,
the mass attenuation is computed from
H ,L
AoH,w, L, g
1 N H ,L
= ln Hvac, L = , . (4)
o,w, g o,w, g d N o,w, g o,w, g d
where d is the throat diameter.
The attenuations of oil and water are determined using the
meter itself. A small sample of oil or water is located in front
of the measuring section and the acquisition software
automatically performs the computations of the high- and low-
energy attenuations.
Flow Rate Computation Using a Simplified Model
To understand the factors affecting the sensitivities of the
parameters of the multiphase well testing technology, a
simplified model is presented below:
The total mass flow rate (Q) is computed from the mixture
density (m) and the pressure differential (p) between the
inlet and the Venturi throat (minus head corrections).
C (Re ) C ' 2
Q= d 2p m , ...(5)
1 4 4
4 S. JAYAWARDANE, B.C. THEUVENY SPE 77405

where A test separator averages off the volumetric

C(Re) = discharge coefficient, function of a liquid inconsistencies between phases by accumulating each phase in
Reynolds number, a sufficiently large volume. The retention time controls the
C = multiphase discharge coefficient, duration of contact between each phase, that allows
= multiphase gas expansion factor, thermodynamic equilibrium to reach gradually. Therefore it is
d = throat diameter, considered the factor that governs the phase equilibrium in a
= constriction factor, separator. However, many aspects such as carry-over, carry-
under, and slug flow are grossly neglected during traditional
The mixture density m is computed from phase fractions separator sampling. So-called isokinetic sampling methods
and densities: were recently developed to overcome some of these issues.17-18
m = o o + w w + g g . ..(6) There are also many errors introduced while computing the
separator gas/oil ratios (GOR); these are primarily the result of
meter factors obtained with water and rough gas properties
Gas holdup (g) is converted to gas mass fraction (GMF) used for orifice plate rate calculations.
using the slip law derived from fluid mechanics modeling and In any case, fluid compositions must not be altered to
is confirmed by experimental data. match flowmeter-measured rates to those measured with a
1 separator or vice versa, as each tool has its advantages and
GMF = , (7)
1 1 liquid

disadvantages. We believe the flowmeter-measured rates are
1+ 1 far more accurate than the GORs measured with a test
S g g
separator because nuclear measurements can quantify the gas
bubbles trapped in oil, oil trapped in water, etc.
where the gas-liquid slip factor, S, is a function of the gas Traditional PVT analysis using separator samples consists
fraction, liquid to gas density ratio, and liquid viscosity of a validity check of gas and oil and physical recombination
(negligible effect for liquid < 10 cp at line conditions): using an average GOR for the sampling period.
1
1
g
S=
1
( )
= f g , liquid , g , liquid 1 ...(8) 10

1
GVF
with liquid = WLR w + (1 WLR ) o .(9)

We see the importance of oil, water, and gas densities at

line conditions that must be computed from a PVT model
(empirical correlations or EOS), the liquid viscosity, WLR,
and the oil-water inversion point as described by Atkinson
log K*p

Theoretical
1

et al.15-16
Test Separator
(1.00) (0.50) - 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Knowing GMF, the gas mass flow rate, Q g , can be

computed as
Q g = GMF Q , .. (10)

and the volumetric gas and liquid flow rates from

Qg 0.1

qg = .. (11) F

g
and
Fig. 3: Hoffman-Crump-Hocott Plot on Separator Gas and Oil
Q Qg Samples Compared with Theoretical Equilibrium Ratios
qliquid = . .. (12)
liquid
Test separators are thought to be at static phase
equilibriumeven though the phases in reality are dynamic
Sampling From Traditional Test Separators
because of the assumption that over a long period of time the
Traditionally, samples are captured during well-testing
mass equilibration is reached between phases. That is, what
operations on the flowline where single-phase flowmeters for
enters into a separator is equal to what is removed and hence
oil, gas, and water are installed, generally the outlet of
within the separator the virtual equilibrium is achieved and
test separators.
phases remain at equilibrium.
SPE 77405 PVT SAMPLING WITH MULTIPHASE FLOWMETERS THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATIONS AND FIELD LIMITATIONS 5

