© All Rights Reserved

151 views

© All Rights Reserved

- CBM Makalah
- Z-factor Estimate for Sour Gases
- Gas Reservoir Engineering John Lee.pdf
- Ingés Técnico Petrolero - Julio César Llópiz.pdf
- Guidelines for Fuel Gas Line Cleaning Using Compressed Air or Nitrogen
- Wilkins On
- M01 General Information
- Plant Utility and Maintanance Assisgnment
- City of Westfield - Current Commercial Electric Rates - January 2017
- Guidelines for the Establishment of a Natural Gas Plant Facility Copy
- GasTerra Annual Report 2012
- Flow Assurance Solids
- Riser & pipeline release frequencies
- OIl Contracts
- GTG Fuel System_Flexibility
- GT for Oil&Gas Application
- Natural Gas
- Petrolium
- surface production operation equipment
- Natural Gas Processing – Summary & Introduction

You are on page 1of 20

Gas Systems

R.P. Sutton, Marathon Oil Co.

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 a proposal 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 proposal 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

Problems with existing procedures used to estimate gas PVT

properties are identified. The situation is reviewed and

methods proposed to alleviate these problems. Natural gases

are derived from two basic sources associated gas which is

liberated from oil and gas condensates where hydrocarbon

liquid, if present, is vaporized in the gas phase. The two gases

are fundamentally different in that a high gravity associated

gas is typically rich in ethane through pentane while gas

condensates are rich in heptanes-plus. Additionally either type

of gas may contain nonhydrocarbon impurities such as

hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Failure to

properly distinguish between the two types of gases can result

in calculation errors in excess of those allowable for technical

work. Sutton investigated high gravity gas condensate gases

in 1985 and developed methods for estimating pseudocritical

properties which resulted in more accurate Z factors. The

method is suitable for all light natural gases and gas

condensate gases. It should not be used for high gravity

hydrocarbon gases that do not contain significant levels of

heptanes-plus. The original Sutton database of gas condensate

PVT properties has been expanded to 2264 gas compositions

with over 10,000 gas compressibility factor measurements. A

database of associated gas compositions containing over 3200

compositions has been created to evaluate suitable methods

for estimating PVT properties for this category of gas. Pure

component data for methane, methane-propane, methane-nbutane, methane-n-decane and methane-propane-n-decane has

been compiled to determine the suitability of the derived

methods. The Wichert55 database of sour gas compressibility

factors has been supplemented with additional field and pure

component data to investigate suitable adjustments to pseudocritical properties that ensure accurate estimates of

compressibility factors. Mathematical representations of

compressibility factor charts commonly used by the

community are investigated. Generally these methods are

robust and have been found suitable for ranges beyond those

originally recommended. Natural gas viscosity, typically

estimated through correlation, has been found to be inadequate

for high gravity gas condensates requiring revised procedures

for accurate calculations.

Introduction

51

Since its publication in 1942, the Standing and Katz (SK)

gas Z factor chart has become a standard in the industry.

Several very accurate methods have been developed to

digitally represent the chart. The engineering community

26,27

typically uses methods published by Hall and Yarborough

16

(HY), Dranchuk, et al. (DPR) and Dranchuk and AbouKassem14 (DAK). These methods all utilize of some form of

an equation of state that has been specifically fitted to selected

digital Z factor chart data published by Poettmann42. The

geophysics community typically uses a method developed by

3

39

Batzle and Wang (BW). Recently, Londono, et al. (LAB)

refit the chart with an expanded data set resulting in a

modified DAK method. They provided 2 equations, one fit to

an expanded data set from the SK Z factor chart and another

which included pure component data.

A general gas Z factor chart, such as the one developed by

Standing and Katz, is based on the principal of corresponding

states31 . This principal states that two substances at the same

conditions referenced to critical pressure and temperature will

have similar properties. These conditions are referred to as

reduced pressure and reduced temperature. Therefore, if two

substances are compared at the same reduced conditions, the

substances will have similar properties. In the context of this

paper, the property of interest is the gas Z factor.

Mathematically, the SK chart relates Z factor to reduced

pressure and reduced temperature.

Z f pr , Tr ....................................................................(1)

where

pr

p

............................................................................ (2)

pc

T

Tr ...............................................................................(3)

Tc

For gas mixtures, the critical properties are replaced with

pseudocritical properties. These values have no physical

significance but serve as correlating parameters for

corresponding states calculations. How these pseudocritical

properties are determined can affect the accuracy in the

calculated Z factor.

The principle of corresponding states is not an exact law of

nature but will allow properties to be determined at sufficient

accuracy for engineering calculations. With this in mind, the

various Z factor methods, which are typically constrained to

reduced pressures of 30, were compared against an expanded

37

methane data set obtained from NIST . The method used by

NIST to generate methane Z factors reports a maximum

uncertainty of 0.15% up to pressures of 145,038 psia with a

limiting density of 28.185 lbm/ft3. While it is not envisioned

that there is a physical need to determine properties at these

high pressures, the industry is moving toward more extreme

pressure and temperature conditions as the search for

resources moves to deeper producing environments. Fig. 1

depicts the relationship between pressure and gas gravity for a

range of limiting reduced pressures and illustrates the need to

accurately perform calculations at reduced pressures in excess

of 30. Figs. 2 and 3 and Table 1 summarize method error and

standard deviation for the various Z factor methods. The DPR

method shows the overall lowest error but a higher standard

deviation. The DAK method strikes a balance between low

error and low standard deviation and is preferred for

calculations presented in this paper. In using the DAK method

at high pressures, the coding modifications suggested by

Borges4 must be made so that accurate Z factors will be

calculated. Failure to make this modification results in Z

factors that change exactly as pressure changes resulting in

constant density and formation volume factor.

Background

The original database of gas compositions and physical

properties constructed by Sutton53 20 years ago was

augmented with a significant amount of new data.

Historically, in the development of gas gravity critical

property relationships, gases were typically classed as natural

gas, miscellaneous gas or gas condensate. The natural gas and

miscellaneous gas are reflective of gases separated from crude

oil and will referred to as associated gases. Data taken from

the new database provides insight into these two gas types

from Fig. 4. Change in composition with hydrocarbon gas

gravity is annotated on the plot to aid in quantifying the

differences in the two gas types. High gravity associated

gases are typically rich in ethane through pentane while the

gas condensates exhibit high concentrations of heptanes-plus.

