SPE-172412-MS

Interpretation of Laboratory PVT Analysis Result (A Case Study of a Niger

Delta Field)
Nnaemeka Nnamdi Nnabuo, Ikechukwu Stanley Okafor, and Chikwendu Ebenezer Ubani, University of Port
Harcourt

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 05– 07 August 2014.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Laboratory PVT Analysis involves the study of reservoir fluid samples by simulating the fluid flow of oil
and gas from the reservoir to the surface, in a laboratory, under various conditions of pressures, volumes
and temperatures. The correct interpretation of laboratory PVT analysis results is essential for effective
and efficient reservoir engineering studies. The interpretation can be used to classify the reservoir fluid
and to assess the quality of PVT data obtained. High quality PVT data will reduce uncertainty in reservoir
fluid properties, provide a sound foundation for reservoir engineering studies/judgement, and improve
investment efficiency. Poor quality data will however result in lost time due to rework and additional
studies, poor development plans, and inefficient investment. This paper presents the classification and
quality assessment of the results obtained from the laboratory analysis of a reservoir fluid from a Niger
Delta oil field. The classification was done on the basis of the field and laboratory analysis of the PVT
results obtained. Quality assessment of the non-compositional and compositional data, were carried out
through graphical techniques, material balance tests and Hoffman plots. From the study, it was discovered
through the analysis of the obtained PVT results that the reservoir fluid is light black oil.

Introduction
Hydrocarbon PVT (pressure-Volume-Temperature) data are essential for proper field development plan,
accurate reserve estimation, reservoir simulation studies, material balance calculation, optimum fluid
recovery plans etc. Therefore the accurate analysis of the PVT data will actually enhance the effective
management of reservoirs, determine the quantity and quality of produced fluids, and to assure correct
design of surface facilities.
The PVT analysis consists of a series of laboratory procedures designed to provide the values of the
reservoir fluid properties required in most reservoir and production engineering studies. Ideally, reservoir
fluid properties are determined from laboratory studies on live oil samples collected from the bottom of
the wellbore or from the surface. Standard reservoir PVT fluid studies are designed to simulate the
simultaneous fluid flow of oil and gas from the reservoir to the surface. The production path of reservoir
fluids from the reservoir to surface is simulated in the laboratory at reservoir temperature and pressure.
During this process, the bubble-point pressure is measured. Likewise, the oil volumes and the amount of
2 SPE-172412-MS

Figure 1—Flow diagram for laboratory analysis of separator samples

gas released are measured and used to determine oil formation volume factor and solution GOR as
functions of pressure (Elmabrouk et al, 2010). It basically entails the measurement of the variation of the
physical properties of the phases as the pressure and the temperature of the system changes. High quality,
accurate PVT data can reduce uncertainty in reservoir fluid properties, provide a sound foundation for
reservoir engineering studies, and improve investment efficiency. Poor quality data can result in lost time
due to rework and additional studies, poor development plans, and inefficient investment.
According to (Ahmed 2007), accurate laboratory studies of PVT and phase-equilibria behaviour of
reservoir fluids are necessary for characterizing these fluids and evaluating their volumetric performance
at various pressure levels by conducting laboratory tests on a reservoir fluid sample. The amount of data
desired determines the number of tests performed in the laboratory; hence it is necessary for not only a
laboratory PVT analysis to be conducted but also, for interpretation of the results of the analysis for proper
understanding and identification of the quality of PVT data obtained. The quality once identified can
ascertain whether or not the data can be applied in reservoir engineering studies. This paper presents the
classification of a reservoir fluid sample based on field and laboratory PVT results and the application of
a number of techniques to assess the quality of the PVT results.
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE

Three fluid samples were selected for analysis, with the intention of selecting the best fluid based on
certain standard quality check criteria. The fluids were obtained from three separators in an oil field in the
Niger Delta oil province. The sequence of processes carried out in the laboratory analysis is as shown in
SPE-172412-MS 3

