Field PVT | Why drill if you can sample?
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-430,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1300,footer_responsive_adv,hide_top_bar_on_mobile_header,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,qode-theme-ver-12.0.1,qode-theme-bridge,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.4.2,vc_responsive

Why drill if you can sample?

Why drill if you can sample?

Exiting news from the oil&gas and geothermal E&P keep coming in about In-Situ investigations striving for least errors in measuring fluid characters. In-Situ analyses accelerated due to nano-technology and the frontier to bring the laboratory to or within source is wide open but, is it ready and can you rely for tomorrows custody transfers in the supply and demand of production?

Field pvt in collaboration with other companies recognizes the errors when fluids are getting disturbed either by taking a sample from source or injecting into the analytical instrument. Both disturbances can be good for about 7% error each.

The source of disturbance error can be found in the interactions of molecules in the fluids and in geological hydrocarbon layers that can be numerous. For example; character like the boiling point of methane alone is around minus 160 degC but within a slight mixture it can go to

-40 degC. What are the molecular interactions of formation fluids at higher temperatures where the composition of the fluids varies from N2, methane CO2, ethane, H2S to more then C36+? Is the molecular combination saturated or unsaturated, is it above or below fluid phase critical points, do the in-situ measurements matches what you pump into a tanker or export line, does the measured downhole fluid ratio’s like GOR matches your surface production ratio and what are the errors between something measured at high temperatures and standard temperature required for custody transfers?

Wells flowing constant has constant errors but what happens when a well production behaviour changes, like many wells? The above two errors of nearly 15% can put a mass flow meter out of calibration range due to many droplets or bubbles.

Our collaboration has proven with classic techniques of sampling and wellsite fluid phase analyses a dynamic approach to find errors based

on: bring the laboratory to the wellsite or sampling points and measure on ‘what you see is what you get’. Some has called it a mini-well-test of obtaining quality before quantity has lead the operating companies to re-invent work procedures with the benefit of reducing costs; like no mobilization of drilling rigs, stimulation and production units by finding the missing production.