Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., 9-12 October 2005.

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 a proposal of not more than 300
words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should 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
The phenomenon of variation of fluid properties with depth
was investigated in many of the Gulf of Suez and Western
Desert fields of Egypt. This phenomenon primarily exists in
reservoirs with large closures (large thickness or high dip
angle, even for thin formations) where the gravitational forces
have a significant effect on the overall composition of the
system over the geological time.
1,2,3
The phenomenon often
exists also in high shrinkage oils, volatile oils
4
and rich gas
condensates as well as in black oils. Such compositional
grading can have significant influences on various aspects of
reservoir development. This must be taken into account
during estimation of the stock-tank oil initially in place of
such fields and well/reservoir behavior evaluation.

This paper presents an engineering evaluation for validating
PVT lab analyses of many fluid samples collected at different
depths from several reservoirs of different fields. As a result
of this evaluation, the valid samples were supporting fluid
property variation with depth where its properties can be
correlated as a linear function of depth.

Two methods have been used for correlating the fluid
properties with depth. The first method relies only on the
experimental PVT data provided by the laboratories while the
second method uses an equation of state to predict the fluid
properties from the experimentally determined compositional
analyses. The second method make use from the advantage
that in this particular case the equation of state parameters
assigned to each hydrocarbon and pseudo-hydrocarbon
component within the oil column should be constant for all
valid samples. In this method, the most accurate reservoir
fluid composition for one of the valid samples was used to
predict the reservoir fluid composition and its corresponding
PVT properties at different bottomhole locations. The
prediction procedure is a combination of stream blending and
flash liberation processes to estimate the reservoir fluid
properties at shallower and deeper depths from the depth of
the selected sample.

Once the fluid properties of the compositional gradient are
developed, the engineer can proceed using either black oil or
compositional model to match the history and predict the
performance of the reservoir under the acting drive
mechanism.
Introduction
Compositional variations in reservoir fluid with depth have
been observed in many reservoirs within a single oil pool in
different places of the world.

In light oils (API >35
o
), strong compositional grading will
occur if the reservoir fluid is near critical. The saturation
pressure gradient may be interpreted as the result of gravity-
induced fluid component migration that occurs to obtain
equilibrium between the chemical and gravity forces.
2,5,6
The
time necessary to achieve compositional equilibrium (10
million to 1 billion years) is comparable to the geologic
lifetime of a typical reservoir.
7
Many of the Southern Gulf of
Suez fields such as Hilal, Sidki, and GS-365 fields are related
to this category. When considering gas injection, one must be
aware that compositional effects (such as the development of
miscibility) change with depth.

In heavier oils, moderately heavy (20 to 30
o
API),
compositional grading is caused by the segregation of
asphaltenes, resulting in variation in oil viscosity and the
possibility of tar-mat formation. Compositional variation in
this case may also influence field development. The presence
of highly viscous oil near the oil/water contact has forced
production from updip and would be a serious handicap for
downdip water injection.
7
This is most likely the case of
main October Nubia reservoir which is located in the northern
part of the Gulf of Suez .

In shallow reservoirs and for heavy oils (< 20
o
API),
compositional variation with depth often result from a loss of
light ends or from bio-degradation.
8,9
Such effects can be
inferred from geologic data.
7



SPE 95760
Methodology of Investigating the Compositional Gradient Within the
Hydrocarbon Column
H.H. Hanafy, SPE, and I.S. Mahgoub, SPE, Khalda Petroleum Co.
2 SPE 95760
Two cases of compositional gradient in hydrocarbon column
can be exist:
1. Compositional gradient in the light and intermediate
fractions (Cl-C6) while the heavy fractions (C7+) remain
constant with depth as in the case of Hilal Field.
2. Compositional gradient in both the light and heavy
fractions as in the case of Waly field.

An accurate history match for reservoirs having such
phenomenon are best dealt with 3D black oil or compositional
models. The black oil model should be used only for the
reservoir fluids which do not or slightly vary in its heavy ends
with depth. The compositional model should be used when
the heavy ends are significantly vary with depth, or when the
light or normal oils are underlain by heavy oil, or when
simulating a miscible gas injection process. However, Hanafy
proposed several methods for averaging the PVT data for the
use in conventional reservoir engineering calculations.
10,11
He
also approached a method to simplify and approximate the
history match in this case using a zero dimensional model.
12

Evidences of Compositional Gradient
Several evidences supported a compositional gradient within
the hydrocarbon column of different reservoirs in different
fields. Those evidences will be highlighted in the following
field cases.