Fig. 1. The sample that best satisfies the conditions Table 1—Fluid data

of the quality check was selected for further analysis Sample Name PRJ02
Sample Description Surface Sample
to ascertain the type and quality of the fluid. The
Producing GOR 1086.37 [scf/STB]
processes involved are highlighted as follows: Separator Pressure 99 [psia]
Sample Preparation and Validity Checks Separator Temperature 55 [°F]
For the separator liquid samples, the opening Separator GOR 920.50 (scf/STB)
Wellhead Pressure 2193 [psia]
pressure was checked for one of the samples. This Wellhead Temperature 88 [°F]
same sample was pressurized to 1000psig and Field Name XXX
rocked to ensure homogeneity of the sample. Then Reservoir Pressure 3955.6 [psia]
the sample was heated to separator temperature and Reservoir Temperature 217.7 [°F]
charged into the PVT cell using the positive dis-
placement pump. The gasometer-separator connec- Table 2—Some Properties of Black oil
tion was connected to the PVT system after charg- GOR (MSCF/STB) API Colour
ing in. The sample was then flashed to atmospheric
0.1–2.5 30–40 Brown to dark green
pressure. The flashed gas and flashed oil entered the
gasometer and the separator-tube respectively. The
flashed oil was put into vials and analysed with gas
chromatograph. The flashed gas was also analysed with the gas chromatograph. After flashing, the
pressure was reduced gradually to get the bubble-point pressure. This process was carried out for all three
separator liquid samples one after the other. The best sample was selected and this was the sample that
had opening pressure closest to separator pressure and bubble-point pressure closest to the separator
pressure. Table 1 shows the field data for this study.

Compositional Analysis
The procedure of compositional analysis for oil is similar to that of gas. The major exception is in the
set-up. In the setup for oil compositional analysis, an auto sampler was mounted on the injector port of
the gas chromatograph. The auto sampler automatically injects oil from the vials into the gas chromato-
graph. The method of analysis (sample run) was selected on the gas chromatograph’s software (Chem-
station).

Recombination
Prior to recombining separator oil and gas samples, the hydrocarbon composition of each sample were
obtained using gas chromatographic technique.
The appropriate volumes of separator gas and separator oil samples, depending upon the gas-oil ratio,
were transferred into the recombination cell at separator temperature. The recombined sample in the cell
was brought to reservoir temperature and a pressure 2000 psig in excess of reservoir pressure to obtain
a single-phase. The recombined sample was then heated and rocked in the recombination cell for a
minimum of 12 hours to ensure homogeneity of the sample.

Flash Separation
A known volume of the recombined separator sample was charged into the PVT cell at a constant
pressure of 2000 psig above reservoir pressure by an externally mounted computerized positive displace-
ment pump to avoid flashing into two phases in the recombination cell. The sample was stabilized at the
charged pressure and reservoir temperature. Afterwards, a separator and gasometer were connected to the
PVT system.
The valve to which the separator was connected was cracked open. A subset of the sample was flashed
while maintaining pressure with pump. The volume of sample flashed was noted and the flashed oil and
gas sent for compositional analysis using a gas chromatograph.
4 SPE-172412-MS

PVT EXPERIMENTS
PVT experiments are designed to study and quantify the phase behavior and properties of a reservoir fluid.
PVT experiments involve the reduction of pressure in successive steps by increasing the fluid volume or
reducing it.
The procedures for the PVT experiments carried out are described in this section. The PVT experiments
described are those carried out on black oil because the initial producing GOR and the C7⫹ mole %
confirm the sample under study to be black oil. The cell pressure was controlled in each experiment by
the positive displacement pump. Table 2 shows the typical property of black oil

