Surface Sampling Training Section

This training section is divided into the following topics:

Surface sampling overview

Sampling the separator gas phase
Sampling the separator liquid phase
Possible problems encountered during surface sampling
Quality control of the separator gas and liquid streams
References

Surface Sampling overview

The well should be conditioned as described before and the flow stability should be
perfect before surface sampling is attempted while the system is producing at the
lowest possible flow rate. Flowing stability can be checked by the following criteria:

o stabilised surface gas and oil flow rates

o stabilised well head pressure

o stabilised flowing bottom hole pressure Pwf

When multistage separation is used, both samples should be taken from the highest
pressure separator. Samples may be taken as soon as it has been determined that the
well is properly conditioned and the flow stabilised.

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 1

Revision 4 .
 Gas

Gas
meter
W ell Separator
Gas
sample

W ater Oil

Stock tank
W ater Oil
sample sample

Surface Sampling Oil & Gas

As described earlier, representative surface sampling of gas condensate wells requires

a minimum velocity to lift all condensed fluids in the wellbore.

The gas and liquid samples should be taken at essentially the same time. The difference
in time should be as small as possible because significant changes in separation
conditions, particularly the temperature, can occur with time.

The need to obtain accurate values for the gas and oil flowrates prevailing at the time of
sampling can not be overemphasised. The PVT laboratory has to rely on the reported
GOR for the physical recombination. Inaccurate field flow rates applied to perfectly valid
surface samples will clearly lead to an invalid recombined fluid.

Example:

A volatile oil from Africa produced from a reservoir at 214OF was sampled at separator
pressure of 168 psia and temperature of 78OF. The reported field GOR was 1200 scf/sbbl.
If we assume that the gas-to-oil ratio has been underestimated by 5% (actual GOR =1260
scf/sbbl) then simulation runs show that the two recombined fluids will exhibit the
following differences:

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 2

Revision 4 .
 Fluid with Fluid with
GOR=1200scf/sbbl GOR=1260 scf/sbbl
Bubble Point Pressure 2936 psia 3017 psia

Reservoir oil density @ Pb 0.574 g/cm3 0.563 g/cm3

Gas Z factor @ Pb 0.831 0.829

Total GOR from sep test 1512 scf/sbbl 1621 scf/sbbl

Oil Volume Factor 2.509 2.607

Influence of field GOR values on the accuracy of the PVT data

Therefore every action should be taken to ensure that the gas and liquid flowmeters are
properly calibrated, that they function properly and that all the necessary information is
recorded. Omissions or erroneously recorded data may render a series of samples
useless. Every sample should be accompanied with data sheets filled with all the
information required to evaluate a posteriori its quality and as well as the sampling
conditions.

When the oil rates are reported at tank conditions, attention should be paid in the PVT
laboratory to measure accurately the separator liquids shrinkage factor by flashing a
part of the sample at the tank conditions reported at the time of sampling.

Example:

An oil with a high hydrogen sulphide content is produced through the primary separator
that operates at 250 psia and 120OF. The oil flowrates are measured at the tank.
Simulated runs for this used two scenarios for the prevailing tank temperature: 60OF and
100OF. The calculations showed that the separator liquid shrinkage factors would take
values of 0.844 and 0.818 respectively that represents a difference of 3.1%. This
difference will influence the separator gas to separator oil ratio that will be used for
recombination.

In the laboratory the field reported gas flowrates should be corrected using laboratory
measured compressibility factors and specific gravities. It is also strongly recommended
to measure in the lab the Z-factor of the separator gases particularly when permanent
gases are present because the deviations between the actual values and the computed
ones can be significant.

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 3

Revision 4 .
Example:

For an oil with a high permanent gas content (H2S, N2 & CO2) the Z-factor of the
separator gas phase was predicted, using correlations to be 0.892 at 485 psia & 150 F.
When the Z-factor measurement was performed in the Lab it gave a value of 0.85. I.e. a
deviation of the order of 5% which directly affects the accuracy of the reported gas
flowrates

If there is chemical injection of glycol, methanol or wax inhibitors upstream of the

separator, the injection should be stopped and sufficient time allowed for the chemicals
to be purged from the separator. If it is not practical to operate without chemical
injection, then the chemical used and injection rate must be recorded and a sample sent
to the PVT laboratory with the samples.