Hilal Field Case:
1- Gravity Forces. The structural model of both Nukhul and
Nubia reservoirs (Figure 1) shows that they are high relief
reservoirs. The formations dip angles are in the range of 20 to
30 degrees. The topmost of Nukhul and Nubia formations are
9250 ft and 9700 ft subsea, respectively. These are 1450 ft
and 1000 ft above the common field oil-water contact
(OWOC) at 10700 ft subsea. However, the Nukhul and Nubia
formations have a moderate average thickness of only 120 ft
and 320 ft, respectively.

2- Reservoir Fluid Type. The reservoir fluid type is typical of
high shrinkage to volatile oils. This can be indicated from the
lab analyses of fluid samples collected from both formations.
The measured fluid properties are in the following ranges:
Oil formation-volume factor, (
ob
): 1.86 - 2.43 BBL/STB
Solution gas-oil ratio, (R
si
): 1280 - 2250 SCF/STB
Oil viscosity, (
ob
): 0.12 - 0.45 cp
Bubble-point pressure, (P
b
): 3725 -5000 psi
Stock tank oil gravity, (API): 33 - 38 Degrees

Based on hundreds of laboratory studies, McCain suggested,
cutoffs between black and volatile oils. He mentioned that the
presence of a volatile oil should be suspected whenever the
initial producing gas-oil ratio exceeds about 1750 SCF/STB,
or when the stock tank oil gravity is more than 40 API
Degree.
13,14,15
An oil formation volume factor of 2.0
BBL/STB or greater suggests a volatile oil.
14
Laboratory
determined compositions of volatile oils will have 12.5 to 30
mole percent heptanes plus. The laboratory analyses of Hilal
field samples indicated a heptanes plus fraction in the range 19
to 29 mole percent. Also, volatile oils contain relatively more
intermediates (defined as ethane through hexanes) than black
oils.
13


3- Initial Producing Gas-Oil Ratio. A plot of initial
producing GOR versus the mid perfs depth of primary Nukhul
and Nubia producers (Figure 2) indicates GOR decreasing
with depth which reflects a vertical fluid composition
variation.

Waly Field Case:
1- Drillstem Test Results. The discovery well was drillstem
tested in the Kareem formation at two different sets of
perforations that are 100 ft apart where the DST#2 tested
interval is shallower than the DST#1 tested interval. The GOR
and API gravity tested during the DST'#2 were 1113 scf/stb
and 36.3 degree, respectively versus 756 scf/stb and 34..3
degree from the DST#1. This should reflect lighter crude
against at the shallower depth.
2- RFT Data. The RFT data in the discovery well shows
increase in the oil gradient with depth from 0.26 psi/ft to 0.32
psi/ft (Figure 3).
3- Field Ambient Temperature Pb. The P
b
measured at the
field ambient temperature of 58
o
F during the transferring of
two bottom hole samples collected from the DST#1 and
DST#2 were 2550 and 2650 psi, respectively. The higher P
b

reflects a lighter crude oil for the DST#2 sample.
4- Laboratory PVT Analyses. The PVT analyses for the two
bottom hole samples showed that the DST#2 sample has
higher
o
, R
si
and API gravity than the DST#1 sample while it
has lower C7+ molecular weight, C7+ mole percent, oil
density and oil viscosity (Table 1). This should reflect lighter
crude for the DST#2 sample.
5- Openhole Logs. An original gas oil contact at depth of -
6775'ss was predicted from the bubble point pressure versus
depth correlation. The depth of this contact was verified by
open hole logs and RFT data (Figures 4 & 5). The openhole
logs for the Waly well #3 is showing larger separation
between the neutron and density logs above the gas-oil contact
depth due to the gas effect.

October Field Case:
1- Reservoir Thickness. The Nubia formation in the October
field has a large thickness of 1000 feet or more but its dip
angle is small within the average of 10 degrees. Compositional
grading in this case is caused by the segregation of
asphaltenes, resulting in variation in oil viscosity and the
possibility of tarmat formation. By reviewing the PVT data,
an heavy oil contact was detected at depth of 11520 feet
subsea.

2- Geological Features Effect. The degree of asphaltenes
segregation may be affected by some geological events exist
over the geological time and consequently led to different
SPE 95760 3
fluid properties at same depth in different parts of the field.
The geological events are such as:
a- Vertical isolation due to shale barriers (i.e M- shale).
b- Lateral isolation due to faulting.
c- Lateral communication due to juxtaposition through fault
planes.
d- Communication with offset fields through the aquifer.
Laboratory PVT Data Validation
The way to validate the PVT data before using it in
establishing a compositional gradient will be covered in this
paper through the Hilal field case. The consistency of the
laboratory measurements of reservoir fluid properties and its
composition versus depth are the main bases of this validation.

