PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 2004-214

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Comparison of Correlations for

Viscosity of Sour Natural Gas
O. JEJE, L. MATTAR
Fekete Associates Inc.

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Society’s 5th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (55th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 8 – 10, 2004. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

Abstract
There are two commonly used correlations for determining
the viscosity of natural gases. These are the Carr, Kobayashi
and Burrows (CKB) and the Lee, Gonzalez and Eakin (LGE).
The CKB applies to both sweet and sour gas, but the LGE was
derived purely for sweet gas. The CKB is a graphical
correlation, and consists of two sets of graphs with temperature
as the correlating parameter (not easily adaptable for computer
applications). On the other hand, the LGE is a set of simple
equations, and therefore can be easily programmed in to a
computer. The LGE is used in numerous computer programs,
with no regard to the fact that it was not derived for sour gas.
This study compares the LGE equation to the CKB graphs
for both sweet and sour gases. A detailed comparison of the two
methods using various gas mixture compositions, temperatures
and pressures was conducted. The results illustrate that for
sweet gases, the comparison is acceptable, and the LGE
equation can be used for most reservoir engineering purposes.
However, for sour gases, the differences between the LGE and
CKB correlations can be significant. This leads to the
conclusion that the LGE correlation, which was derived for
sweet gases only, should not be indiscriminately applied to sour
gases.
Introduction
Gas viscosity is used in several calculations dealing with
fluid flow and reservoir behavior. Empirical correlations have
been developed to estimate values for viscosity over a range of
pressures. Most viscosity correlations are either equation based
or in a graphical form derived from laboratory measurements.
Typically the correlations are functions of temperature,
pressure, gas gravity and composition. Often they are paired
with various corrections for non-hydrocarbon components.
Applying a correlation without corrections to a sour gas case
can lead to large errors in predicting viscosity.
Carr, Kobayashi and Burrows Correlation
The Carr et al correlation (henceforth referred to as CKB)
was developed to predict the viscosity of gas hydrocarbon
mixtures over a large pressure and temperature range. The
limits of the correlation are temperatures between 32 and 400F

1
and reduced pressures up to 20 (which can equate to pressures
higher than 12000 psia). It was designed to handle non-
hydrocarbon components (CO2, N2, H2S) in concentrations of
up to 15 % each.
Calculation of viscosity with the CKB method is a three
step process based on graphical methods. The first step is to
determine the viscosity at atmospheric pressure based on the gas
gravity and temperature using figure 1. Next, corrections are
added to the viscosity based on the H2S, CO2 and/or N2 content
of the gas. Finally, the viscosity is multiplied by a ratio based
on the reduced pressure from figure 2.
The only disadvantage of the CKB method is that it is based
on several charts, making it difficult to program into a
computer. Two methods that have been used to simplify
computation have been to generate a series of polynomial
curve-fits or to use a table lookup-interpolation scheme(1). There
have been several curve fits(3,4) of these graphs proposed, but
many of them are only good over a limited range. An
acceptable curve fit for figure 1 was obtained by Dempsey(5).
To this day, there is no acceptable curve fit of figure 2 over its
entire range and correspondingly figure 2 has had to be
digitized for use in computers.
Lee, Gonzalez and Eakin Correlation
The Lee et al correlation (henceforth referred to as LGE)
was created from a database of 3000 data points from tests of
gas hydrocarbon mixtures. The limits for the correlation are
narrower than the CKB correlation, with an acceptable range of
pressure between 100 psia and 8000 psia and temperatures of
100 degrees to 340 degrees Fahrenheit. The correlation was not
originally intended to predict acid gas behavior. The only acid
gas behavior was designed to handle were CO2 concentrations
of up to 3.2%. There are no additional corrections to correct the
viscosity equation for the presence of non-hydrocarbon
components.
The first step in the calculation of viscosity using the LGE
correlation is to determine the gas density from equation (1).
1 p MW
ρ=
62.37 z RT ------------------------------------------------------------
Equations (2) to (5) are solved using constants from table 1.
µ g = 10 −4 K exp( Xρ Y ) ------------------------------------------------
x --------------------------------------------------------- (3)
X = x1 + 2 + x3 M w
T lookup of digitized graphs to calculate gas viscosity. It
Y = y1 − y2 X --------------------------------------------------------------------- (4)
(k1 + k 2 M w )T k 3 (5)
K= ------------------------------------------------------
k 4 + k5 M w + T
Since the original introduction of the correlation, different
constants for equations (2) to (5) have been suggested in order
to optimize the equation. In addition to the original constants,
table 1 also lists optimized values from one such source(2).
Upon investigation, the magnitude of the difference between
original and optimized forms was found to be small (less than
5%) in cases with extreme conditions. Therefore, conclusions
derived from this paper are applicable to the optimized form as
well.
Comparison of Correlations
The objective of this study is to compare the CKB and LGE
correlations.
Whereas viscosity data for sweet gases is available in
various databases, data for sour gases is much more rare.
Accordingly, in this study the correlations are not compared to
laboratory data but, instead, to each other. The CKB is the only
one of the two correlations that was derived for both sweet and
sour gases, so it is used as our standard and the LGE compared
to it.
The study will try to answer two questions:
1. How do these two correlations compare for sweet gases?
2. How do these two correlations compare for sour gases?
Experimental Test Method
In order to do a complete comparison, several factors needed
to be investigated. The effect of the following had to be
included in the investigation:
• Pressure
• Gas gravity
(1) • Temperature
• Composition
Accordingly the following cases were created for pressures
ranging from (15-8000 psi):
Case 1: Sweet gas case – varying the gas gravity while
(2) keeping the temperature constant (200F)
Case 2: Sweet gas case – varying the temperature while
keeping the gas gravity constant (0.65 and 1)
Case 3: Sour gas case – varying the composition while
keeping the gas gravity and temperature constant
Data for the CKB and LGE were obtained from the PVTPlus
software by Fekete Associates Inc. For the CKB, the software
uses a combination of the Dempsey(5) polynomial fits and table
faithfully reproduces the CKB graphs.
The two sets of results were compared by calculating the
percent difference:
 (µ − µ CKB ) 
Difference =  LGE  (6)
µ CKB
----------------------------
 