Associated gases can contain a significant amount of

heptanes-plus but this is usually the result of low separation

pressure or separation from a volatile crude oil.

Suttons method was targeted at gas condensates and showed

that Kays30 mixing rules were not suited to this category of

gas. In Kays original work, it was stated mole fraction

SPE 97099

engineering calculations. Pseudocritical properties determined

in this manner for mixtures with components that differ

greatly in molecular weight or are of a different chemical

54

nature are likely to be in error. Wichert and Aziz developed

a method to modify pseudocritical properties to account for

the presence of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide in the

18

gas. Eilerts examined natural gas and varied the amount of

nitrogen in the gas. No additional modifications to mixture

pseudocritical properties were required to predict accurate Z

factors. Sutton noted that gas compressibility factors were

underpredicted for high molecular weight gas condensates.

Mole fraction weighted critical properties did not work for this

class of gas due to the significant presence of heptanes-plus.

New methods fit to this class of gas resulted in pseudocritical

properties similar to those determined by mixing rules

presented by Joffe28 and Stewart, Burkhart and Voo52 (SBV).

Poling et al.43 recommend mixing rules proposed by Pausnitz

and Gunn. While better than Kays mixing rule, this method

is not as accurate as Joffe or SBV. Kays mixing rules should

be suitable for associated gases because they primarily consist

of the light paraffin gases methane through pentane.

Critical Property Gas Gravity Relationships (Associated

Gas)

Associated gas compositions and PVT properties were

collected from PVT reports of a worldwide origin43. The gas

compositions were the result of differential or single stage

flash experiments and separator tests. Compositional data

alone amounted to 3256 points. Data that included gas Z

factors totaled 967 compositions with 4817 measurements as

summarized below.

Property

Hydrogen Sulfide, mole %

Carbon Dioxide, mole %

Nitrogen, mole %

Total Gas Gravity

Hydrocarbon Gas Gravity

Pressure, psia

Temperature, F

Z Factor

Minimum

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.554

0.554

12

32

0.105

Maximum

10.0

55.8

21.7

1.862

1.862

10,000

460

2.328

presented in Fig. 5 as a function of gas gravity. The results are

not particularly suited to correlation because of nonhydrocarbon impurities and the presence of heptanes-plus. A

review of the literature reveals past work in this area limited

the acceptable level of gas impurities and heptanes-plus. This

data was limited to include only those gases with hydrogen

sulfide less than 2%, carbon dioxide less than 2%, nitrogen

less than 2% and heptanes-plus less than 3% resulting in Fig.

6. A relationship that can be easily correlated with gas gravity

is developed. Since the level of impurities is limited, this is

effectively a relationship of pseudocritical properties with

hydrocarbon gas gravity.

Associated gases are typically characterized as having a low

SPE 97099

can be present in significant quantities. If this is the case, the

pseudocritical property relationships for gas condensates

should be used. Fig. 8 illustrates the change in hydrocarbon

gas gravity with changes in pressure. At reservoir conditions,

the gas is typically characterized as being relatively light (

g<

0.8) with the gravity increasing at lower separation pressures.

as a function of gas specific gravity are provided in Figs. 11

and 12.

gas gravity for gases containing nonhydrocarbons. The

hydrocarbon portion of the total gas gravity and the

hydrocarbon gas gravity are determined as follows:

Condensate)

In a prior work, Sutton developed new critical property - gas

gravity relationships for gas condensates. This work has been

confirmed by Piper et al.41 and Elsharkawy et al.19,20,21 who

developed similar relationships summarized in Table A-1.

5,6,7,10,11,17,18,23,25,32,34,40,41,44,45,46,48,49,56,57

Recent additions

to the

original Sutton database of gas condensates resulted in a

review of critical property gas gravity relationships. The

updated database contained 2264 compositions with 10,177

measurement of gas Z factor as summarized below

g y H2 S M H 2 S y CO2 M CO 2 y N 2 M N 2 M air

gHC

. (5)

y HC

The associated gas data was processed in this manner and

compared with a limited data set. As shown in Fig. 9, the

relationships are essentially identical confirming Standings

technique. It should be pointed out that the relationship

depicted in Fig. 9 is nonlinear and best represented with a

quadratic form of equation. Abd-El Fattah1 summarized many

of the published gas gravity-pseudo critical property

relationships. Approximately 20 equations sets have been

published over the years and the majority of the equations are

linear.

These linear equations can only possibly be

representative over a limited range of gas gravity.

50

Standings equations best represent this data set over the

entire range as shown in Fig. 9.

2

pseudocritical properties for the edited hydrocarbon gas data

set. Since the data is comprised of a single measurement of Z

factor for a given gas composition, the regression took the

form of solving for the coefficients of the quadratic equation

that relates the pseudocritical properties to gas gravity in order

to minimize the error in calculated Z factor. The resulting

equations are

2

p pcHC 671. 1 14gHC 34.3 gHC

.................................(8)

2

T pcHC 120 .1 429 gHC 62. 9 gHC

.................................(9)

critical properties derived from compositions and Kays

mixing rules are provided in Fig. 10. Natural gas Z factors

from the database, and data from the literature47 including pure

component and binary data were used to test the pseudocritical

property relationships. Accuracy of the new method for

calculating the Z factor for hydrocarbon gases and a

Method

Standing

Sutton

% AE

-0.18

-0.07

Std Dev

1.23

1.03

Property

Hydrogen Sulfide, mole %

Carbon Dioxide, mole %

Nitrogen, mole %

Total Gas Gravity

Hydrocarbon Gas Gravity

Pressure, psia

Temperature, F

Z Factor

% AAE

0.95

0.80

Minimum

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.556

0.554

12

0

0.129

Std Dev

0.80

0.66

Maximum

90.0

89.9

33.3

2.667

2.819

17,065

460

2.795

composition and hydrocarbon wellstream gravity is presented

in Fig 13. Using data from single phase, constant composition

expansion (CCE) experiments, pseudocritical properties were

determined for each gas utilizing nonlinear regression

methods. A subset of the database for gases with low levels of

nonhydrocarbon impurities (hydrogen sulfide < 2%, carbon

dioxide < 2% and nitrogen < 2%) is plotted in Fig. 14. It is

important to note that as with the associated gases, the

relationships presented in these figures form a relationship of

hydrocarbon pseudocritical properties with hydrocarbon gas

gravity. Modifications to pseudocritical properties to account

for nonhydrocarbons will be discussed later. Furthermore, the

highest gas condensate hydrocarbon gas gravity in the

database is 1.912. In order to better define relationships for

high gravity gases, pseudocritical properties were correlated

for oils. It is interesting to note that these relationships

extended to oils with molecular weights in excess of 300.