Three bottomhole samples and ten separator recombined
samples have been collected from four wells (A1, A2A, A4,
and A6A) at different times and different depths from Nukhul
and Nubia formations of the Hilal field. The locations of the
sampled wells are referred to on the top Nubia structure
contour map presented in Figure 1. Wells A1 and A2A were
recompleted to Nukhul after the Nubia wateredout. Well A4
was shut-in in the Nukhul due to high water cut. Well A6A
was recompleted to Nubia after the Nukhul gassedout.

The differential vaporization analyses (DVA) data of the oil
formation volume factor (
o
) and solution gas-oil ratio (R
s
)
versus reservoir pressure depletion are shown in Figures 6
and 7. By reviewing this data, two groups of curves related to
two different labs can be investigated.
A comperhensive study
10
was performed to define valid
samples that can be used in developing correlations of fluid
property with depth. Procedures for experimental data
validation and quality check are discussed below:

1- Fluid Property Analysis. For fluid samples related to one
origin where a compositional variation within the hydrocarbon
column exists, the PVT curves for any oil property should be
parallel above the P
b
due to change in the light components
and almost identical below the P
b
due to similar heavy ends
characterization. If this data is related to depth, the P
b
,
o
, and
R
s
data would decrease with depth while oil density (
o
) and
oil viscosity (
o
) would increase with depth. It is clearly
shown from Figures 6 & 7 that the lab 2 group of curves are
consistent depth wise and indicate the above mentioned
feature. In contrast, the lab 1 curves are inconsistent and
intersect each other.

In spite of the good lab analysis for well A6A sample (group
2), the sample was considered non-representative and
eliminated from correlations of fluid property with depth.
When the separator gas and liquid samples for this well
recombined to the producing GOR and heated to the reservoir
temperature, the mixture was a gas phase at a pressure higher
than the reservoir pressure. When the mixture was
equilibrated at the reservoir pressure, there was an
accumulation of 42.4 volume percent of condensate at this
pressure. The standard PVT analysis was then completed on
this mixture at the reservoir pressure. So, the P
b
of this
sample and the corresponding fluid properties might be non-
representative at its sampling depth.

2-Compositional Analysis. The available chromatograms of
heavy ends extended analyses (Figure 8) indicate lower
concentration of components in the C7 to C11 range with
increasing depth. This is an indication for some change in the
heavy ends characterization with depth. However, the
identical concentration of heavier components ranging from
C12 to C39 reflects one common oil source origin in both
Nukhul and Nubia reservoirs and in turn reflect a good
chromatographic analysis.

For a vertical variation in the hydrocarbon column, fluid
composition updip in the reservoir increased in the light
components and decreased in the heavy components. This
can be shown from the heptanes plus mole percent and
methane mole percent correlations with depth which are
presented in Figure 9.

The lab 2 samples (except the A6A sample) were qualitatively
considered valid samples because of the consistency of its
PVT data. A further quality check for these samples was
performed quantitatively by using a computer program which
uses the Redlick-Kwong equation of state (RKEOS). The
function of this program is to predict the fluid properties at
both reservoir and separator conditions from the experimental
compositional analysis.

It is worth to mention that the RKEOS, as any other equation
of state, is composition dependant. Therefore, the degree of
match between the predicted properties and the lab
measurements depends mainly on the accuracy of the
experimentally determined composition, However, obtaining
a good match means good lab analysis but doesn't mean the
sample is representative.

To visualize the degree of match between the RKEOS
predicted properties and the lab measurements, a plot for each
property at the bubble point pressure was developed and a unit
slope line between the two values was drawn to indicate how
the RKEOS results are deviated from the lab analysis. The
comparison plots for the P
b
,
o
, and R
s
obtained from the DVA
are presented in Figures 10 through 12 while the plots of
o

and R
s
obtained from the flash liberation are presented in
Figures 13 & 14. Generally, these plots show a close
agreement between the predicted properties and most of the
lab analyses. The well A1 bottomhole sample at depth 9732'
subsea shows the best match. So, this sample will be selected
as a datum (reference) sample to predict both composition and
fluid properties gradients at any bottomhole location at both
reservoir and field separator conditions.
4 SPE 95760
Prediction of Reservoir Fluid Gradient
To establish a reliable reservoir fluid gradient, a representative
sample depth should be defined. A representative sample
depth depends mainly on the sample type as follows:

Sample Type RSD

B.H Mid perfs below sampling depth
S.S Mid perfs
RFT & MDT Sampling point

Two methods have been used for correlating the fluid
properties with depth and then predict it at any bottomhole
location. The first method relies only on the experimental
data provided by the laboratories for the use in a black oil
model. The second method uses the equation of state
(RKEOS) to predict the compositions and the fluid properties
from the experimentally determined compositional analysis
for the datum valid sample to be used in a compositional
model. Procedures for doing these predictions are discussed
below:

1- Property Prediction (Graphical Method). A bubble point
pressure correlation with depth (Figure 15) was developed by
obtaining the best fit line for the experimentally determined P
b

values for the lab 2 valid samples (six samples). By slightly
extrapolating the line to the depth of Nukhul crest at 9250'
subsea, the corresponding P
b
would be 5065 psi. By
interpolating the correlation with the depth of Nubia crest at
9700' subsea, the corresponding P
b
would be 4420 psi.