Experience has shown that compositional equilibrium in a An oil sample (with some water and excess gas) is
dynamic test separator is never really achieved, as shown by collected at the liquid collector (Fig. 6) using the vertical
the Hoffmann-Crump-Hocott plot19-24 in Fig. 3. liquid collector.
As shown in the figure gas sample collected at the test
separator has lost heavy components (compared to theoretical
K-values predicted by EOS compositional model), which
clearly indicates that often it is difficult to reach a static
equilibrium in a dynamic test separator. This effect can further
deteriorate by condensation of heavy components on the wall
and valves of the gas sampling cylinder.
However, the industry has learned to live with these
uncertainties, and it will face new challenges with multiphase
well testing technology, sampling, and analysis-related issues.

Sampling From Multiphase Flowmeters

Collecting samples of gas, oil, and water from a flowmeter is a
challenging task because there is no phase equilibrium that we
are generally comfortable with, and each phase collected
contains some fraction of the other. On the other hand, the
section at which the fluid enters, conditions the flow upstream
of the metering section and acts as an excellent mixture
of phases.

Sampling Points. For the above reasons, samples collected

under these conditions may not be truly representative of the
actual equilibrium phase fractions. As shown in Fig. 4, a
sample of gas and oil can be collected from the flowmeter at
line conditions using traditional sampling techniques.
Fig 4: Sampling from Multiphase Flowmeter
It must be remembered that phases flowing inside the
flowmeter are not stabilized because various flow regimes
(such as bubble, slug, churn, annular or mist flow) coexist25,
and the fluid itself is a multicomponent mixture whose phase
behavior is extremely complex.
A sample of gas is collected from the gas dome
specifically designed to collect a gas sample and maintain
sample pressure and temperature while sampling. (Fig. 5). The
dome is located at the horizontal section of the inlet of the
fluid stream upstream of the Venturi section.
Fig. 5: Gas Sampling Point
Recommended Gas Sampling Procedure. After a
stabilization period, a sample can be collected at prevailing
line pressure and temperature using an evacuated gas-
sampling cylinder. The gas sampled at this point has not been
depressurized by the Venturi section.
Owing to its high mobility, gas escapes from the solution
and forms a gas cap at the top of the gas-sampling dome. Gas
released at the early stage of the flow regime accumulates in
the gas cap and therefore must be purged for few minutes
before sampling.
The purge should be carried out at minimum speed in
order not to disturb the gas-oil separation that may take place,
even though it is probably not appropriate to consider any
equilibrium process at the flow regimes and at the velocities
generally encountered.
Recommended Oil Sampling Procedure. Because of gravity
segregation, water tends to settle at the bottom of the liquid
collector. Therefore, the drainage of matter from the bottom
valve results in a water sample with some traces of oil. After a
stabilization period, an oil sample can be collected at
prevailing line pressure and temperature using a piston-type
oil-sampling cylinder.
If the sample is collected at a slower speed, it is likely that
the speed of accumulation of the water inside the collector
may be higher than the speed of withdrawal. This may result
in a sample that is exclusively water. If the sample is collected
at a faster speed (sampling time approximately 10 min), the
validity of the sample is questionable because the process can
6 S. JAYAWARDANE, B.C. THEUVENY
result in a partial flash of the sample inside the
sampling cylinder.
Fig. 6: Oil Sampling Point
Wellsite Analysis
Performing mini-PVT and/or gas chromatography analysis at
the wellsite on flowmeter samples is not recommended
because obtaining phase-representative samples is more
difficult. Segregation of phases can be done in the laboratory
prior to recombination, but it is impossible at the wellsite.
Special methods must be developed to achieve that goal.