However, for this work data analysis was limited to a range

more appropriate for gas condensate systems.

The entire database includes numerous data from constant

volume depletion (CVD) experiments. As this data includes

only a single measurement of Z factor for each composition,

the analysis techniques used with the CCE data cannot be

utilized. The CVD data can be combined with the CCE data

and coefficients for quadratic polynomial equations

determined through nonlinear regression. The resulting

equations are

SPE 97099

2

ppcHC 744 125 .4 gHC 5. 9gHC

..................................(10)

2

literature pseudocritical property methods is given in Figs. 15

and 16. A statistical analysis of calculated Z factors with

measured data resulting from the use of these methods is

provided below.

Method

% AE

Sutton 1985

0.52

Piper

0.40

Elsharkawy

0.81

Sutton 2005 -0.10

Std Dev

2.15

1.89

3.28

1.46

% AAE

1.43

1.49

1.86

1.11

Std Dev

1.70

1.23

2.82

0.96

factor as a function of gas gravity are given in Figs. 17-20.

Comparison of the new relationships developed for both

associated gases and gas condensates is presented in Fig. 21.

Nonhydrocarbon Gas Impurities

Natural gas often contains nonhydrocarbon components.

Hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen are typically

identified and are found in varying amounts. Graphs of

component distribution with gas gravity are provided in Figs.

22-24.

Hydrocarbon pseudocritical properties are modified as follows

to account for the nonhydrocarbon components50.

p*pc

*

T pc

y HC T pcHC y H S T cH S y CO T cCO y N T cN .......(13)

2

must be further modified as follows to account for the

presence of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide in the gas.

120 y CO2 y H 2 S

0 .5

15 y H 2 S y H 2 S

0 .9 yCO

y H 2S

1 .6

...................(14)

*

T pc T pc

......................................................................(15)

*

p*pc T pc

p pc

*

T pc

y H S 1 y H

2

2S

...........................................(16)

Aziz method for modifying or adjusting the pseudocritical

properties. In order to determine the suitability of each

method, pure component data from API Project 37 was

evaluated. Results for methane hydrogen sulfide mixtures

are presented in Fig. 25 while results for methane carbon

dioxide mixtures are presented in Fig. 26. The Wichert and

methane derived from Standings equations (Eqns. 6 and 7).

At low levels of impurities, all of the methods perform

reasonable well, but errors increase dramatically as the

nonhydrocarbon content level increases.

Clearly, the

modifications proposed by Wichert and Aziz are superior

compared with the other available methods.

Wichert and Aziz originally proposed alternatives to Eqn. 14

for different methods of determining pseudocritical properties.

Therefore it is appropriate to modify the coefficients and

exponents in this equation in order to tune the equation for

optimal use with the proposed new relationships. Utilizing

nonlinear regression techniques, the resulting equation was

derived:

0. 06

0 . 68

5. 9 y H 2 S y H 2 S

2.2

...................(17)

presented in Figs. 27 and 28 for varying amounts of hydrogen

sulfide and carbon dioxide. Despite a significant change to the

coefficients and exponents, the new relationship is similar to

that originally proposed by Wichert and Aziz with only a

minor offsets in the results. Eqn. 17 was tested using the

newly developed pseudocritical property relationships. The

results are plotted in Fig. 21 and 22 for comparison with other

methods. The resulting accuracy in predicted Z factor is

marginally changed by the new relationship.

Eilerts analyzed the effect of varying nitrogen content on Z

factor. Measurements were taken on a natural gas. Two

different levels of nitrogen contamination were then added to

the gas and new measurements acquired. Methods proposed

by Standing (Eqns. 4, 5, 12 and 13), Piper and Elsharkawy to

account for nitrogen in the gas mixture were evaluated against

this data. Standings method to account for the effects of

nitrogen was tested using Standings pseudocritical property

equations (Eqns. 6 and 7) and the new equations proposed in

this paper (Eqns. 8, 9, 10 and 11) for hydrocarbon

pseudocritical properties. Results are presented in Fig. 29.

Errors are relatively flat as the nitrogen content changes

except for equations proposed for Elsharkawy.

Statistical analyses utilizing the entire database are presented

below

Method

Standing

Sutton 2005

Associated Gases

% AE Std Dev % AAE

-0.13

1.38

1.05

-0.16

1.20

0.91

Std Dev

0.90

0.79

Method

Sutton 1985

Piper

Elsharkawy

Sutton 2005

Gas Condensates

% AE Std Dev % AAE

0.49

1.84

1.34

0.81

4.11

1.91

0.52

6.09

2.85

-0.11

1.42

1.11

Std Dev

1.35

3.73

5.40

0.89

SPE 97099

original Wichert and Aziz equations. The improvements

offered by Eqn. 17 are subtle.

Method

Sutton 2005 AG

Sutton 2005 GC

% AE

-0.15

0.01

Std Dev

1.20

1.50

% AAE

0.92

1.16

Std Dev

0.79

0.94

Gas Viscosity

Gas viscosity is a property infrequently measured by PVT

laboratories. Several correlation alternatives are available for

estimating this quantity. These include methods proposed by

9,13,15

29

Carr, et al.

(CKB), Jossi, et al. (JST) which was adopted

38

by Lohrenz, Bray and Clark (LBC), Dean and Stiel 12 (DS),

Lee, et al.36 (LGE) and Lucas 43. Recently Londono, et al.39

(LAB) updated LGE to provide a more accurate method for

predicting the viscosity of pure component and light natural

gas mixtures. These methods are summarized in Table A-2.