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 4

Revision 4 .
Sampling the Separator Gas Phase

Three methods are available for sampling the gas stream.

1. by filling an evacuated sample cylinder

2. by filling a container after purging it with the separator gas to be sampled

3. by displacing the liquid from a brine-filled container

The evacuation method is the recommended method for the gas sampling and all other
methods would normally only be used as a last resort.

Vacuum
gauge

Sampling
bottle

Vacuum
pump

Power cord

Gas Sampling Vacuum Method (Bottle Preparation)

The first method requires a vacuum system to be available at the wellsite with a suitable
vacuum gauge to determine if the vessel is evacuated to the required level. The
connecting line between the separator and the sample container should be purged with
separator gas. The gas is then left to flow into the vessel for short period until the
separator pressure is obtained.

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 5

Revision 4 .
 Pressure
From separator P gauge

3 4 5

2
1

Sampling
bottle

Gas Sampling Vacuum Method

The second method consists of filling the container with the separator gas by opening
the top valve and purging it by throttling with the bottom valve. The container should be
kept warm during the purge to avoid any condensation of the gas in the vessel in or
otherwise the sample will not be representative. The sample is collected after several
cylinder volumes of gas have been purged through the system.

The third method requires that the sample cylinder is filled with brine and its top valve is
subsequently opened to the separator gas outlet while the bottom valve is opened to
withdraw the liquid. When all the liquid is displaced, the valves are closed and the
container is ready for shipment. This method is not recommended due to the solubility in
the brine of inorganic gases (e.g.CO2, H2S) as well as, to a lesser extent, of the light
hydrocarbons present in the sample.

The minimum number of separator gas samples in 20-litre bottles depends on the GOR
and separator pressure but the general rule is as follows:

o If the GOR < 1500 scf/bbl, then 2 bottles are required.

o If 1500 < GOR < 3000 scf/bbl , then 3 bottles are required.

o If the GOR > 3000 scf/bbl, then 4 bottles are required.

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 6

Revision 4 .
Example:

As an indication of the volume of surface gas required for recombination, it is quoted

that in order to produce in the laboratory cell 500 cm3 of a lean gas condensate at its
dew point pressure (e.g. 5000 psia), roughly 20 litres of gas taken from a separator
operating at 100 psia and 100OF are necessary.

Corrosive gases such as H2S or CO2 can react chemically with the steel containers
particularly if water is also present and due to this fact it is recommended that the gas
stream is carefully dried before it enters the container. API RP 44 lists recommended
specifications for gas-dehydration tubes. In addition, gases like the hydrogen sulphide
are readily adsorbed by the surface active points of the walls of the sampling chamber
whereas nitrogen diffuses through the metal lattice. Measurement of the gas
composition, when these gases are present, should be performed at the wellsite
immediately after sampling. This minimises their loss in the fluids composition that can
otherwise render ansour sample sweet after transportation and storage

A way to tackle this problem is to fill the chamber with the gas to be sampled and allow
some time for the walls to become saturated with the adsorbed gases before it is
evacuated and filled again with the sample. In this case considerably smaller losses can
be expected. Alternatively a non-reactive sample cylinder coated in the same material
as the NRS can be used.

Sampling the Separator Liquid Phase

In recent years there has been a QHSE initiative to eliminate the field the use of mercury
for separator liquid sampling bottles. Sample cylinders, such as the CSB, with an internal
piston and mixing device are in most common use today. Separator liquid is purged
through a line between the bottom of the separator oil sight gas and the top of the CSB.
The sampling is then performed by displacing the piston with separator liquid at a
constant separator pressure. To avoid flashing the sampled oil, the bottom valve of the
bottle should be opened slowly or preferably, a back pressure regulator can guarantee
that the pressure in the chamber does not fall below the sampling pressure. If flashing
does take place in the bottle, the sample will still be valid as long as the fluid remained
monophasic while passing through the cylinders top valve.

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 7

Revision 4 .
 Separator oil
sight glass

Black Vacuum
valve 5 pump
2 3 4

OIL
730cc
oil
bottle 70cc
of gas

Pressure 660cc
gauge of oil

Hydraulic
pump P
7

8 Blue 9
valve 6
Graduated
flask
730cc of
hydraulic
oil

Separator Oil Sampling

Evidently, all connections used to conduct fluid from the separator to the sample
container must be carefully purged with separator oil to avoid contamination of the
sample with air. Before shipment, a gas cushion should be created for safety reasons as
it was explained earlier for bottom hole samples.