PVT Analysis Procedures for Multiphase
Flowmeter Samples
When flowmeter samples are collected to obtain fluid
properties, PVT laboratory staff may not realize the
differences between these samples and separator samples and
may treat them as traditional samples. Certain properties are
required for flowmeter recalculations and the samples must be
handled appropriately for physical recombination and
subsequent PVT analyses. At a minimum, phase densities at
line conditions are required. Optionally, compositional
analyses are needed if EOS modeling work is foreseen.
Determine recombination ratios. The GOR that must be
used for the physical recombination work is the true GOR
measured by the flowmeter at line conditions, since this
reflects the computed phase fractions. Quite often, the gas
sample collected from a multiphase flowmeter, contains
entrained liquid and similarly the liquid sample contains free
gas. Therefore, the composition of the gas phase is generally
richer and that of the liquid is poorer than equilibrium
compositions if excess phase is not removed. However, in
certain areas where a localized pressure drop may exist, the
SPE 77405
contrary can be observed: Because of the flash that takes
place, the gas phase loses heavy and the liquid phase loses
light components.
Calculating total reservoir fluid composition, therefore,
must be done with utmost care because the prevailing phase
compositions and their relative quantities (GOR) may not be
considered as truly representative of an equilibrium flash
process that usually takes place in a traditional separator. It is
noteworthy that the total mass flow rate through the meter is
representative of the total rate of mass withdrawal from the
reservoir, even though volumetric relationships are governed
by the prevailing (changing) pressure, temperature, solution
and/or dissolution of one phase in another, flow regimes, slip
between phases, etc.
Recomputed rates. There is no need to recompute the GORs
expressed at line conditions. In the laboratory, this ratio can be
directly used for physical recombination of samples, which
will provide the correct fluid composition entering the meter.
However, the samples must be properly conditioned as
explained below. If more than one well is connected to
flowline, it must be remembered that the meter measures the
true prevailing GOR for the commingled flow.
Conditioning of Multiphase Gas Samples. Flowmeter gas
samples usually contain excess liquid caused by liquid carry-
over. This may be further accelerated due to condensation
owing to the temperature drop.
Therefore, the piston-type gas cylinders must be heated to
the line temperature and left for few hours for temperature
stabilization within the gas phase. The cylinder should be
agitated gently to obtain equilibrium between phases and help
vaporize any liquid that is stagnant at the bottom of the
cylinder. However, after agitation, sufficient time must be
given to recondense the liquid phase if any excess liquid has
been vaporized unintentionally due to violent agitation.
For PVT analyses, a portion of equilibrium gas at line
temperature and pressure is isobarically displaced in the
laboratory into another cylinder before recombination.
Conditioning of Multiphase Liquid Samples. Like gas
samples, oil samples need conditioning because often they
contain free gas and free water at sampling (line) conditions as
a result of various flow regimes, fluid type, densities,
viscosities, presence of emulsion, prevailing temperature and
pressure conditions, etc. Care must be taken while handling
these samples, and they must not be treated the same as
traditional separator samples collected during a well test.
In some cases, oil samples may contain water and gas. If
any excess gas is sampled, the sampling cylinder must be
brought to line temperature and pressure and the excess gas
and water removed. This can be achieved by transferring the
all the contents of the sampling cylinder into a visual
PVT cell.
Compositional Analysis of Gas. Compositional analyses by
gas chromatography can be carried out on a conditioned
SPE 77405 PVT SAMPLING WITH MULTIPHASE FLOWMETERS THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATIONS AND FIELD LIMITATIONS 7