Laboratories typically present a calculated gas viscosity. Prior

to the mid-1980s, the CKB method was used almost

exclusively, but then changed to LGE. LGE was developed as

35,36

study. The resulting

a result of the API Project 65

equation reflects pure component gases and 8 natural gases

with specific gravity less than 0.77. The reported accuracy of

the method was a standard deviation of +2.69% with a

maximum deviation of 8.99%. The LGE method results from

a modification of the Starling and Ellington equation.

T

gsc exp X

T gY

....................................................(17)

where

1. 5

9.4 0. 02 M

T

gsc 104 K

209 19 M T

...................................(19)

986

X 3. 5 0. 01M .....................................................(20)

T

Y 2. 4 0. 2 X ...................................................................(21)

pressure gas viscosity. Comparisons of this quantity derived

to the various methods are presented in Fig. 30. For gases

which derive their gravity from light hydrocarbon

components, the resulting relationships provide similar values

for low pressure viscosity. The methods proposed by CKB,

LGE and LAB all correlate low pressure gas viscosity with

gas gravity (or molecular weight) and temperature. JST, DS

(which is essentially the same as JST) and Lucas correlate this

low pressure gas viscosity with temperature, molecular

pressure.

If the associated gas pseudocritical property

relationships are utilized, the second group of correlations

provides results similar to the first group. However, for gas

condensates, the behavior of low pressure viscosity with

changing gas gravity is markedly different for JST, DS and

Lucas.

Gas viscosity is determined by multiplying the low pressure

viscosity by a viscosity ratio or through a correlation of excess

viscosity. Both viscosity ratio and excess viscosity are

correlated with either density or reduced density. For

comparison, all of the methods were re-expressed as a

viscosity ratio as presented in Fig. 31. The methods all exhibit

similar trends. Problems are evident with CKB which make it

unsuitable for use with high pressure and/or high gas gravity

scenarios.

Considerable research has been published in recent years for

2,8,33

. This binary can be used

methane-decane binary mixtures

to approximate the behavior of a gas condensate which can

have a significant heptanes-plus component. A statistical

analysis of the viscosity methods shows a strong tendency to

underpredict viscosity for high gravity gas condensate

systems. In particular, the LGE method was tested against

several gas condensate and methane-decane binary mixtures

with results shown in Fig. 32.

Reviewing the methods, it is apparent that developing a

correlation for viscosity of both associated gases and gas

condensates needs to address the differences in each gas type.

The resulting errors are significantly larger than those

originally reported by LGE. For this reason, the method of

Lucas for low pressure viscosity was selected. The method

proposed by LGE for viscosity ratio was selected because of

its simplicity and acceptability by the petroleum industry.

Nonlinear regression was then utilized to refit the coefficients

in the LGE equation. A database consisting of viscosity data

for methane, propane, methane-propane, methane-butane,

methane-n-decane

and

natural

gas

from

the

2,8,19,33,35,36,39

literature

was combined with laboratory measured

gas condensate viscosity45 . The available data consisted of

5881 points covering the following ranges:

Property

Hydrogen Sulfide, mole %

Carbon Dioxide, mole %

Nitrogen, mole %

Heptanes-plus, mole %

Gas Gravity

Pressure, psia

Temperature, R

Viscosity, cp

Minimum

0

0

0

0

0.554

14.7

-45.7

0.0083

Maximum

1.7

8.9

5.2

24.3

1.861

20305

1112

0.435

wire, oscillating cup and falling-body viscometers.

Laboratory measurements of the gas condensates were

acquired mostly with a rolling ball viscometer although a

Cambridge viscometer was used for one sample. While there

are more accurate methods for measuring the viscosity of gas

SPE 97099

compelling evidence that the methods presently used to

calculate viscosity underpredict this quantity. The nonlinear

regression of the data using proposed relationships resulted in

the following equation:

where

1588

X 3. 47

0.0009 M .............................................(23)

T

Y 1.66378 0. 04679 X ...................................................(24)

Lucas.

0. 618

.....(25)

gsc 10 4

0.340 exp 4.058 T pr 0.018

where

16

T pc

0. 9490 3 4 ................................................. (26)

M p pc

from the literature is provided in Fig. 31. A comparison of the

proposed method with methods from the literature is provided

in Figs. 33-38. The statistical results covering the entire

viscosity data set is as follows:

Method

CKB

JST

DS

LGE

Lucas

LAB

Sutton

% AE

-8.2

-8.9

-8.0

-3.5

-4.2

-1.0

-0.5

Std Dev

17.1

10.3

8.9

6.3

6.5

4.1

4.2

% AAE

17.1

10.3

8.9

6.3

6.5

4.1

4.2

Std Dev

63.3

12.1

10.7

7.1

10.2

5.6

4.9

accuracy for high gravity gas condensate, a subset of the

database consisting of methane was tested against the

correlations with the following results.

Method

CKB

JST

DS

LGE

Lucas

LAB

Sutton

% AE

-4.3

-3.8

-3.8

0.2

-1.1

-0.6

-2.7

Std Dev

4.9

4.4

4.1

5.6

4.3

4.3

4.3

% AAE

5.4

4.4

4.1

4.2

2.7

2.2

3.5

Std Dev

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.7

3.6

3.7

3.6

A subset of the database containing only the methane ndecane and data and data from gas condensates was also

checked against the correlations.

Method

CKB

DS

JST

LGE

Lucas

LAB

Sutton

% AE

40.5

-36.2

-39.3

-22.6

-28.1

-13.9

-3.9

Std Dev

263.8

18.8

18.6

15.1

18.6

15.9

17.1

% AAE

103.7

36.2

39.3

22.6

28.7

16.6

13.9

Std Dev

245.8

18.8

18.6

15.0

17.8

13.0

10.8

published methods and show improved results for the gases

containing higher levels of heptanes-plus.

A common mistake is to use the total gas gravity instead of the

hydrocarbon gas gravity. Another common mistake is to use

the wrong pseudocritical property relationship with the wrong

type of gas.