For each fluid property, an average curve through the valid
samples DVA data was taken. Then the average curve was
extrapolated to the Nukhul P
b
at crest and interpolated to the
Nubia P
b
at crest. So, one common DVA curve for each
property was developed for both Nukhul and Nubia reservoirs.
The
o
and R
s
common curves are presented in Figures 16 &
17. The interpolation process can then be repeated to predict
the P
b
and its corresponding properties at any bottomhole
location.

2- Composition Prediction (EOS Method). The
experimentally determined reservoir fluid composition for the
datum sample at depth 9732' subsea was used to predict the
reservoir fluid composition at different bottomhole locations
using the RKEOS program.

The gravity-induced fluid component migration is
proportional to the equilibrium gas composition at any point in
the oil column.
16
An approximate compositional distribution
below the datum sample depth can be developed by
successively subtracting equilibrium gas from the
undersaturated datum oil sample
16
(subsequent flash liberation
process).

The compositional distribution at higher levels above the
datum sample can be obtained by successively adding
equilibrium gas to the datum oil sample (subsequent stream
blending process). In this process the datum reservoir oil is
subjected to flash at its saturation pressure. Then, the resulting
vapor is blended with the resulting liquid by different ratios
using the stream blending option of the EOS program until the
required P
b
is obtained. The predicted compositional gradient
was then used to predict the fluid properties at the bottomhole
location of the valid samples using the DVA calculation
option of RKEOS program.

To have more accurate fluid property predictions, the slight
change in the heavy ends characteristics with depth was taken
into account. The heptanes plus molecular weight and specific
gravity correlations with depth are presented in Figures 18
and 19.

Theory indicates that the natural temperature gradient
(increase of temperature with depth) will enhance
compositional grading.
17
the temperature gradient in the Hilal
field (Figure 20) was also taken into account when predicting
the fluid properties at different bottomhole locations.
However, in the Hilal field case, both changes in the heavy
ends characteristics and reservoir temperature with depth have
minor effects on the predicted fluid property.

The predicted P
b
,
o
, and R
s
values for the valid samples were
plotted along with the experimentally determined values
(Figures 15, 21, and 22). As shown from these plots, the
predicted values are more close to the fitting gradient than the
experimental values which reflect a fairly good prediction by
using the RKEOS program.
Necessity of 3D Model
Due to the crude oil volatility and its variation with depth, the
direct use of a conventional material balance method (zero
dimensional model) for matching the reservoir history and
predicting the future performance would be incorrect for the
following reason:

The most serious assumption involved in the conventional
material balance method results from the necessity of treating
the produced oil and gas as separate fluids, independent of
each other in their behavior. In other words, PVT data
considers that the reservoir hydrocarbon is made up of two
components, gas and oil, and that the composition of each
remains essentially the same at any reservoir pressure. This
approach is acceptable for black oil reservoirs. However, for
a volatile oil reservoirs, the gas and oil compositions change
so much during pressure depletion that normal PVT data are
not accurate enough for material balance calculations.
18