2
 addition, the temperature effects become more pronounced as
Figure 3 shows a typical graph of the two correlations. the temperature increases, so the differences reported above
Figure 4 shows the corresponding difference between the two could be considered conservative.
correlations.

Conclusions
Results 1. For low gas gravities, there was an insignificant
difference between the two correlations at any
Case 1: Sweet Gas, Varying Gas Gravity temperature or pressure.
2. Differences as high as 15% were observed for sweet
gas at 200F.
In the first case gas gravities of 0.6 to 1.0 were used to 3. Differences as high as 45% were observed for sour
calculate gas viscosity at a temperature of 200 F. The resulting gas calculations at 200F.
graph is shown as figure 5. 4. As the gas gravity was increased, the effect of
temperature on the difference increased. The results
Figure 5 shows that for all gas gravities, the difference was obtained at 200F should be considered conservative.
less than 15%. 5. As gas gravity was increased, the difference between
the two correlations showed rapid growth.
Most sweet natural gases have a gravity less than 0.8. When 6. For sour gas caution should be used when applying the
values between 0.6 and 0.8 were used, the difference remained LGE. This is particularly true when CO2 is the non-
small. Similarly, when the pressure was below 3000 the hydrocarbon component.
difference was less than 10%. 7. The LGE method can be considered unsuitable for
high pressure sour gas calculations of viscosity or for
One could conclude from the above graph that the LGE and gases with a high gas gravity.
CKB correlations gave similar results for sweet gases, provided 8. The LGE method may provide reasonable results for
reasonable values for gas gravity were used. This was pressures under 2500 psi. In particular when the sour
particularly true at low pressures. gas contains H2S rather than CO2 as the non-
hydrocarbon component.
Case 2: Sweet Gas, Varying Temperature
The second case was used to determine if temperature had a
significant effect on the results. NOMENCLATURE
Figure 6 demonstrates that the difference incurred by CKB = Carr, Kobayashi and Burrows correlation
changing the temperature was relatively small for a gas gravity LGE = Lee, Gonzalez and Eakin correlation
of 0.65. Moreover, the effect of temperature was not ρ = Density at T and P, g/cc
directionally consistent at high pressures. p = Pressure, psia
Mw = Molecular weight, lb/lbmole
Figure 7 demonstrates more pronounced differences between z = Compressibility factor
the different temperatures. Interestingly, the 200 F case, did not T = Temperature, Rankine
always lie between the other two curves, but rather was always R = Universal gas constant,
the minimum value. As long as small values for gas gravity 10.732 (psia ft3)/(lbmole deg R)
were used, the error was small at any temperature. 62.37 = Conversion constant: 1 g/cc = 62.37 lbm/ft3
µg = Gas viscosity at T and P, cp
µLGE = Viscosity calculated using LGE method, cp
Case 3: Sour Gas, Varying Gas Gravity and Composition µCKB = Viscosity calculated using CKB method, cp
The previous cases demonstrated that for sweet gases the
results for the LGE correlation match those of CKB. The
purpose of the third case, was to demonstrate the effect of non- REFERENCES
hydrocarbon components on the difference between the 1. ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION
correlations. The gas gravity for sour gases is typically higher
than for sweet gases, so the range of 0.8 to 1.0 was used. BOARD (currently Energy and Utilities Board),
Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells 3rd
As shown in figure 8, for a gas gravity of 0.8, the difference
chart reached as high as 30%. It seemed that the highest Edition, Calgary, pp. A1-A24, 1975.
differences occured when CO2 is in the gas mixture. For the
most part, the viscosity with only H2S seemed reasonable. 2. LONDONO, F.E., ARCHER, R.A., AND
BLASINGAME, T.A. Simplified Correlations for
As the gas gravity was increased to 1.0 as shown in figure 9,
the directional behaviour of the curves seemed consistent with Hydrocarbon Gas Viscosiy and Gas Density –
figure 8. A comparison of the two graphs showed that the Validation and Correlation Behaviour using a Large-
difference between the correlations increased with increasing Scale Database; paper SPE 75721; prepared for
gas gravity. With a gas gravity of 1, the error reached as high
as 45% for a sour gas mixture of both H2S and CO2. Further presentation at 2002 SPE Gas Technology
increases in the gas gravity can have a large impact on the
difference, reaching as high as 110% for a gas gravity of 1.5. In