When the liquid yield at the surface is very small (e.g. lean gas condensate reservoirs)
the liquid phase is not produced continuously and sometimes is withdrawn from the
separator only after the test. Two risks are associated with this practice:

1. The collected gas was generated from the equilibrium that was prevailing at
the time of sampling whereas the oil sample exhibits an average oil
phase composition over the long flow period. Even if an average GOR is
used for recombination, the recombined fluid might not be truly
representative of the original mixture.

2. The long oil retention time in the vessel might have cause compositional
variations of the hydrocarbon constituents due to gravity segregation. The
oil sample that will fill the bottle after the test in this case would not be
representative.

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 8

Revision 4 .
If the separator oil sample contains quantities of water either in free form or in the form
of emulsions, the aqueous phase has to be separated and removed from the
hydrocarbons in the PVT lab before recombination is attempted.

Possible Problems Encountered during Surface Sampling

Inadequate Phase Split in the Separator

Oil and gas well test separators are horizontal cylindrical vessels equipped with two
separation sections. The inlet or primary separation section is located in the gas filled
portion of the vessel and is designed to dissipate the momentum of the incoming flow
stream so that the liquid continuous phase may fall free from the gas phase and enter
the lower liquid collection section. In the secondary separation section, which consists
of the bulk of the gas filled space, the remaining droplets are removed by the mist
extractor. The effluent gas from a properly sized separator should contain normally no
more than 0.1 gal of liquid/MMscf14. In addition, due to the inadequacy in separation,
liquid entrainment can be provoked at high gas velocities by:

o momentum transfer from the gas to the stationary liquid phase and to the
associated pressure variations on the gas/liquid interface (waving)

o creation of gas-liquid emulsions (foaming)

The separator pressure can be adjusted to minimise any liquid carryover at the gas
outlet. The chart below helps to determine this pressure according to the theoretical gas
capacity of horizontal separators.

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 9

Revision 4 .
 Theoretical Gas Capacity of Horizontal Separators
Example: Gas capacity Pressure
Shell length : 10 ft (MMcf/D) (psig)
Internal diameter : 39.6 in. A 200 2000
Liquid depth : -6 in. 1800
Separator pressure : 800 psi 1600
150 1400
From chart ( 1 , 2 , 3 )
Theoretical gas capacity = 40 MMcf/D 1200
1100
-12 100 1000
90
-8 900
80
800
70
-4 700
60
3
50 600
0
40 500
-10
+4 400
30
2
+8 300
-8 20

-5
15 200
-4 +12
-2 Liquid depth (in.) 150
10
0 Origin: center line 9
+2 8
+4 7 100
6 90
+6 80
+10 5
+8 Chart based on 70
Gas specific gravity = 0.7 4 60
0.56
Oil specific gravity at 60oF = 0.85 Theoretical shell length factor:
L 50
Separator temperature = 80oF 3 10
40
1 Shell length = 10 ft 7.5 ft : 0.85 17.5 ft : 1.37
(For other lengths, multiply 10 ft : 1 20 ft : 1.47 30
readings by shell length factor) 2 12.5 ft : 1.13 22.5 ft : 1.57
Internal diameter (in.) No foaming and nonheading flow. 15 ft : 1.25 25 ft : 1.67 20
A
30 40 50 60

Theoretical Gas Capacity of Horizontal Separators

When standard test separators installed on high deliverability wells fail to achieve
adequate separation between the two hydrocarbon phases and/or avoid liquid re-
entrainment, a misty flow regime instead of a single phase one reigns in the separators
gas outlet. This is known as "liquid carry over" and the reported gas flow rates can be off
because current gas meters malfunction when the liquid content exceeds a certain limit.
Inevitably, the liquid flow rates measured at the same time on the other flow line will be
wrong as well.

Similar type of problems due to inefficient separation in the primary surface trap at the
prevailing conditions can be encountered in the separator oil flow line. When testing
reservoir fluids of low oil yield and the retention time of the liquid phase in the vessel is
short enough to bring the gas-liquid interface close to the separator oil outlet, gas
bubbles can be carried into the liquid flow line. This is known as "gas carry under" and in
addition to altering the composition of the equilibrium oil phase it could also influence
the quality of the meter readings.

