Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 26595

The Use of Vapor Recovery Units in the Austin Chalk Field

Dianbin Liu* and J.V. Meachen Jr., Union Pacific Resources CO.
'SPE Member
II
Copyright 1993, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1993.

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 posllion 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. Permission to copy IS restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper IS presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex, t63245 SPEUT.

Abstract vented from the tanks becomes significant. Environmental con-

This paper deals with the practical problems and consider-
ations associated with the installation and operation of Vapor
Recovery Units (VRUs) in the Austin Chalk field. Other as-
pects will also be discussed such as oxygen sensing and working
together with gas gatherers and oil haulers.
VRUs have been used successfully in Austin Chalk field
to recover the gas otherwise vented to the atmosphere. The
Austin Chalk horizontal wells usually give high production ini-
tially. For high GOR (Gas Oil Ratio) wells, they tend to cause
separation problems which result in significant volumes of gas
in the stock tanks. PVT analysis, mainly flash calculations,
can be used to optimize liquid recovery at separation point
and predict the gas volume at the stock tanks.
So far over two dozen VRUs have been installed recovering
about $10M daily. More will be installed in the near future.
The installation ofVRUs is an attractive idea because it is both
environmentally conscious and profitable.
The ideas and discussions presented here can also be ap-
plied to other oil fields with high GOR and high production.
The results presented in this paper will further one's un-
derstanding of the oil field operations and also help the envi-
ronment.
Introduction
Vapor recovery is not a new concept 1, 2. However, this
technique is not widely used in the industry due to a variety
of problems. This is especially true for Austin Chalk where
drilling has taken the highest priority for operators.
With initially high production associated with high gas-
oil-ratio (GOR) for some horizontal wells in the area, the gas
References and illustrations at end of paper.
cerns and the potential profits have made the use of VRU's
essential and the determined field personnel have made it prac-
tical.
Results and Discussion
PVT Analysis
One of the most important and also most difficult prob-
lems was to accurately determine the volume of vapor available
from the tanks, on which the economic analysis is based. One
approach attempted here was the PVT analysis. After the gas
and oil samples were taken from the separators, a recombina-
tion was done. This would enable one to understand what was
being dealt with in the reservoir. Fig. 1 shows a typical phase
envelope of some of the horizontal gas wells.
Theoretical calculations were then done on the recombined
stream through stage separations for verification. The stock
tank vapor GOR was then obtained. Table 1 is an example
of the calculations. It was noted that the GOR at the tank
was not very low and the specific gravity of the tank vapor was
the highest. Indeed, field operations have proven that the tank
vapor BTU content was twice as high as that of the separator
gas (2400 compared with 1200 BTU jMCF).
Estimation of Vapor Volumes
Through a series of calculations, a relationship was ob-
tained between the tank GOR and the pressure of vessel dump-
ing to tanks. This relationship was plotted in Fig. 2 labeled
as UPRC Theoretical, along with the curves published in Gris-
wold and Ambler's paper 2. As can be seen from the figure,
the results match well with their estimated volumes. However,

831
2 The Use of Vapor Recovery Units in The Austin Chalk Field SPE 26595

100

.
•••

90

6000
• Cril Poinl .
- - Phase Envelope
.............. 05%
80°,4
SOOO - - - - 50%
~ lri. Res. Condo
.,>. H.P. Sop. Condo

! .

. /~ '/ /.
. ~~" ~
20

o L-'- .
----' _

soo
/' . . .
o 100 200 300 400 600
Temperature (OF) o ••
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90
Pressure of Vessel OU"l'ing to Tanks (psig)

Figure 1: A Typical Phase Envelope Figure 2: Estimated Vapor Volume vs. Last Stage
Pressure

caution has to be made here because the field practice has not
yet verified these calculations. So for now, the best estimates
still come from the field either by visual examination of the
tank vapors or by actual measurement testing.
While the selection and operation of the VRU's vary
pressure, temp, oil, GOR deviation flashed widely, the installations were actually straightforward as illus-
psia deg F litre (1) factor Z gas,SG
trated in Fig. 3. The following discussion will be focussed on
---------------------------------------------------------
3753.74 240.0 some practical and important aspects for VRU operations from
to an operator's point of view.
1014.65 120.0 2325 2301 0.834 0.7486
to
Some Practical Aspects
114.65 100.0 1780 561 0.957 0.9942
to Although it is natural to select those candidates with
44.65 80.0 1716 46 0.971 1. 2351
to
enough tank vapors, it is also important to negotiate with the
14.70 60.0 1637 56 0.983 1.5467 gas gatherers and the oil haulers about the impact of the the
VRU's. Since the VRU vapor has higher BTU contents and
total 2966 other problems, it is favorable to all parties involved to have a
separate meter line for the VRU's. As to the timing, it is best
(1) Cu, ft. of gas at STC/bbl of stock tank oil at STC to have the VRU's installed as soon as possible, ideally the first
(2) STC '" 14.70 psia and 60.0 deg F
day of production.
To select the compressor for a particular site, the following
experiences from the field practice may be helpful.