sample after flashing the gas through a cold trap. The liner Separator Versus Flowmeter Samples: Case 1
between the gas cylinder and the chromatographs injector A field case study was conducted using a traditional separator
port must be heated to a temperature slightly above the and the flowmeter to validate the hypothesis of conditioning
sampling (line) temperature to avoid liquid condensation in samples and to compare flowmeter and separator samples. The
the liner.
compositional analyses were very close (within 2%). Other
PVT properties such as oil formation volume factor and oil
Compositional Analysis of Oil. Oil compositional analysis is density at line conditions were comparable with 2% to 3% and
conducted by flashing the oil sample to atmospheric pressure
were in line with the EOS predictions for given
as previously described. Water that may be present in oil can phase compositions.
be separated either by centrifugation or by using Karl-Fischer
titration and correcting for water volumes. The composition of the excess free gas (gas cap)
If an emulsion exists, centrifugation or adding a de- segregated from the oil (Table 1) was also very close to that
emulsifier may help. However, adding a foreign compound of the line gas sample collected, indicating that our phase
may alter the fluid composition. Therefore, care should be conditioning procedure was correct.
taken to select a chemical that does not affect the hydrocarbon
composition. If, however, a peak for the de-emulsifier is Table 1: Comparison of Gas Compositions
identified, its area must be disregarded in computations. Separator Flowmeter Gas Cap
Gas Conditioned from
Measurement of Density at Line Conditions Gas Flowmeter
Liquid
When true densities of each phase (oil, gas, and water) at line
conditions are required, PVT analysis can be performed on the Mole % Mole % Mole %
recombined sample as outlined below. Flow rates can be
recalculated using true phase densities and rerunning the N2+CO2 0.38 0.46 0.44
computation program.
C1C4 99.44 99.41 99.35
Pycnometer Method. Gas or oil density can be measured at
C5C7 0.15 0.12 0.15
line conditions with a reasonable accuracy by transferring a
known volume of gas or live oil at line conditions to a high- C8C10+ 0.03 0.01 0.06
pressure pycnometer using an accurate volumetric pump. The
pycnometer is weighed before and after the transfer, and
density is calculated. If water is present in the oil, the density
measured will indicate this, and flashing the sample will Just as above, the composition of the excess free liquid (oil
provide water volume. leg) segregated from the gas was in agreement with the
composition of the flowmeter liquid sample collected.
Using a Visual Cell. Oil volume at line conditions is Separator liquid and flowmeter-conditioned liquid were
measured using the cathetometer mounted to the visual cell. comparable, as shown in Table 2 below.
Then a portion of oil is flashed to atmospheric conditions
through a cool trap, and mass of all fractions recovered is
measured, as well as the flash gas composition. Flash gas is Table 2: Comparisons of Liquid Compositions
analyzed with gas chromatography, and the flash liquid mass Separator Liquid Flowmeter-
and the density are measured. Oil density at line conditions is Conditioned
computed using this flash technique combined with Liquid
mass balance.
Mole % Mole %
Using a Blind Cell. When a pycnometer or a high-pressure N2+CO2 0.05 0.05
visual cell is not available, a blind cell and positive
displacement pump can be used to accomplish the task. C1C4 17.11 17.80
A known volume of oil is transferred into a PVT cell using
a positive displacement pump and then pressurized to line C5C7 12.98 13.47
pressure and heated to line temperature. The new oil volume
C8C10 17.89 17.73
resulting from expansion and contraction during each of the
above processes is recorded. C11C12+ 51.97 50.95
The oil sample is then flashed from the blind cell as
described earlier and oil density is computed.
8 S. JAYAWARDANE, B.C. THEUVENY SPE 77405