In fact, in a volatile oil reservoir, the gas phase in the reservoir
becomes very rich, much like a condensate fluid. As a result,
the produced gas yields considerable liquid volumes at the
lower pressure and temperature of the surface production
equipment. This liquid may amount to 25 to 50 percent of the
total oil recovered in the stock tank for high volatile cruds. In
such cases recovery of stock tank oil per unit of pressure
SPE 95760 5
decline can be predicted only from a detailed knowledge of
the separator conditions and overall composition of the fluid
entering the wellbore at each stage of depletion.
19
However,
this problem is not such serious in the Hilal field case. This is
due to water influx driving mechanism in both reservoirs
where the reservoirs pressures were maintained flat at certain
levels of production. In other words, the water influx balances
the withdrawal rates so the secondary gas cap stop growing
and the enriching of the gas cap also stops.
For the above mentioned problem, it was decided to use either
a 3D black oil or a compositional model to accurately
represent the produced fluids through history matching and
performance predictions.
Conclusions
In light oils (API >35
o
), the saturation pressure gradient may
be interpreted as the result of gravity-induced fluid component
migration that occurs to obtain equilibrium between the
chemical and gravity forces. In heavier oils, moderately heavy
(20 to 30
o
API), compositional grading is caused by the
segregation of asphaltenes, resulting in variation in oil
viscosity and the possibility of tar-mat formation. Evidences
of compositional gradient within the hydrocarbon column can
be detected from several geological and engineering data such
as: geological model, reservoir fluid type, production data,
drillstem tests, RFT data, and openhole logs. For a vertical
variation in the hydrocarbon column, fluid composition updip
in the reservoir increased in the light components and
decreased in the heavy components. In most cases, for fluid
samples related to one origin where a compositional variation
within the hydrocarbon column exists, the PVT curves for any
oil property should be parallel above the P
b
due to change in
the light components and almost identical below the P
b
due to
similar heavy ends characterization. However, in some other
cases, a compositional variation in the heavy ends can also
exist. The degree of match between the predicted fluid
properties using an equation of state and the lab measurements
depends mainly on the accuracy of the experimentally
determined composition, however, obtaining a good match
means good lab analysis but doesn't mean the sample is
representative. The procedure to predict a compositional
gradient is a combination of stream blending and flash
liberation processes to estimate the reservoir fluid composition
at shallower and deeper depths from the depth of a datum
sample. The direct use of conventional material balance for
matching the reservoir history and predicting the future
performance of composition variation with depth cases would
be incorrect. A 3D black oil model or a compositional model
should be used instead.
Nomenclature

o
=Differential liberation oil formation volume
factor, BBL/STB.
P
b
=Bubble point pressure, psi.
R
s
=Differential liberation gas-oil-ratio, SCF/STB.
o =Oil density, gm/cc.
o =Oil viscosity, cp.

API =Stock tank oil gravity, degrees
OWO
C
=Original water/oil/contact, ft.
DVA =Differential liberation analysis.
Acknowledgment
The authors wish to thank Khalda Petroleum Company for
permission to publish this paper.
References
1. Sage, B.H., and Lacey, W.N.: "Gravitational Concentration
Gradients in Static Columns of Hydrocarbon Fluids," Trans.,
AIME (1939) 132, 121-131.

2. Schulte, A.M.: "Compositional Variation within a Hydrocarbon
Column Due to Gravity," paper SPE 9235, ATCE, Dallas, TX,
(Sept. 21-24, 1980).

3. Creek, J .L. and Schrader, M.L.: "East Painter Reservoir : An
Example of a compositional Gradient from a Gravitational Field,"
paper SPE 14411, the 60th ATCE, Las Vegas, NV, (Sept. 22-25,
1985).

4. Metcalfe, R.S., Vogel, J .L. and Morris, R.W.: "Compositional
Gradient in the Anschutz Ranch East Field," paper SPE 14412,
Las Vegas, NV, (Sept. 22-25, 1985).

5. Schulte, A.M., Riemens, W.G., and de J ong, L.N.J .: "Birba Field
PVT Variations Along the Hydrocarbon Column and
Confir.matory Field Tests," JPT (J an. 1988), 83.

6. Bath, P.G.H., Fowler, W.N., and Russell, M.P.M.: "The Brent
Field, A Reservoir Engineering Review," paper EUR 164, SPE
European Offshore Petroleum Conference and Exhibition,
London, (Oct. 21-24, 1980).

7. Hirschberg, A.: "Role of Asphaltenes in Compositional Grading
of a Reservoir's Fluid Column," JPT (J an. 1988), 89-94.

8. Tissot, B.P. and Welte, D.H.: Petroleum Formation and
Occurrence, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1978).

9. Hunt, J .M.: Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology, W.H. Freeman
and Co., San Francisco (1979).

10. Hanafy, H.H.: "Predicting and Averaging of Fluid Properties for
a Volatile Crude," the 9th EGPC Exploration and Production
Conference, Cairo, (Nov. 20-23, 1988).

11. Hanafy, H.H.: "A Compositional Gradient within the
Hydrocarbon Column in the Kareem Formation of Waly Field,"
the 11th EGPC Exploration and Production Conference, Cairo,
(Nov. 7-11, 1992).


6 SPE 95760
12. Hanafy, H.H.: "Applying Zero Dimensional Water Influx Model
to Volatile Oil Reservoirs," the 3ed MPM Conference, Cairo
university, (Feb. 2-6, 1992).

13. McCain, W.D., J r.: The Properties of Production Fluids, Second
Edition, Pennwell oks,Tulsa, Okla. (1991).

14. McCain, W.D., J r. and Bridges, B.: "Black Oils and Volatile Oils
- What's the Differences?," Petroleum Engineering International,
(Nov. 1993) 24-27.