Constant Composition Expansion

After flash separation, with reservoir temperature still maintained, the cell pressure was reduced in a
stepwise manner. This was continued below the saturation pressure with the saturation pressure noted. The
density of the oil at indicated temperature and pressure steps is determined from direct weight-volume
measurements on the sample in the PVT cell.
The total volume at each pressure step was reported relative to the volume at saturation and the
Y-function for all pressures below the saturation pressure by applying Equation (1).
(1)

Where
Psat ⫽ Saturation Pressure
P ⫽ Pressure
Vrel ⫽ Relative Volume

Differential Liberation
After the constant composition expansion experiment, the double phase fluid in the PVT cell was
compressed back to a pressure 2000 psig in excess of saturation pressure to get the sample back to single
phase using the positive displacement pump. After 30 minutes, the pressure was lowered to the first
differential liberation step.
At each pressure step, the liberated gas was displaced into the gasometer and its volume measured. The
gas was analyzed by gas chromatography. The procedure repeated at lower pressure steps. The experiment
was terminated when the pressure was reduced to atmospheric pressure at reservoir temperature. The oil
volume remaining after gas was liberated at each pressure step was divided by residual oil at the end of
the test to obtain differential oil formation volume factor. That is by applying Equation (2). The
differential solution gas oil ratio was obtained by dividing the volume of gas in solution at each pressure
by the residual oil volume.
(2)

The gas Z-factor obtained by

(3)

Where
V ⫽ volume of the liberated gas in the PVT cell at P and T
Vsc ⫽ volume of the removed gas at standard condition
The expression below was used to obtain the gas formation volume factor:
SPE-172412-MS 5

Table 3—Differential Liberation Test at 217.7 °F (677.7°R)

No. Pressure [psia] Solution GOR [scf/STB] Oil FVF [bbl/STB] Oil Density [g/cm3] Gas FVF [ft3/scf] Gas Density [g/cc]

Psat 3970 903.2 1.420 0.6573

Step 1 3300 763.8 1.392 0.6788 0.0053 0.142
Step 2 2650 627.4 1.358 0.7057 0.0066 0.114
Step 3 2000 475.5 1.309 0.7313 0.0089 0.085
Step 4 1350 332.2 1.245 0.7617 0.0131 0.058
Step 5 670 177.1 1.156 0.7976 0.0272 0.029
Step 6 15 450.3 1.032 0.8338 1.2716 0.001

Residual Oil Density at 60°F ⫽ 0.840 [g/cm3]; Gravity at 60°F ⫽ 36.95 [°API]

(4)

Where
Bg ⫽ gas formation volume factor, ft3/scf
T ⫽ temperature, °R
P ⫽ cell pressure, psia
Tsc ⫽ standard temperature, °R
Psc ⫽ standard pressure, psia
Separator Test
A known volume of the recombined separator sample was charged into the PVT cell at a constant pressure
of 2000 psig above reservoir pressure by an externally mounted computerized positive displacement pump
to avoid flashing into two phases in the recombination cell. The sample was stabilized at the charged
pressure and reservoir temperature.Then, the separator and gasometer were connected to the PVT system.
After thermal equilibrium was established, the pressure of the cell was reduced to the saturation
pressure of the fluid and the volume at saturation measured.
The cell pressure and temperature were further reduced to the separator conditions. The equilibrium
gas/liquid volumes were measured at the separator conditions. The liberated gas was pushed out at
assumed separator pressure and the volume measured at standard conditions. The remaining fluid in the
cell, taken to the next stage (separator conditions) and the procedure was repeated again.
Then the fluid in the cell was pushed out and collected under atmospheric conditions. The residual
(stock tank) volume was measured and the separator oil volume factor at each separator stage was
calculated using Equation (2). Also, the solution GOR from the separator test was calculated by applying
the equation:
(5)

Where
RS ⫽ Solution gas-oil ratio
(Vg)sc ⫽ Volume of gas at saturation point measured at standard conditions
(Vo)sc ⫽ Volume o oil at saturation point, measured at standard conditions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this study, data obtained from PVT analysis of fluid obtained were analysed and interpreted for the
purpose of obtaining quality data that can be confidently applied to reservoir studies to enable effective
and efficient management of reservoirs. The results obtained from the study are presented and discussed
as follows:
6 SPE-172412-MS