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 10

Revision 4 .
This failure of the primary separator to perform its function of adequately splitting the
equilibrium phases has the two serious consequences for sampling:

o the reported surface gas and oil flow rates are measured inaccurately

o the quality of the recovered surface samples becomes questionable

Inaccurate flow rates and/or the use of separator phases not in thermodynamic
equilibrium leads to recombined samples which not representative of the original
reservoir fluid.

Non Equilibrium Phases produced in the Primary Separator

It is often assumed that as soon as the well effluent enters the three phase separator its
thermodynamic equilibrium adjusts instantly to the prevailing pressure and temperature
conditions. This assumes that the mass transfer of the components between the two
phases is completed right away and the required residence time allows for the
segregation of the phases (gas from oil and oil from water).

It should be considered, however, that the effluent in the upper parts of the production
tubing flows in the diphasic regime and is subjected to a form of differential vaporisation
process at varying temperature conditions. Despite the turbulence that is created, the
flow pattern irregularities due to slug flow, that prevails in 80-90% of the cases, may not
help to bring the effluent to thermodynamic equilibrium at the inlet of the separator.

The mass transfer between the phases through which thermodynamic equilibrium is
established, takes place through the interfaces. The largest possible contact area
between the phases is required in order to accelerate the process. Once the phases are
predominantly segregated after entering the vessel, in some cases, full equilibrium may
never be attained. Although research has to be conducted to investigate the influence of
time in establishing thermodynamic equilibrium, laboratory tests can be used to verify
whether the recovered samples are or are not equilibrium phases at the field reported
conditions15,9.

Surface samples obtained from a separator, which operates at non-thermodynamic

equilibrium conditions, can still be used for PVT analysis if they have been recovered
simultaneously and a GOR value is available at the time of sampling.

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 11

Revision 4 .
Quality Control of the Separator Gas and Liquid Streams

The inefficiency of separation, as previously described, has led some operators to

require onsite checks for controlling the quality of the separator output. Since carry-
over in the gas stream appears to be the major source of concern particularly for lean
gas condensate reservoirs, techniques have been developed which aim to:

o identify the problem whenever it exists and regulate, if possible, the separation
conditions

o attempt correcting the gas flow rate measured by the orifice meter

o retrieve a representative sample from the diphasic mist flow of the separator gas
line

The liquid carryover sampling technique is known in the field as Isokinetic Sampling16,
although the term strictly means the withdrawal of fluid through a probe at the same
vectorial velocity as the non disturbed stream upstream of the probe.

There are various systems in use one of which is the Isokinetic Gas Sampling System
(IGSS). The IGSS was developed after a theoretical review of existing isokinetic
sampling systems followed by proof of concept flow loop experiments using a water
mist in air at Schlumbergers Clamart product centre.

The flow loop tests established an experimental maximum absolute error in carryover
concentration of +/- 1.5*10-5 l/hr and clearly demonstrated the importance of establishing
a true isokinetic condition at the tip of the sampling probe in order to representatively
sample the mist flow. The chart below compares the known level of carryover in the loop
with the measured carryover by sampling at isokinetic and non-isokinetic conditions.

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 12

Revision 4 .
 Sensitivity of Ca rry-O ver M ea surem ent
to Sa mpling flow Ra te

ca rry-over by Isok inetic sa m pling

1 .4

M ea sured ca rry -over/ M ea sured

Q tota l= 2 0 0 sm 3/ hr
1 .2
3
1 Q tota l=4 0 0 sm / hr

0 .8

0 .6

0 .4

0 .2

0
0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5
Sa m pling flow ra te/ Isok inetic sa mpling flow ra te

The IGSS design is, in effect, a miniature second stage separation process with features as
follows:

o Sampling probe position at exit of gas outlet line to ensure there are no errors
due to liquid carry-over deposition on the inner walls of the 6" gas line or
additional liquid as a result of gas condensation in the 6" gas line.

o True isokinetic flow conditions are established with a flow controller that
matches the separator gas line velocity.

o Real time measurement of liquid carryover allows the calculation of the

corrected separator GOR for the duration of the stabilised flow through the well
test separator.

o The separation process provides a dry gas sample free of liquid carry-over and a
liquid carry-over sample for the subsequent PVT recombination study.