Data taken from the API Project 37 report for methanepropane mixtures was analyzed for a mixture with a specific

gravity of 1.3476. Z factors were calculated and compared

with reported values. The average percent error in the

calculated value was determined and is presented for each

pressure as presented in Fig. 39.

In this analysis,

pseudocritical properties were generated for the gas using the

new relationships for gas condensates and associated gases.

Clearly this gas is best represented by Eqns. 8 and 9 for

associated gases. To further illustrate this point additional

data from API Project 37 for mixtures of methane-propanedecane data was analyzed for a mixture with a specific gravity

of 1.3747. The average percent error is presented in Fig. 40

which clearly shows this gas is best represented as a gas

condensate. In this instance, Eqns. 10 and 11 should be used

to calculate pseudocritical properties.

The problem with using the correct gas pseudocritical property

model applies only to high gas gravity scenarios. For gases

with a hydrocarbon gas gravity less than 0.75-0.8, the

differences in the pseudocritical property relationships is too

small to create significant errors in calculated Z factors.

Example

To illustrate the problem of using the incorrect gas gravity in

the calculations, the following example is offered.

A gas mixture has a specific gravity of 0.7016. The gas

contains 15.3 mole % carbon dioxide. Calculate the gas Z

factor at 2000 psia and 160

F. The measured Z factor is

22

0.8814. For this problem, the following properties are given

for carbon dioxide and air.

SPE 97099

Property

Molecular weight

Critical pressure, psia

Critical temperature, R

Carbon Dioxide

44.01

1073

547.7

Air

28.964

NA

NA

p pc T pc

p pc

*

T pc

y H 2 S 1y H 2 S

= 16.2 R

Solution

Step 1 - Determine the hydrocarbon gas gravity from Eqn. 4.

pseudoreduced conditions are

y HC 1 y H 2 S y CO2 y H2 S

used

for

determining

Tpc = 357 R

Step 6 - Calculate the pseudoreduced pressure and

pseudoreduced temperature using Eqns 2 and 3. The absolute

temperature (160 + 459.67) is used in Eqn. 3.

g y H2 S M H 2 S y CO2 M CO 2 y N 2 M N 2 M air

gHC

y HC

p pr

resulting in

gHC = 0.554

Step 3 - Calculate the pseudocritical properties using Eqns. 10

and 11.

2

ppcHC 744 125 .4 gHC 5. 9gHC

p

= 2.837

p pc

T

= 1.736

T pr

T pc

Step 7 Calculate the Z factor.

underpredicts the measured value of 0.8814 by 0.2%. The

example can also be worked using the associated gas

equations for hydrocarbon pseudocritical properties (Eqns. 8

and 9). The resulting calculated Z factor is 0.8828 which

overpredicts the measured value by 0.2%.

ppcHC = 676.3 psia

TpcHC = 341.7 R

Step 4 - Determine the intermediate pseudocritical properties

for the gas mixture using Eqns. 12 and 13.

p*pc y HC p pcHC y H2 S p cH 2 S yCO 2 p cCO2 y N 2 p cN 2

total gas gravity directly in the calculation of pseudocritical

properties.

*

T pc

y HC T pcHC y H 2 S T cH2 S y CO 2 T cCO2 y N 2 T cN 2

10 and 11, the result is

Tpc = 431.4 R

Tpc* = 373.2 R

adjustment,

, remains the same (16.2 R). Therefore, the

adjusted pseudocriticals are

Aziz method

120 y CO2 y H 2S

y CO

0 .9

y H 2 S

15

1 .6

0. 5

yH 2S

4

y H 2 S

Ppc = 635.9 (415.2/431.4) = 612.0 psia

and the reduced conditions are

Tpr = 1.492

*

T pc T pc

Ppr = 3.268

SPE 97099

which has an error or -13% when compared to the measured

value of 0.8814.

Conclusions

1. Methods for commonly predicting Z factor were

reviewed and tested for accuracy over an extended

range of conditions.

The DAK method was

determined to be most suited for calculations.

Furthermore, the method can be extended from the

accepted upper reduced pressure limit of 30 to

reduced pressure limits of 90 without significantly

compromising accuracy.

2. A review of pseudocritical property gas gravity

relationships has been made. This review resulted in

the development of new methods for both associated

gases and gas condensates. Increased accuracy in

calculated Z factor results from use of the new

methods.

3. New equations have been developed for adjusting

pseudocritical properties for the effects of

nonhydrocarbons. Minor differences are noted from

the method proposed by Wichert and Aziz and the

changes in the accuracy of calculated Z factor is

insignificant. Therefore, the method of Wichert and

Aziz is recommended to adjust pseudocritical

properties for the presence of hydrogen sulfide and

carbon dioxide.

4. The method recommended by Standing to account for

the presence of nitrogen in natural gas has been

checked against measured data and found to be

accurate.

5. A new viscosity method suitable for both associated

gas and gas condensate is presented. The method

shows improved accuracy over the entire range of

expected gas types.

6. Common mistakes in the application of

pseudocritical property gas gravity relationships are

identified along with errors that result from

misapplication of the methods. An example is

provided to ensure that the methods are properly

used.

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank the management of Marathon

Oil Company for permission to publish this paper.

Furthermore the author would like to thank Tom Blasingame

for his insights and encouragement. Finally, the author would

like to thank his wife, Nancy. Without her patience and

understanding, this would have never been written.

Nomenclature

AE

=

AAE

=

M

=

p

=

pc

=

average error, %

average absolute error, %

molecular weight, lb-mole

pressure, psia

critical pressure, psia

ppc

ppc*

=

=

ppcHC

pr

ppr

T

Tc

Tpc

Tpc*

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

TpcHC

Tr

Tpr

w

wHC

wHNC

y

yHC

yH2S

yCO2

yN2

Z

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

gHC

g

g sc

=

=

=

=

=

pseudocritical pressure with intermediate

nonhydrocarbon adjustment, psia

hydrocarbon pseudocritical pressure, psia

reduced pressure

pseudoreduced pressure

temperature,

R

critical temperature,

R

pseudocritical temperature,

R

pseudocritical temperature with intermediate

nonhydrocarbon adjustment,

R

hydrocarbon pseudocritical temperature,

R

reduced temperature

pseudoreduced temperature

weight fraction

weight fraction of hydrocarbons in gas

weight fraction of nonhydrocarbons in gas

mole fraction

mole fraction hydrocarbon

mole fraction H 2S

mole fraction CO2

mole fraction N2

compressibility factor

pseudocritical temperature adjustment

parameter,

R

gas gravity (air = 1)

hydrocarbon gas gravity (air = 1)

gas viscosity, cp

low pressure gas viscosity, cp

viscosity normalizing parameter

References

1. Abd-El Fattah, K.A.: New Gas Pseudocritical Property

Equations Devel oped, Oil and Gas J. (June 2, 1997)

144-145.