3
 Symposium, Calgary, Canada, April 30 - May 2, Technical Conference, Calgary, May 9-12, 1993.,
2002. pp. 51-56, January-February 1986.

3. DRANCHUK, P.M., ISLAM, M.R., AND 5. DEMPSEY, J.R. Computer Routine Treats Gas
BENTSEN, R.G. A Mathematical Representation of Viscosity as a Variable; Oil and Gas Journal, pp.
the Carr, Kobayashi and Burrows natural gas 141-143, August 16, 1965.
Viscosity Correlations, Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, pp. 51-56, January-February
1986.

4. CHEN, Z.A., RUTH, D.W. On Viscosity

Correlations of Natural Gas; paper CIM 93-02;
prepared for presentation at CIM 1993 Annual

4
 (2)
Variable Original LGE Optimized LGE
k1 9.379 16.7175
k2 0.01607 0.0419188
k3 1.5 1.40256
k4 209.2 212.209
k5 19.26 18.1349
x1 3.448 2.12574
x2 986.4 2063.71
x3 0.01009 0.00119260
y1 2.447 1.09809
y2 0.2224 -0.0392851

TABLE 1. Values for constants in LGE equation

FIGURE 1: Carr, Kobayashi and Burrows graph used to determine viscosity of hydrocarbon gases at atmospheric pressure.

5
FIGURE 2: CKB graph of ratio of viscosity of hydrocarbon gases at atmospheric pressure to higher pressures

0.04

0.035

0.03

0.025
Viscosity (cp)

0.02

0.015

LGE
0.01
CKB

0.005

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Pressure (psia)

FIGURE 3: CBK and LGE viscosities for sweet gas of G=0.65, T=200F.

6
 50

40

30
% Difference

20

10

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000

-10
Pressure (psia)

FIGURE 4: Error Chart corresponding Figure 3.

FIGURE 5: Percent Difference between CKB and LGE viscosities for sweet gas at T=200F with different gas gravities.

7
FIGURE 6: Percent Difference between CKB and LGE viscosities for sweet gas at G=0.65 with variable temperature.

FIGURE 7: Percent Difference between CKB and LGE viscosities for sweet gas at G=1.0 with variable temperature.

8
FIGURE 8: Percent Difference of CKB and LGE viscosities for sour gas at G=0.80 and T=200F.

FIGURE 9: Percent Difference of CKB and LGE viscosities for sour gas at G=1.0 and T=200F.