Physical recombination using appropriate GORs yield The objective was to evaluate the flowmeter sampling
fluids that are comparable, as shown in Table 3. procedures by comparing PVT analyses performed on both
types of samples, without conditioning the flowmeter samples
Table 3: Comparison of Recombined Fluid as was done in Case1.
Compositions
Components Recombined Recombined Deviation Comparison of Results
Separator Flowmeter- in Both sets of pressurized oil and gas samples were analyzed in
Conditioned the laboratory without conditioning the samples. Obtained
Fluids Fluids Reservoir results are shown in Table 4 and 5.
GOR=640
GOR=589 scf/STB Fluids
scf/STB Table. 4: Fluid Composition from Separator Samples
Components Separator Samples
Mole% Mole% Mole% Separator Separator Reservoir
Liquid Gas Fluid A
N2+CO2 0.23 0.27 0.04 Mole % Mole % Mole %
N2 0.04 0.24 0.14
C1C4 61.16 63.01 1.85
CO2 0.21 0.49 0.35
C5C7 6.11 6.08 -0.03 C1 19.98 79.54 50.67
C2 11.15 12.68 11.94
C8C10 8.33 7.92 -0.41
C3 10.14 5.10 7.54
C11C12+ 24.17 22.72 -1.45 iC4 1.46 0.41 0.92
nC4 5.56 1.05 3.24
iC5 1.86 0.16 0.98
The recombined fluid compositions differ because of the nC5 3.17 0.22 1.65
GORs used. As shown earlier, phase compositions were C6 3.89 0.05 1.91
much closer. C7+ 42.54 0.06 20.66

Separator Versus Flowmeter Samples: Case 2 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00

To compare samples collected from the separator and
Molar ratio 0.4850 0.5150 1.0000
flowmeter, a comparison test was performed with both the
flowmeter and the separator set at the same pressure.

Oil and Gas Gravity Measurements at the Wellsite. During Table. 5: Fluid Composition from Flowmeter
this field test, number of atmospheric oil and gas samples Samples Without Conditioning
were taken at the flowmeter and at the separator for gravity Components Flowmeter Samples Deviation
measurement on various wells and at chokes sizes.
Liquid Gas Reservoir Between
At the flowmeter, samples were collected from the gas and Fluid B Fluids
liquid sampling points; at the separator they were collected A and B
from the top of the gas outlet and from the oil sight glass. Mole % Mole % Mole % Mole%
The maximum oil gravity deviation between the flowmeter N2 0.15 0.57 0.37 0.23
and the separator samples was 0.5% as measured with a CO2 0.22 0.40 0.31 -0.04
hydrometer. The maximum gas gravity deviation between the C1 20.64 82.21 53.01 2.34
samples was 1%, measured with a orifice meter. This leads to C2 11.30 11.53 11.42 -0.52
the conclusion that oil and gas gravity measurements are C3 10.86 3.91 7.21 -0.33
comparable in the flowmeter and separator samples, but that
iC4 1.58 0.29 0.90 -0.02
instruments limit accuracy.
nC4 6.02 0.73 3.24 0.00

PVT Laboratory Measurements. During this field test, iC5 2.76 0.13 1.38 0.40
pressurized oil and gas cylinders were taken at the flowmeter nC5 3.81 0.14 1.88 0.23
and at the separator on two choke sizes. C6 5.82 0.04 2.78 0.87
At the flowmeter, several 10-L gas-sampling cylinders C7+ 36.84 0.05 17.50 -3.16
were collected from the gas sampling point and 600-cm3 oil-
sampling cylinders were taken from the liquid sampling point. Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
At the separator, 10-L gas sampling cylinders were collected Molar ratio 0.4743 0.5257 1.0000
from the top of the gas outlet and 600-cm3 oil-sampling
cylinders were collected from the oil sight glass.
SPE 77405 PVT SAMPLING WITH MULTIPHASE FLOWMETERS THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATIONS AND FIELD LIMITATIONS 9