15. Moses, P.L., "Engineering Application of Phase Behaviour of
Crude Oil and Condensate Systems," JPT (J uly 1986) 716, 722,
723.

16. Paul A. Fjerstad, Svein A. Flaate, J ens Hugen, and Steinar pollen:
"Long-Term Production Testing Improves Reservoir
characterization in the Oseberg Field," JPT (April 1992) 478,
479.

17. Holt, T., Lindeberg, E., Ratkje, S.K.: "The Effect of Gravity and
Temperature Gradients on Methane Distribution in Oil
Reservoirs," paper SPE 11761 available at SPE headquarters,
Richardson, Tx.

18. Reudelhuber, F.O., and Hinds, R.F. : "Compositional Material
Balance Method for Prediction of Recovery from Volatile Oil
Depletion Drive Reservoirs," JPT (J anuary 1957) 19-26, Trans.,
AIME, 210.

19. J acoby, R.H. and Berry, V.J .J r.: "A Method for Predicting
Depletion Performance of a Reservoir Producing Volatile Crude
Oil," J PT, (J an. 1957) 27-33; Trans., AIME, 210.


TABLE 1 - PVT Data for Kareem Formation Waly
Field

DST #1 DST #2
Sampling Depth, ft (s.s) -6844 (6900 RKB) -6744 (6800 RKB)
Mid Perf. Depth, ft (s.s) -6927 (6983 RKB) -6795 (6851 RKB)
P
b
, psi 3251 3258

o
, BBL / STB 1.635 1.774
R
s
, SCF / STB 1067 1267

o
, gm / cc 0.6729 0.6467

o
, cp 0.57 0.393
API, degrees 31.4 32.8
C
7+
MWT 240 221
C
7+
Mole percent 28.56 27.68
SPE 95760 7
OCTOBER
EL MORGAN
BADRI
RAMADAN
JULY
SIDKI
SHOAB
ALI
HILAL
GULF OF SUEZ FIELDS
FIG. 1 : Hilal Field - Top Nubi a Structure Map FIG. 1 : Hilal Field - Top Nubia Structure Map
9
9
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
5
0
0
A4
o
o
w
c
30
o
x
A2A
x
A11
1
0
7
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
5
0
0
A14
10300
10100
10300
A3B
oowc
10300
10500
22
o
A7B
9
90
0
A1
x
A9
x
1
0
1
0
0
9
9
0
0
A6A
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
A10A
A5
1
0
1
0
0
9
9
0
0
9
7
0
0
9
5
0
0
23
o
A8
A12
A9A
A12A
x
NUBIA WELLS
NUKHUL WELLS
SAMPLED WELLS

~

.
9800
10000
10200
10400
D
E
P
T
H
,


F
t


S
.
S
500 600 700 800 900 1000
Producing GOR, SCF/STB
A-1 Nub @ -9861'
A4 NUK @ -10031'
A2A NUB @ -10344'
.

~
Fig. 2: Initial Produci ng Gas Oil Ratio Correlati on with Depth Fig. 2: Initial Producing Gas Oil Ratio Correlation with Depth

6700
6800
6900
7000
7100
7200
7300
3320 3340 3360 3380 3400 3420 3440 3460 3480 3500 3520
OWOC @ - 7100 FT S.S.)
OIL GRAD.= 0.320 PSI / FT.
WATER GRAD.=
0.44 PSI / FT.
OIL GRAD.= 0.260 PSI / FT.
PI @ DATUM (-6930 FT S.S.)
=3407 PSI
S
.
S
.

D
E
P
T
H
X
Fig. 3 : Wal y Field RFT For Well # A1 Dated : jan. 25,82 Fig. 3 : Waly Field RFT For Well # A1 Dated : jan. 25,82
8 SPE 95760
7400
7300
7200
7100
7000
6900
6800
6700
6600
3200 3250 3300 3350 3400 3450 3500 3550 3600
X X
S
.
S
.