2. Audonnet, F. and Padua, A.A.H.: Viscosity and Density

of Mixtures of Methane and n-Decane from 298 to 393 K

and up to 75 MPa, Fluid Phase Equil. (2004) 235-244.

3. Batzle, M. and Wang, Z.: Seismic Properties of Pore

Fluids, Geophysics (Nov., 1992) 1396-1408.

4. Borges, P.R.: Correction Improves Z-Factor Values for

High Gas Density, Oil and Gas J. (Mar. 4, 1991) 55.

5. Bradley, H.B.: Petroleum Engineering Handbook, SPE,

Richardson, Texas (1987) Chap. 39.

6. Brown, G.G. and Holcomb, D.E.: The Compressibility

of Gases, Part II - Gaseous Mixtures, The Petroleum

Engineer (Feb., 1940) 23-26.

7. Brown, G.G., Katz, D.L., Oberfell, G.G. and Alden, R.C.:

Natural Gasoline and the Volatile Hydrocarbons, NGAA,

Tulsa, OK (1948).

8. Canet, X., Baylaucq, A. and Boned, C.: High-Pressure

(up to 140 MPa) Dynamic Viscosity of the

Methane+Decane System, Int. J. Therm. (Nov., 2002)

1469-1486.

9. Carr, N.L. Kobayashi, R., and Burrows, D.B.: "Viscosity

of Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure," Trans., AIME

(1954) 201, 264-272.

SPE 97099

Performance, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct., 1985) 1870-1886.

11. Coats, K.H. and Smart, G.T.:

Application of a

Regression-Based EOS PVT Program to Laboratory

Data, SPERE (May, 1986) 277-299.

12. Dean, D.E. and Stiel, L.I.: The Viscosity of Nonpolar

Gas Mixtures at Moderate and High Pressures, AIChE

Journal (May, 1965) 526-532.

13. Dempsey, J.R.: "Computer Routine Treats Gas Viscosity

as a Variable," Oil and Gas J. (Aug. 16, 1965) 141-143.

14. Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, J.H.: "Calculation of

Z Factors For Natural Gases Using Equations of State," J.

Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept., 1975) 34-36.

15. Dranchuk, P.M., Islam, M.R. and Bentsen, R.G.: A

Mathematical Representation of the Carr, Kobayashi and

Burrows Natural Gas Viscosity Correlations, J. Cdn. Pet.

Tech. (Jan.-Feb., 1086) 51-56.

16. Dranchuk, P.M., Purvis, R.A. and Robinson, D.B.:

"Computer Calculation of Natural Gas Compressibility

Factors Using the Standing and Katz Correlations,"

Institute of Petroleum Technical Series, No. IP74-008

(1974) 1-13.

17. Drohm, J.K., Trangrove, R.D. and Goldthorpe, W.H.:

On the Quality of Data From Standard Gas-Condensate

PVT Experiments, paper SPE 17768 presented at the

SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Dallas, TX (June 1315, 1988).

18. Eilerts, C.K.:

Phase Relations of Gas-Condensate

Fluids,Vol. II,

Monograph 10, Bureau of Mines,

American Gas Association (1959) 764-770.

19. Elsharkawy, A.M., Hashem, Y.Kh. and Alikhan, A.A.:

Compressibility Factor for Gas Condensates, paper SPE

59702 presented at the SPE 2000 Permian Basin Oil and

Gas Conference, Midland, TX (Mar. 21-23, 2000).

20. Elsharkawy, A.M. and Elkamel, A.: Compressibility

Factor for Sour Gas Reservoirs, paper SPE 64284

presented at the 2000 SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas

Conference, Brisbane, Australia (Oct. 16-18, 2000).

21. Elsharkawy, A.M.: Efficient Methods for Calculations

of Compressibility, Density, and Viscosity of Natural

Gases, Fluid Phase Equilibria 218, (2004) 1-13.

22. Engineering Data Book, 9th Edition, Gas Processors

Suppliers Assn., Tulsa, (1972) Sec. 16.

23. Eslami, H.: Prediction of the Density for Natural Gas

and Liquefied Natural Gas Mixtures, AIChE Journal

(Nov., 2001) 2585-2592.

24. Gonzalez, M.H., Eakin, B.E., and Lee, A.L.: Viscosity of

Natural Gases, American Petroleum Institute, Monograph

on API Research Project 65 (1970).

25. Li, Q and Guo, T.M.:

A Study on the

Supercompressibility and Compressibility Factors of

Natural Gas Mixtures, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. (1991) 235-247.

26. Hall, K.R. and Yarborough, L.: "A New Equation of

State for Z-Factor Calculations," Oil and Gas J. (June 18,

1973) 82-85, 90, 92.

27. Hall, K.R. and Yarborough, L.: "How to Solve Equation

of State for Z-Factors," Oil and Gas J. (Feb. 18, 1974)

86-88.

28. Joffe, J.: Compressibilities of Gas Mixtures, Ind. Eng.

Chem. (July, 1947) 837-838.

29. Jossi, J.A., Stiel, L.I., and Thodos G.: "The Viscosity of

Pure Substances in the Dense Gaseous and Liquid

Phases," AIChE Journal (Mar. 1962) Vol. 8, No.1; 59-62.

30. Kay, W.B.: Density of Hydrocarbon Gases and Vapors

at High Temperature and Pressure, Ind. Eng. Chem.

(Sept., 1936) 1014-1019.

31. Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H.,

Vary, J.A., Elenbaas, J.R., and Weinaug, C.F.: Handbook

of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY

(1959).