As it can be seen from the fluid compositions for flowmeter Table 8: Sensitivity to Oil Line Temperature
and separator, they do not agree as well as in Case 1, where Black Oil
C7+ and methane content discrepancies are lower. PVT Rec Rec Fluid 7 Rec Fluid
Property Fluid 1 (Liq. 8
No temp.+10F) (Liq.
Sensitivity Analysis temp. temp.-
drop 10F)
A sensitivity analysis was conducted on a typical black oil and o
a gas condensate to evaluate the impact on PVT properties, if From pb at 200 F 1426 1449 1523
Differential (psia)
the liquid sample had a slightly different pressure or Liberation Bob 1.439 1.475 1.489
temperature than that of the gas sample. This objective was set Rsb(scf/STB) 632.6 677.0 702.7
due to the sampling point configurations on the flowmeter. From LC
o (lbm/ft3) 48.957 48.840 49.070
These sensitivity analyses were performed with a Separation LC
g (lbm/ft3) 3.06 3.279 3.319
Test
compositional model using 3-parameter Peng-Robinson
EOS.26

Tables 6 and 7 below show few PVT properties (pb - Table 9: Sensitivity to Oil Line Temperature
bubblepoint pressure, Bob formation volume factor at Gas Condensate
PVT Rec Rec Fluid 9 Rec
bubblepoint, Rsb Solution gas/oil ratio at bubblepoint) of Property Fluid 2 (Liq. Fluid10(Liq.
recombined fluids obtained by mixing gas sample with oil No temp.+10F) temp.-
sample having no pressure drop and also samples having a temp. 10F)
drop
pressure drop of 15- or 30-psia. o
From pd at 180 F 3140 2919 2815
Constant (psia)
Volume
Table 6: Sensitivity to Oil Line PressureBlack Oil
Depletion
PVT Rec Rec Fluid 3 Rec Fluid 4 LC
Property Fluid 1 (Liq. (Liq.
From o (lbm/ft3) 38.936 39.149 38.695
Separation LC
g (lbm/ft3) 3.998 3.912 34.091
No pressure - pressure -
Test
pressure 15 psia) 30 psia)
drop
From pb at 200 F
o
1426 1468 1452 As we can observe from the above tables, gas condensates
Differential (psia) are more sensitive to both the pressure change and the
Liberation Bob 1.439 1.479 1.477 temperature change in the liquid sampling line, than the
Rsb 632.6 684.4 679.1
(scf/STB) black oils.
LC
From Sep. o (lbm/ft3) 48.957 48.999 49.042
Test LC
g (lbm/ft3) 3.06 3.250 3.193 Conclusions
New challenges have been encountered in multiphase well
testing, sampling and PVT analysis. Contrary to general
opinion, there are no insurmountable technical hurdles to
Table 7: Sensitivity to Oil Line PressureGas
collecting a set of gas and oil samples from the multiphase
condensate
PVT Property Rec Rec Fluid 5 Rec Fluid 6
flowmeter and developing a rigorous treatment for the fluid
Fluid 2 (Liq. (Liq. property setup. Paying close attention to fluid property
No pressure - pressure - measurements and modeling issues is important to
pressure 15 psia) 30 psia) obtain reliable phase fraction computations using multiphase
drop
o flowmeter.
From pd at 180 F 3140 2870 2872
Constant (psia) The key to success in the collection of multiphase samples
Volume is the ability of the flowmeter technology to split completely
Depletion between the meter setup parameter (empty pipe count and
LC
From o (lbm/ft3) 38.936 39.019 39.103 static calibration of the pressure, differential pressure, and
Separation LC
g (lbm/ft3) 3.998 3.928 3.858
Test temperature transducers) and the fluid properties (basic PVT
properties and nuclear attenuations of oil, gas, and water).
Particular sampling procedures are required to deal with
The same analysis was performed on these samples to specific issues related to safety, environmental protection, and
evaluate the temperature effect. Tables 8 and 9 show PVT sample quality. Gas and oil samples collected from multiphase
properties of these recombined fluids obtained by mixing gas flowmeter contain some fraction of the other phase and water.
sample with oil sample having no temperature change and also Therefore samples must be conditioned, i.e. excess phases
samples having a temperature variation of +10 oF or 10 oF. isobarically removed after reaching the phase equilibrium in
the laboratory using correct PVT procedures. These
segregated phases can be physically recombined using
10 S. JAYAWARDANE, B.C. THEUVENY SPE 77405