D
E
P
T
H
PI @ DATUM (-6930 FT S.S.)
=3326 PSI
OWOC @ - 7100 FT S.S.)
WATER GRAD.=
0.44 PSI / FT.
OIL GRAD.= 0.320 PSI / FT.
OIL GRAD.= 0.26 PSI / FT.
GAS GRAD.= 0.05 PSI / FT.
GOC @ - 6775 FT S.S.
Fig 4 : Waly Field RFT For Well # A3 Dated : Dec. 31,84 Fig 4 : Waly Field RFT For Well # A3 Dated : Dec. 31,84
PRESSURE PSI


Fig. 5: Waly Well # A3
Fig. 6 : Oil Formation Volume Factor Curves From DVA Fig. 6 : Oi l Formation Volume Factor Curves From DVA

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
PRESSURE, PSI
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
O
i
l

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

V
o
l
u
m
e

F
a
c
t
o
r
,


B
B
L
/
S
T
B
A-1 SS LAB-2 @-9293'
A-1 SS LAB-1 @-9293'
A-6A SS LAB-2 @-9536'
A-6A SS LAB-1 @-9536'
A-1 BHS LAB-2 @-9732'
A-1 SS LAB-2 @-9861'
A-1 SS LAB-1 @-9861'
A-1 BHS LAB-2 @-9971'
A-4 SS LAB-2 @-10031'
A-4 SS LAB-1 @-10031'
A-2A SS LAB-2 @-10344'
A-2A SS LAB-1 @-10344'
A-2A BHS LAB-1 @-10469'
.
>
-

~
>

.
W
~

LAB-2
LAB-1

1.95 2.45 2.95
45 15 - 15
7200
7250
7300
7350
7400
7450
OGOC @ 7286 RKB
(- 6775 S.S.)
DENSITY LOG
NEUTRON LOG
SPE 95760 9

~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
PRESSURE, PSI
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
G
O
R
,


S
C
F
/
S
T
B
A1 SS LAB-2 @ -9293'
A1 SS LAB-1 @ -9293'
A6A SS LAB-2 @ -9536'
A6A SS LAB-1 @ -9536'
A1 BHS LAB-2 @ -9732'
A1 SS LAB-2 @ -9861'
A1 SS LAB-1 @ -9861'
A1 BHS LAB-2 @ -9971'
A4 SS LAB-2 @ -10031'
A4 SS LAB-1 @ -10031'
A2A SS LAB-2 @ -10344'
A2A SS LAB-1 @ -10344'
A2A BHS LAB-1 @ -10469'
.
>
-

~
>

.
W
~

LAB-2
LAB-1
Fig. 7 : Gas Oil Rati o Curves From DVA Fig. 7 : Gas Oil Ratio Curves From DVA

W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
WW
W
W
W
W
WW
W
WWWWWWWWWWWW

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CARBON NUMBER
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
M
O
L
E


%
A-6 Nuk @ -9536'
A-1 Nub @ -9861'
A-4 Nuk @ -10031'
A-2A Nub @ -10344'

Fig. 8 : Heptanes Plus Extended Analysis - Carbon No. Vs. Mole % Fig. 8 : Heptanes Plus Extended Anal ysi s - Carbon No. Vs. Mole %

.
.
.
.
.
.
9200
9400
9600
9800
10000
10200
10400
D
E
P
T
H
,


F
t


S
.
S
10 20 30 40 50 60
Mole, %
C1 Mole%
C7+ Mole%
.

Fig. 9 : Heptanes Plus and Methane Mole% Versus Depth Fig. 9 : Heptanes Plus and Methane Mole% Versus Depth


10 SPE 95760

W
~

-
.
3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200
LAB
3600
3800
4000
4200
4400
4600
4800
5000
5200
E

O

S
A-1 Nuk SS @ -9293'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9732'
A-1 Nub SS @ -9861'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9971'
A-4 Nuk SS @ -10031'
A-2A Nub SS @ -10344'
.
-

~
W

Fig. 10 : Bubble Point Pressure - Lab Vs. EOS Fig. 10 : Bubbl e Point Pressure - Lab Vs. EOS

W
~

-
.
1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5
LAB
1.7
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.5
E

O

S
A-1 Nuk SS @ -9293'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9732'
A-1 Nub SS @ -9861'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9971'
A-4 Nuk SS @ -10031'
A-2A Nub SS @ -10344'
.
-

~
W

Fig. 11 : Oil Formation Volume Factor - Lab Vs. EOS Fig. 11 : Oil Formation Volume Factor - Lab Vs. EOS

W
~

-
.
1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500
LAB
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
E

O

S
A-1 Nuk SS @ -9293'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9732'
A-1 Nub SS @ -9861'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9971'
A-4 Nuk SS @ -10031'
A-2A Nub SS @ -10344'
.
-

~
W

Fig. 12 : Solution Gas Oil Ratio - Lab Vs. EOS Fig. 12 : Solution Gas Oil Ratio - Lab Vs. EOS

SPE 95760 11

W
~

-
.
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
Lab
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
E
O
S


A1 NUK SS @ -9293'
A1 NUB BHS @ -9732'
A1 NUB SS @ -9861'
A1 NUB BHS @ -9971'
A-4 NUK SS @ -10031'
A-2A Nub SS@ -10344'
.
-