Table 4 —Separator and recombined reservoir fluid data

No Component Separator Gas [mol%] Separator Liquid [mol %] Reservoir Fluid [mol%]

1 N2 0.03 0.00 0.02

2 CO2 0.81 0.08 0.51
3 C1 90.84 3.60 54.65
4 C2 4.64 1.16 3.19
5 C3 2.09 1.76 1.95
6 i-C4 0.58 1.15 0.82
7 n-C4 0.60 2.27 1.29
8 i-C5 0.23 1.99 0.96
9 n-C5 0.13 1.84 0.84
10 C6 0.03 3.87 1.62
11 C7 0.01 10.22 4.25
12 C8 0.01 8.15 3.39
13 C9 0.00 10.24 4.25
14 C10 0.00 5.28 2.19
15 C11 0.00 5.59 2.32
16 C12⫹ 0.00 42.80 17.75
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00

Molecular Weight [g/mol] 18.25 167.45 80.19

C7⫹ Molecular Weight [g/mol] 101.50 191.67 191.64
C7⫹Mol % 0.02 82.29 34.17

Quality Assessment of the PVT Data

The standard methods of verifying the quality of results from laboratory PVT analysis of separator
samples include graphical technique and comparison of residual oil API gravity from differential
liberation with the stock tank API gravity from the separator test, material balance tests and Hoffman plots
of compositional data. Though other methods exist, only the above mentioned methods were applied in
this study.
Graphical Technique
Graphical plots of the non-compositional data as a function of pressure were made. The following
properties were plotted against pressure to check the quality of the PVT data: Relative volume,
Y-function, Density, Solution GOR and Oil FVF, the graphs are expected to show a smooth trend.
Material Balance Tests of Compositional Data
The material balance test was used to evaluate compositional consistency. It was applied on the separator
liquid and reservoir fluid compositions. The material balance equation is expressed below.
(6)

Where:
F ⫽ total moles of feed
L ⫽ total moles of separator liquid
V ⫽ total moles of separator vapour
zi ⫽ mole fraction of component i in the feed
xi ⫽ mole fraction of component i in the liquid
yi⫽ mole fraction of component i in the vapour:
(7)
SPE-172412-MS 7

Figure 2—Plot of Relative Volume against Pressure

A plot of against should give a linear graph with a negative slope which suggest an accurate
compositional data.
Hoffman Plots
The Hoffman plot is another method of evaluating the quality of compositional data. This method utilizes
a log-linear plot of K-value versus Hoffman factor, F. F is defined as follows:
(8)

Where:
K ⫽ K-value (y/x)
Pc ⫽ critical pressure [psia]
T ⫽ separator temperature [°R]
Tb ⫽ boiling temperature [°R]
Tc⫽ critical temperature [°R]
A plot of Log (K) versus F for each component of the separator liquid and reservoir fluid compositions
will be expected to yield a linear graph which implies high quality data where all points plotted are
expected to fall close to the line of best-fit.
Discussion
Table 1 presents information obtained from the field. The laboratory analysis carried out was based on the
above information. Field data is necessary for laboratory analysis to simulate reservoir conditions.
Table 4 shows the compositional analysis results of the best separator liquid sample selected after the
validity checks and the recombined reservoir fluid data. As expected, the separator gas sample has lesser
of the heavier ends when compared with separator liquid sample. The recombined reservoir fluid has a
C7⫹ mole % of 34.17, further suggesting the reservoir fluid sample to be black oil as black oils have a
C7⫹ mole % of ⬎ 30 mole %.
As expected for black oils, Fig. 2 shows a smooth trend. A deviation from this would have implied poor
quality results. Pressure-Relative volume plots for black oils usually show a straight-line with sharp
discontinuity at bubble-point. However, this was clearly not the case as revealed by Fig. 2 which shows
a curve. However, this is attributed to the high volume of gas content of the oil.
The plot of Fig. 3 reveals a smooth trend rather than a rough trend suggesting high quality data.
Pressure decrease from saturation pressure (3970 psia) with decreasing solution GOR. At 15 psia, the
solution GOR is abnormally high for black oil. For black oils, the graph of solution GOR against pressure
is meant to be a nearly straight line with the solution GOR at 15 psia nearly zero. The solution GOR of
450.3 SCF/STB @ 15 psia suggests the reservoir fluid to be black oil with high volume of gas.
8 SPE-172412-MS