flowmeter measured GOR, and the results obtained were Subscripts:

comparable with those from traditional separator samples. g = gas
For gas condensates, oil sampling line pressure and o = oil
temperature are sensitive to PVT properties of recombined m = mixture
fluids, whereas these have lesser effect for black oils. vac = vacuum
w = water
Nomenclature
Symbols: Superscripts:
A = Gamma ray attenuation (dimensionless) b = Bubblepoint pressure
Bo = Formation volume factor for oil H = High energy
Bob = Formation volume factor at bubblepoint L = Low energy
C(Re) = Discharge coefficient, function of a liquid LC = Line conditions
Reynolds number s = Solution
C = Multiphase discharge coefficient
CCE =Constant composition expansion Acknowledgments
CVD = Constant volume depletion The authors thank Schlumberger for the permission to publish
d = Throat diameter this paper. Particular thanks goes to Jacques Bickert of TFE,
DL = Differential liberation for his valuable comments and Graham Birkett of
EOS = Cubic equation of state Schlumberger, who has continually supported this project.
GMF = Gas mass fraction is the ratio of the gas mass
rate divided by the total mass rate. Generally References
expressed in percentages.
GVF = Gas volume fraction is the ratio of the gas rate 1. Mehdizadeh, P.: Multiphase Meters, Hart's Petroleum
divided by the total volumetric rate at line Engineer International (May 1998) 63-70.
conditions. Generally expressed in percentages 2. Couput, J.P. et al.: . Implementation of multiphase
N = Count rate (cps) metering on unmanned wellhead platform, paper OTC
13220 presented at the 2001 Offshore technology
p = Pressure Conference in Houston, 30 April3 May.
pb = Bubblepoint pressure 3. Perry, D.T. et al.: Application of The First Multiphase
pd = Dewpoint pressure Flowmeter in The Gulf of Mexico, paper SPE 49118
PVT = Pressure/volume/temperature prepared for the 1998 Annual Technical Conference and
Q = Mass rate Exhibition, New Orleans, 27-30 September.
Rs = Solution gas/oil ratio 4. Haq, S.A. et al.: Enhanced Well Monitoring Through
Rsb = Solution gas/oil ratio at bubblepoint Simultaneous Measurement of Surface and Downhole
S =Gas-liquid slip factor Production Data in Horizontal Wells: A Middle East
STB = Stock tank baril Project, Paper SPE 71528 presented at the 2001 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30
T = Temperature September3 October.
w = Weight fraction 5. Retnanto, A. Production Optimization Using Multiphase
Water cut = Ratio of the water volumetric rate divided by the Well Testing: A Case Study from East Kalimantan,
total liquid volumetric rate both at standard Indonesia, paper SPE 71556 presented at the 2001 SPE
conditions. Generally expressed in percentages. Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
WLR, wlr = Water-liquid ratio is the ratio of the water Orleans, 30 September3 October.
volumetric rate divided by the total liquid 6. Bareiros da Costa et al.: Multiphase Flowmetering
volumetric rate at line conditions. Generally Technology Updated, paper presented at Flowmeko 2000,
expressed in percentages. Bahia, Brazil, June 2000.
7. Kontha, I.N.H. et al.: Monitoring Well Performance using
Z-factor = deviation from ideal gas behavior Multiphase Flowmeter, paper SPE 68718 presented at the
= Fluid phase fraction 2001 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and
= Venturi constriction factor Exhibition, Jakarta, 17-19 April.
= Differential increment 8. Falcone, G.: Multiphase Flowmetering: Current Trends
p = Pressure differential and Future Developments, paper SPE 71474 presented at
the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
= ultiphase gas expansion factor
Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September3 October.
liquid = Liquid viscosity 9. Humphrey, A.I.: Hargroves, D.W., and Svaeren, J.A.:
/ = Mass attenuation Application of Multiphase Metering in Machar and
= Density Monan Fields, OTC 12018, paper presented at the 2000
oLC = Density of oil at line conditions Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 14 May.
gLC = Density of gas at line conditions 10. Mus, E.A. et al: Added Value of a Multiphase Flowmeter
in Exploration Well Testing, paper OTC 13146 presented
SPE 77405 PVT SAMPLING WITH MULTIPHASE FLOWMETERS THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATIONS AND FIELD LIMITATIONS 11