32. Kenyon, D.E. and Behie, G.A.: Third SPE Comparative

Solution Project: Gas Cycling of Retrograde Condensate

Reservoirs, J. Pet. Tech. (Aug., 1987) 981-997.

33. Knapstad, B., Skjolsvik, P.A. and Oye, H.A.: Viscosity

of the n-Decane Methane System in the Liquid Phase,

Ber. Bunsenges Phys. Chem. (1990) 1156-1165.

34. Lawal, A.S., Van derLaan, E.T. and Thambynayagam,

R.K.M.: Four-Parameter Modification of the LawalLake-Silverberg Equation of State for Calculating GasCondensate Phase Equilibria,

paper SPE 14269

presented at the 60 th Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV (Sept. 22-25, 1985).

35. Lee, A.L.: Viscosity of Light Hydrocarbons, American

Petroleum Institute, Monograph on API Research Project

65 (1965).

36. Lee, A.L., Gonzalez, M,H., and Eakin, B.E.: "The

Viscosity of Natural Gas," Trans. AIME (1966) Vol. 237,

997-1000.

37. Lemmon, E.W., McLinden, M.O. and Friend, D.G.:

"Thermophysical Properties of Fluid Systems" in NIST

Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference

Database Number 69, Eds. Linstrom, P.J. and Mallard,

W.G., June 2005, National Institute of Standards and

Technology,

Gaithersburg

MD,

20899

(http://webbook.nist.gov).

38. Lohrenz, J., Bray, B.G. and Clark, C.R.: Calculating

Viscosities of Reservoir Fluids from their Composi tions,

J. Pet. Tech. (Oct., 1964) 1171-1176.

39. Londono, F.E., Archer, R.A. and Blasingame, T.A.:

Simplified Correlations for Hydrocarbon Gas Viscosity

and Gas Density Validation and Correlation of Behavior

Using a Large-Scale Database, paper SPE 75721

presented at the Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary,

Canada (Apr. 30-May 2, 2002).

40. Matthews, T.A., Roland, C.H. and Katz, D.L.: High

Pressure Gas Measurement, Part I, The Density of Natural

Gas, Refiner & Natural Gasoline Manufacturer (June,

1942) 58-63.

41. Piper, L.D., McCain, W.D. and Corredor, J.H.:

Compressibility Factors for Naturally Occurring

th

Petroleum Gases, paper SPE 26668 presented at the 68

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,

TX (Oct. 3-6, 1993).

42. Poettmann, F.H. and Carpenter, P.G.: "The Multiphase

Flow of Gas, Oil, and Water Through Vertical Flow

Strings with Application to the Design of Gas Lift

Installations," Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1952)

257-317.

10

SPE 97099

Properties of Gases and Liquids, Fifth Edition, McGrawHill (2001) Chapts 5 and 9.

44. Reamer, H.H. Olds, R.H., Sage, B.H. and Lacey, W.N.:

Phase Equilibria in Hydrocarbon Systems, MethaneCarbon Dioxide system in the Gaseous Region, Ind. Eng.

Chem. (Jan., 1944) 88-90.

45. Reservoir Fluid Database, GeoMark Research Inc.,

Houston (2003) (http://www.rfdbase.com).

46. Sage, B.H. and Reamer, H.H.: Volumetric Behavior of

Oil and Gas from the Rio Bravo Field, Trans., AIME

(1941) 179-191.

47. Sage, B.H. and Berry, V.M.: Phase Equilibria in

Hydrocarbon Systems Behavior of the Methane-PropanenDecane System, Monograph on API Research Project 37,

API (1971).

48. Sage, B.H. and Lacey, W.N.: Thermodynamic Properties

of the Lighter Paraffin Hydrocarbons and Nitrogen,

Monograph on API Research Project 37, API (1950).

49. Sage, B.H. and Lacey, W.N.: Some Properties of the

Lighter Hydrocarbons, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Carbon

Dioxide, Monograph on API Research Project 37, API

(1955).

50. Standing, M.B,: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil

Hydrocarbon Systems, 9th Printing, Society of Petroleum

Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX (1981).

51. Standing, M.B., Katz, D.L.: "Density of Natural Gases,"

Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 140.

52. Stewart, W.F., Burkhardt, S.F. and Voo, D.: Prediction

of Pseudocritical Parameters for Mixtures, paper

presented at the AIChE Meeting, Kansas City, MO (May

18, 1959).

53. Sutton,

R.P.:

"Compressibility

Factors

for

High-Molecular-Weight Reservoir Gases," paper SPE

th

14265 presented at the 60 Annual Technical Conference

and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV (Sept. 22-25, 1985).

54. Wichert, E. and Aziz, K.: "Calculate Z's for Sour Gases,"

Hyd. Proc. (May, 1972) 119-122.

55. Wichert, E.: Compressibility Factor of Sour Natural

Gases, M. Eng. Thesis, The University of Calgary,

1970.

56. Whitson, C.H. and Torp, S.B.: Evaluating Constant Volume Depletion Data, J. Pet. Tech. (Mar., 1983) 610620.

57. Yang, T., Chen, W.D. and Guo, T.M.: Phase Behavior

of a Near-Critical Reservoir Fluid Mixture, Fluid Phase

Equilibria (1997) 183-107.