Figure 3—Graph of Differential Solution GOR against Pressure

Figure 4 —Material Balance Plot of Separator Liquid Compositional Data

The Hoffman plots of Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 confirms that the separator liquid and reservoir compositional
data are of high quality, as the plotted points lie close to the line of best fit.

Conclusions
Based on this study, the following conclusions are reached
● The reservoir fluid is a black oil reservoir fluid that is rich in gas as proven by the initial producing
gas-oil ratio value (Table 1), the C7⫹ mole percentage value (Table 3) and also the API gravity
value of 36.95°API. The graphs of Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 suggest that the reservoir fluid is rich in gas.
SPE-172412-MS 9

Figure 5—Material Balance Plot of Reservoir Fluid Compositional Data

Figure 6 —Hoffman Plot for Separator Liquid Compositional Data

Figure 7—Hoffman Plot for Reservoir Fluid Compositional Data

● The plots from the material balance tests and Hoffman plots of separator liquid and reservoir fluid
compositional data all show a linear trend. This confirms the high quality and accuracy of
compositional data obtained.

Nomenclature
Bg ⫽ gas formation volume factor, ft3/scf
10 SPE-172412-MS

Bo ⫽ oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB

F ⫽ Hoffman factor, psi/oR
K ⫽ K-value
Pb ⫽ bubble-point pressure, psia
Pc ⫽ critical pressure, psia
Psat ⫽ Saturation pressure
Rs ⫽ solution GOR adjusted to separator conditions, scf/STB
Tb ⫽ boiling temperature, °R
Tc ⫽ critical temperature, psia
Tsc ⫽ standard temperature, °R
(Vg)sc ⫽ volume of gas at saturation point, measured at standard conditions, scf
(Vo)sc ⫽ volume of oil at saturation point, measured at standard conditions, stb
Vrel ⫽ smoothed relative volume
Vrel ⫽ relative volume
Vsc ⫽ volume of the removed gas at standard conditions, scf
Vstdoil ⫽ oil volume at standard conditions, STB
Vresoil ⫽ oil volume at reservoir condition, bbl

REFERENCES
Ahmed T. 2006 Reservoir Engineering Handbook, Third Edition, Oxford, Elsevier Incorporation,
Amsterdam.
Ahmed T. 2007. Equation of State and PVT Analysis: Applications for Improved Reservoir Modelling.
Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas.
Dake L.P. 1994. The Practice of Reservoir Engineering. Revised Edition, Developments in Petroleum
Science, Volume 36.
Danesh A. 1998. PVT and Phase Behaviour of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, Elsevier Science B.V.
Elmabrouk S., Zekri A., Shriff E. 2010. Prediction of Bubblepoint Pressure and Bubblepoint Oil
Formation Volume Factor in the Absence of PVT Analysis, Paper Presented at the SPE Latin American
and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, 1–2.
Lawrence J.J., and Deepak K.G. 2009. Quality Assessment and Consistency Evaluation of Hydrocar-
bon PVT Data. Paper Presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar, 1– 4,
6 –9. http://www.scribd.com/PVT-properties-of-reservoir-fluids, Reservoir analysis, (undated), Retrieved
February 2012.