at the 2001 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 30 SI Metric Conversion Factors

April3 May.
11. Kevin, K.: Operating Experiences for the Worlds First cp x 1.0* E03 = Pas
Commercial Installed Multiphase Meters in the Liverpool
bar x 1.013 25* E+05 = Pa
Bay Field, paper presented at the IBC Conference on
Multiphase Flowmetering, London, February 1999.
psi x 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
12. Al-Taweel et al: Field Testing of Multiphase Meters, bbl x 1.589 873 E01 = m3
paper SPE 56583 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual B/D x 6.624 471 E03 = m3/h
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3-6 ft3 x 2.831 685 E02 = m3
October. lbm/ft3 x 1.601 846 E+01 = kg/m3
13. Theuveny, B. et al.: Multiphase Flowmeters in Well scf/STB x 1.801 175 E-01 = std m3/ m3
Testing Applications, SPE 71475 presented at the 2001
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New *Conversion factor is exact
Orleans, 30 September-3 October.
14. Santamaria, N.: Turnkey Well Testing Services: A
successful Modality Measurement in Mexico, paper
presented at the 17th International North Sea Flow
Measurement Workshop, Oslo, Norway, October 1999.
15. Atkinson, I. et al.: New Generation Multiphase
Flowmeters from Schlumberger and Framo Eng. AS, 17th
International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop,
Oslo, Norway, October 1999.
16. Atkinson, D.I. et al.: Qualification of a Nonintrusive
Multiphase Flowmeter in Viscous Flows paper SPE 63118
presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, 14 October.
17. Riley, W.D. et al.: Isokinetic Technique for Sampling
Geothermal Fluids in Two-Phase Flow, SPE 7885,
Oilfield Chemistry, 1979.
18. Witt, C.J. et al.: A Comparison of Wireline and Drillstem
Test Fluid Samples From a Deepwater Gas-Condensate
Exploration Well, paper SPE 56714 presented at the 1999
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, 3-6 October.
19. Hoffmann, A.E., Crump, J.S., and Hocott, C.R.:
Equilibrium Constants for a Gas-Condensate System,
Trans., AIME (1953) 198, 1-10.
20. Barrufet, M.A., et al.: Warning on use of Composition-
Independent K-value Correlations for Reservoir-
engineering, Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering (1995) 14, 15-23.
21. Dodson C.R., Goodwill, D., and Mayer, E.H., Application
of Laboratory PVT Data Reservoir Engineering Problems,
Trans., AIME (1953) Vol. 198, 287-298.
22. Bashbush, J.L.: A Method to Determine K-values from
Laboratory Data and its Applications, paper SPE 10127
presented at the 1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, San Antonio, 5-7 October.
23. Whitson C.H., and Torp, S.B.: Evaluating Constant
Volume Depletion Data, paper SPE 10067 presented at the
1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, 5-7 October.
24. Standing, M.B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil
Field Hydrocarbon Systems, 9th Printing, Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, (1981) Chap. 5.
25. Amdal, J. et al.: Handbook of Multiphase Metering,
produced for The Norwegian Society for Oil and Gas
Measurement. 1997.
26. Peng, D.Y. and Robinson, D.B.: A New Two-Constant
Equation of State, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund., (1976) 15, No.
1, 59-64.