cp x 1.0*

F (F 32)/1.8*

psi x 6.894 757E+00

R x 5/9

*Conversion factor is exact

= Pas

= C

= kPa

= K

Limits for Varying Gas Gravity

SPE 97099

11

Method

Year

Gas Type

Equations

Standing51

1981

Associated

2

2

Sutton 52

1985

Gas

Condensate

T pcHC 169 .2 349. 5gHC 742gHC

J 0. 11582 0. 45820 y H2 S

0. 66026 y N 2

Piper

41

1991

Gas

Condensate

TcN 2

pcN 2

TcH 2 S

pcH 2 S

0.90348 y CO2

TcCO 2

pcCO 2

0. 70729 g 0. 099397 g

K 3 .8216 0 .06534 yH 2 S

TcH 2 S

p 0cH. 52 S

0. 42113 yCO2

TcCO 2

0.5

pcCO

2

0.91249 yN 2

17 .438 g 3 .2191g

2

K

p pc 2

J

K2

T pc

J

p pc 193 .941 131 . 347g 217. 144 w HC 1060. 349 w NHC

20

Elsharkawy

2000

Gas

Condensate

T pc 195 .958 206 . 121g 25.855 w HC 6.421 w NHC

2

9. 022 w HC

163 .247 w 2NHC

2

Sutton

2005

Associated

2

T pcHC 120 .1 429 gHC 62. 9gHC

Sutton

2005

Gas

Condensate

T pcHC 164 .3 357 .7 gHC 67.7 2gHC

TcN2

0. 5

pcN

2

12

SPE 97099

Method

Year

29,38

12

1954

1962

1965

1966

43

Equations

Lucas

1981

Blasingame39

2002

Sutton

2005

SPE 97099

13

14

SPE 97099

Slope

-0.305

Slope

-0.752

0.058

0.140

0.046

0.265

0.031

0.182

0.020

0.082

0.015

0.034

0.135

0.049

SPE 97099

from composition

fraction vs separation pressure

data with calculated hydrocarbon only

pseudocritical properties

15

N2 <2%, C7+<3%)

gravity vs separation pressure

with pseudocritical property correlations

16

SPE 97099

Standing critical properties

and wellstream gravity

pressure methods for gas condensates

Sutton critical properties

temperature methods for gas condensates

SPE 97099

Sutton (1985) pseudocritical property method

Elsharkawy pseudocritical property method

property relationships for associated

gases and gas condensates

17

Piper pseudocritical property method

Sutton (2005) pseudocritical property method

18

SPE 97099

methane-hydrogen sulfide mixture

methane-carbon dioxide mixture

changing hydrogen sulfide concentration

changing carbon dioxide concentration

SPE 97099

varying levels of nitrogen

19

high levels of heptanes-plus

20

SPE 97099

methane-propane mixture

methane-decane mixture

- CBM MakalahUploaded byChandra Alfianto
- Z-factor Estimate for Sour GasesUploaded byhermit44535
- Gas Reservoir Engineering John Lee.pdfUploaded byglsancor
- Ingés Técnico Petrolero - Julio César Llópiz.pdfUploaded bydacardonar
- Guidelines for Fuel Gas Line Cleaning Using Compressed Air or NitrogenUploaded byPriyabrat
- Wilkins OnUploaded byOmkar Bapat
- M01 General InformationUploaded byZhanara Sherkeshbaeva
- Plant Utility and Maintanance AssisgnmentUploaded byNethiyaa
- City of Westfield - Current Commercial Electric Rates - January 2017Uploaded byGenability
- GasTerra Annual Report 2012Uploaded bylupoderi
- Flow Assurance SolidsUploaded bysevero97
- Riser & pipeline release frequenciesUploaded bytheblues2708
- Guidelines for the Establishment of a Natural Gas Plant Facility CopyUploaded byokey obi
- OIl ContractsUploaded byPhạm Thao
- GTG Fuel System_FlexibilityUploaded byBadukwang
- GT for Oil&Gas ApplicationUploaded bydannymay95
- Natural GasUploaded bysenthilask_81
- PetroliumUploaded byRana Muhammad Bakhtaj Ayaz
- surface production operation equipmentUploaded byapi-201334376
- Natural Gas Processing – Summary & IntroductionUploaded bydndudc
- Pipeline Calculation.pdfUploaded byZulfitrizulkarnain Zulkarnain
- conversion of Waste Plastics Into Alternative FuelUploaded bynkar037
- xzxzxasUploaded byLoneHighland
- 06_vrus metanoUploaded bydanigna77
- gasdef[1]Uploaded bySanjay Kumar
- Us Er JohnEnglandOutlook2014 Dec2013Uploaded bymita000
- Session 19 v5(1)Uploaded byFabio Rizzo
- ss-wflvUploaded byaytihda
- Contact 3/13- Southern Gulf and PakistanUploaded byCONTACTABB
- EC33Uploaded bynalanth76

- CNAS Working Paper PeakOil King Sept2008Uploaded byDamien Dementia
- ElectricityUploaded byJennifer Satiyago
- Lube RefineryUploaded byPraphulkp
- API OWSUploaded byPratik Ray Chaudhury
- AAUploaded byFranklin Barrera
- Labrador Petro ManagementUploaded byTuanson Pham
- SPE-28041-MSUploaded byUdi
- EnergySector[1]Uploaded bythisissoirritating
- spe113351.pdfUploaded byعبدالغفار بيزان
- Object Oriented Refinery SimulationUploaded byNeil Carrasco
- Company Profile for General Electric CoUploaded byfernando7stanley6
- krishna data.xlsUploaded byVayak Staffcare
- Xypex Test SummaryUploaded bySamrerng Kriengprathana
- sp3d Spec20Uploaded byhaqjmi
- Ali Karimi - HES Refinery Project-1.pptxUploaded bythomask11
- May 18 Email to Kaitlin Fahey – Sen. Duckworth Chief of StaffUploaded byDoug Grandt
- GE in Saudi Arabia, Manufacturing Technology CenterUploaded byAsif Sajwani
- Brexit impact on IndiaUploaded byhemant
- Coal and Petroleum Coal is by Far the Most Abundant Fossil Fuel on EarthUploaded bySudhir Narang
- FLNG Tariff AnalysisUploaded byRagerishcire Kanaalaq
- Oil and Gas Wells and Their IntegrityUploaded byEjaj Siddiqui
- EA,C&M NOTESUploaded bySuresh
- SBT Petroleum 2018 Training BrochureUploaded byChijioke Zion Okabie
- Development of Solid Catalyst for Transesterification of Croton Megalocarpus Hutch Oil in Biodiesel Production and Blending With Kerosene (1)Uploaded byNiraj Kumar
- Full Paper IATMI 2009 - OPS (English)Uploaded byImam Pranadipa
- 1-Fluid Flow and the Production SystemUploaded byAshok Balani
- Krytox Lubrican Performance OverviewUploaded byDanny
- Fired Heater DesignUploaded byGanesh Kumar
- Paradeep_DfrUploaded byioeuser
- Vacuum DehydratorUploaded byAntonne E. Phillip