Please refer to attached flow schematic of the IGSS.

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 13

Revision 4 .
 Isokinetic Gas Sampling System IGSS

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 14

Revision 4 .
Wellhead Split-Phase Sampling

Shell International, through its Thornton Research Laboratory, developed a special

sampling technique known as split-phase sampling that has been utilised particularly
for gas condensate wells. A high pressure manifold is located upstream of the choke
manifold by which the reservoir effluent is continuously withdrawn from the main flow
line. The manifold includes a mixing block to homogenise the flowstream which is
isokinetically sampled into a mini two-stage separation process with temperature
control. This equipment, which acts as a laboratory type separator, continuously
separates the two phases and the amount of liquid yield is directly measured offering an
alternative route to the CGR.

References

1. L.E. Steele & G.E. Adams A review of the Northern North Seas Beryl Field
After Seven Years Production, SPE 12960

2. W.G. Riemens, A.M. Schulte, L.N.J de Jong Birba Field PVT Variations Along
the Hydrocarbon Column and confirmatory Field Tests, JPT, January 1988,
pp83-88

3. Repeat Formation Tester, SMP-9070, October 1989, WTS Marketing Services

4. P.J. Reignier and J.A. Joseph: Management of a North Sea Reservoir

Containing Near-Critical Fluids Using New Generation Sampling and Pressure
Technology for Wireline Formation Testers, SPE 25014, 1992

5. A.R. Smits, D.V. Fincher, Katsuhiko Nishida, O.C. Mullins , R.J. Schroeder and
Tsutomu Yamate: In-situ Optical Fluid Analysis as an Aid to Wireline Formation
Sampling, SPE Formation Evaluation, June 1995, pp91-98

6. M. B. Standing Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon

Systems, SPE of AIME, Dallas 1977

7. Peresg, Alvaro M.M, Macias-Chapa, Luis, Serra, Kelsen,V. and Reynolds A.C:
Well-Conditioning Effects on Bubblepoint Pressure of Fluid Samples from
Solution Gas Drive Reservoirs, SPE 18530

8. W.D. McCain Jr and R.A. Alexander: Sampling Gas Condensate Wells, SPE
19729, 1989

9. API RP 44, First Edition January 1966

10. J.W. Amyx, D.M. Bass and R.L. Whiting. Petroleum Reservoir Engineering-
Physical Properties, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 15

Revision 4 .
11. N.Varotsis and P. Guieze On-site Reservoir Fluid Properties Evaluation, JPT,
August 1990, pp1046-1052

12. L. P. Dake: The practice of reservoir engineering, Elsevier, 1994

13. Guidelines for Reservoir Fluid and Sampling, Flopetrol

14. M. L. Powers:New Perspective on Oil and Gas Separator Performance, SPE

Production 7 Facilities, May 1993, pp77-83

15. Hoffman, A.E, Crump, J.S and Hocott, C.R:Equilibrium Constants for a Gas-
Condensate System

16. W.D. Riley, R.P. Walters, S.D. Cramer, F.X. McCawley: Isokinetic Technique for
Sampling Geothermal Fluids in Two-Phase Flow, SPE 7885

17. A. G. Collins: Geochemistry of Oilfield Waters, Elsevier, New York, 1975

18. R.S. Metcalfe, J.L Vogel, R.W. Morris:Compositional Gradients in the Anschutz
Ranch East Field, SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1988, pp1025-1032

19. F. O. Reudelhuber, Jr.:Sampling Procedures for Reservoir Fluids, SPE 816-G,

December 1957

Surface Sampling Training section 2.0 Page 16

Revision 4 .
RESERVOIR FLUID SAMPLING Surface Sampling

Isokinetic Gas Sampling System (IGSS)

IG Sampling Module

Isokinetic Sampling Separator Flowmeter Control

Sampling point Probe Valve

Separator 6 gas outlet line

Dry Gas
Liquid
Container
Sampling Point

1440psi Test Separator Body Liquid carry-over

Sampling Point

SMART
Data Acquisition System IG Sampling Controller
Stores liquid flowrate data Controls isokinetic flowrate
Processes liquid flowrate data

? Oilphase, November 99 Reservoir Fluid Sampling & Analysis Course Woodside Petroleum Ltd. 17/17