~
W

Fig. 13 : Separator Oil Formation Volume Factor - Lab Vs. EOS Fig. 13 : Separator Oil Formation Volume Factor - Lab Vs. EOS

W
~
-
-
.
750 1000 1250 1500 1750
Lab
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
E
O
S


A1 NUK SS @ -9293'
A1 NUB BHS @ -9732'
A1 NUB SS @ -9861'
A1 NUB BHS @ -9971'
A-4 NUK SS @ -10031'
A-2A Nub SS @ -10344'
.
-
-
~
W

Fig. 14 : Separator Gas-Oil Rati o - Lab Vs. EOS Fig. 14 : Separator Gas-Oil Ratio - Lab Vs. EOS

-
.
9000
9200
9400
9600
9800
10000
10200
10400
D
E
P
T
H
,


F
t


S
.
S
3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Bubble Point Pressure, PSI
A-1 Nuk SS @-9293'
A-1 Nub BHS @-9732'
A-1 Nub SS @-9861'
A-1 Nub BHS @-9971'
A-4 Nuk SS @-10031'
A-2A Nub SS @-10344'
Predicted
.
-

-1.44 Psi/Ft
Fig. 15 : Bubbl e Poi nt Pressure Correlation With Depth Fig. 15 : Bubbl e Poi nt Pressure Correlation Wi th Depth

12 SPE 95760

W
~

-
.
9000
9200
9400
9600
9800
10000
10200
10400
D
E
P
T
H
,


F
t


S
.
S
1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
Oil Formation Volume Factor, BBL/STB
A-1 Nuk SS @ -9293'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9732'
A-1 Nub SS @ -9861'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9971'
A-4 Nuk SS @ -10031'
A-2A Nub SS @ -10344'
Predicted
.
-

~
W

Fig. 16 : Oil Formation Vol ume Factor Correl ati on With Depth Fig. 16 : Oil Formation Volume Factor Correlation With Depth

W
~

-
.
9000
9200
9400
9600
9800
10000
10200
10400
D
E
P
T
H
,


F
t


S
.
S
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
Solution Gas-Oil Ratio , SCF/STB
A-1 Nuk SS @ -9293'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9732'
A-1 Nub SS @ -9861'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9971'
A-4 Nuk SS @ -10031'
A-2A Nub SS @ -10344'
Predicted
.
-

~
W

Fig. 17 : Solution Gas-Oil Ratio Correlation With Depth Fig. 17 : Solution Gas-Oil Ratio Correlation With Depth

W
~

-
.
9000
9200
9400
9600
9800
10000
10200
10400
D
E
P
T
H
,


F
t


S
.
S
230 240 250 260
Molecular Weight
A-1 Nuk SS @ -9293'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9732'
A-1 Nub SS @ -9861'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9971'
A-4 Nuk SS @ -10031'
A-2A Nub SS @ -10344'
.
-

~
W

Fig. 18 : Heptanes Plus Molecular Weight Correlation With Depth Fig. 18 : Heptanes Plus Molecular Weight Correl ati on With Depth

SPE 95760 13

W
~

-
.
9000
9200
9400
9600
9800
10000
10200
10400
D
E
P
T
H
,


F
t


S
.
S
0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89
Specific Gravity
A-1 Nuk SS @ -9293'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9732'
A-1 Nub SS @ -9861'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9971'
A-4 Nuk SS @ -10031'
A-2A Nub SS @ -10344'
.
-

~
W

Fig. 19 : Heptanes Plus Specific Gravity Correlation With Depth Fig. 19 : Heptanes Plus Specific Gravity Correlation With Depth

W
~

-
.
9000
9200
9400
9600
9800
10000
10200
10400
D
E
P
T
H
,


F
t


S
.
S
250 260 270 280 290
Temperature, F
A-1 Nuk SS @ -9293'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9732'
A-1 Nub SS @ -9861'
A-1 Nub BHS @ -9971'
A-4 Nuk SS @ -10031'
A-2A Nub SS @ -10344'
.
-

~
W

o
Fig. 20 : Reservoir Temperature Gradient Fig. 20 : Reservoir Temperature Gradient

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.........
.
.
.
.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
PRESSURE, PSI
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.9
2.2
2.5
B
o
,


B
B
L
/
S
T
B
Fig. 21 : Oil Vol ume Factor common curve @ Crest Fig. 21 : Oil Volume Factor common curve @ Crest

14 SPE 95760
Fig. 22 : Gas-Oil Ratio Common Curve @ Crest Fig. 22 : Gas-Oil Ratio Common Curve @ Crest
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
......... .
.
.
.
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
PRESSURE, PSI
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
G
O
R
,

S
C
F
/
S
T
B