Table 1: Sample PVT Calculations of Stage Separa- • A rotary gas compressor works well at low suction pres-
tion sure of 0"-5"of water and a discharge of 20#-45#. It has
problems with discharge above 50#.
• A reciprocating gas compressors works fairly well with
low suction pressure of 0" -5" of water and a discharge of

832
SPE 26595 Dianbin Liu, James Meachen 3

Number Horsepower EST. VOL

(MCF/D)
1 35 80
2 35 70
3 35 50
H.P&! to5a.IN
4 25 30
H.P. SepantOl' Oil
5 25 50
6 35 35
7 35 61
8 60 90
9 35 50
10 35 61
Heater
11 35 41
Treat:er OiIStockTankJ
Oil
12 60 159
13 20 30
14 35 90
15 35 70
A8C0'V9t8d Gas 10 salts
16 60 100
17 25 45
18 60 100
19 60 130
20 60 160
Figure 3: Schematic of VRU Setup on Well Location 21 25 45
22 35 100
23 35 68
25#-125#. However it has problems with any condensed 24 35 45
liquids. 25 35 85
• A rotary screw compressor works well with low suction 26 35 70
pressure of 20"-5" of water and a higher discharge of 25#- 27 60 100
125#. It has little problems with liquids. TOTAL MCF 2015
• A vapor boot with rotary or reciprocating eliminates Average 75
problems of oxygen in vapors. The suction pressure can
be 20" water to 5 psig.
Oxygen in the gatherer's pipeline is a major concern. De- Table 2: A Snapshot of Daily Vapor Recovery
pending on the contract, the maximum amount of oxygen al-
lowed in the vapor sales may vary. The ideal conditions would
be no oxygen, which is the case in many contracts. This was
done with backpressure regulators, pressure sensors and oxy-
gen sensors. At the suction side, backpressure regulators in N the net revenue interest of the operator. Once the instal-
ounces were not dependable. With these it was a partial recy- lation is paid out (which takes about 2-4 months) and if the
cle. Pressure sensors in inches of water were the most reliable. revenue falls below the monthly rental fee, the unit should be
At the discharge side, oxygen sensors were used to shut off or moved. At present, the cut-off rate is about 20 MCF /D for
vent the vapor. these installations.
VRU's can be leased for $1200 to $2500 per month depend Table 2 gives a snapshot of the daily vapor recovery pro-
ing on the size of the unit needed and the amount of mainte- duction. As is shown, the average for these 27 wells is 75
nance with the lease. MCF /D with a high of 160 MCF/D. Coupled with the high
These units were skid-mounted for easy moves. Once price for the BTU-rich tank vapor, the potential profit is very
the operation is determined uneconomical, the unit would be lucrative to say the least. As a matter of fact, by year-end
moved to another location. 1992, 17 VRU's in operation in the Chalk contributed an
estimated incremental $66,000 in net company cash flow in
The Bottom Line December3 . Current monthly gross revenue from the VRU's
is about $240,000. Net to company since the first unit was
The economics can be roughly expressed as follows: installed in September, 1992 is $700,000.
R = Q x 30.4 xP x N (1)
Conclusions
where R is the net revenue in dollars per month, Q is the rate
of vapor recovery in MCF /D, Pis thegas price in $/MCF and The following conclusions can be made:

833
4 The Use of Vapor Recovery Units in The Austin Chalk Field SPE 26595

• VRU installations on high GaR and high production

wells in the Austin Chalk area proved to be both prof-
itable and environmentally conscious.
• The practical problems associated with VRU's could be
solved efficiently with a determined field personnel.
• PVT analysis can help with the understanding of the sep-
aration process and determine the amount of vapor in the
tanks. However, further field work needs to be done to
verify the results.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Union Pacific Resources
Co. management for permission to publish this paper.

References
1. Evans, G. B. and Nelson, R.: "Applications of Vapor
Recovery to Crude Oil Production," paper SPE 2089 pre-
sented at the 1968 preprint, unkown place, Dallas.
2. Griswold, J. A. and Ambler, T. C.: "A Practical Ap-
proach To Crude Oil Stock Tank Vapor Recovery," paper
SPE 7175 presented at the 1978 Rocky Mountain Regional
Meeting, Cody, Wyoming, May 17-19.
3. Vering, J. B.: "UPRC Internal Memo," To G. Lindahl III
(June 15, 1993).

834