ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2008; 3: 380–386

Published online 10 July 2008 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI:10.1002/apj.159

Research Article
Optimizing separator pressures in the multistage crude oil
production unit
Alireza Bahadori,1 * Hari B. Vuthaluru1 and Saeid Mokhatab2
1
Department of Chemical Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia
2
Process Technology Department, Tehran Raymand Consulting Engineers, Tehran, Iran

Received 30 October 2007; Revised 21 February 2008; Accepted 18 April 2008

ABSTRACT: To achieve good separation between gas and liquid mixture coming out of a crude oil production system
and to maximize hydrocarbon liquid recovery, it is necessary to use several separation stages at decreasing pressures
and then adapting the pressure set-points to improve product separation and recovery at minimum cost. The aim
of this study is to present an accurate methodology for optimizing separator pressures in the crude oil production
unit. The new proposed methodology determines the optimum pressures of separators in different stages of separation
and consequently optimizes the operating conditions. Using this new method, the optimum separator pressures for
a 5724-m3 /day oil production unit were determined. As a result, the oil recovery was increased by 6 and 5 m3 /day
during summer and winter seasons, respectively. In this work, the C7 + fraction was also treated as one cut and then
breakdown of heavy fraction cuts (C7 + splitting) with respect to the most widely used distribution function (gamma
probability function). The results obtained showed that the calculations with C7 + fraction breakdown is more accurate
than definition of feed stream a with single C7 + fraction.  2008 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.

KEYWORDS: optimization; crude oil; multistage separation; production unit

INTRODUCTION separation’. In differential separation, the yield of

At high pressures existing at the bottom of the produc-
ing well, crude oil contains great quantities of dissolved
gases. When crude oil is brought to the surface, it is at a
much lower pressure. Consequently, the dissolved gases
will be released from the liquid. Some means must be
provided to separate the gas from oil without losing too
much oil. In fact, in carrying out the gas–oil separa-
tion process, the main target is to try to achieve the
following objectives (Abdel-Aal et al ., 2003):
• Separate the light components (methane and ethane)
from oil.
• Maximize the recovery of heavy components of
the intermediate components (propane, butane, and
pentane) in crude oil.
• Save the heavy components (which are the bulk of
crude oil) in liquid product.
Two methods for the separation of the light and
heavy constituents can be considered: ‘differential’
or ‘enhanced separation’ and ‘flash’ or ‘equilibrium
*Correspondence to: Alireza Bahadori, Department of Chemi-
cal Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, WA
6845, Australia. E-mail: alireza.bahadori@postgrad.curtin.edu.au
 2008 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
heavy hydrocarbons (intermediate and heavy groups)
recovery is high, because most of the light gases
are released at the earlier high-pressure separation
stages; and therefore, losing heavy components with
the light gases in the following low-pressure stages is
less likely. By comparison, in flash separation more
of the heavy hydrocarbons will be carried away with
the light gases during separation at the equilibrium
conditions. In practice, industrial separation of light and
heavy components of crude oil by using the differential
process is not cost effective as a large number of stages
would be required. This leaves the flash process as the
only viable crude oil treatment method.
The flash separation process for recovering crude oil
from high-pressure well streams consists of a series of
flash separators operating over a pressure range from
wellhead pressure to atmospheric pressure. However,
with the increased desirability of recovering natural
gas and natural gas liquids, other methods have been
proposed as modification to the basic flash separation
technique.[1]
The main objective of stage separation is to provide
maximum stabilization to the resultant phases (gas and
liquid) leaving the final separator, which means that
considerable amounts of gas or liquid will not evolve
Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering OPTIMIZING SEPARATOR PRESSURES IN CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION UNIT
from the final liquid and gas phases, respectively. The
quantities of gas and liquid recovered at a given pressure
are determined by equilibrium flash calculations using
an appropriate equation of state (EOS). This helps
optimize the pressure that is set for each separator.[2]
Several stages operated at successively lower pres-
sures affect the separation of oil from gas, thus increas-
ing the oil recovery. The number of stages in a mul-
tistage conventional separation process is a function
of American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity of the
oil, gas–oil ratio (GOR), and the wellhead flowing
pressure.[3,4] In general, a surface separation unit with
four stages is usually the most optimal. It allows 2–12%
higher liquid recovery in comparison with three-stage
separation and, in some cases, recoveries up to 25%
higher.[4] Although five-stage (or more) separation units
would yield more liquid recovery at the stock tank in
comparison to the three or four-stage separation sys-
tems, the small incremental liquid yield would rarely
pay out the cost (in capital investment and maintenance)
associated with a larger number of separators.
The selection of operating pressures in surface sep-
arators can have a remarkable impact on the quantity
and quality of oil produced in the sock tank. If the
separator pressure is high, large amounts of light com-
ponents will remain in the liquid phase at the separator
and will be lost along with other valuable components
to the gas phase at the stock tank. On the other hand,
if the pressure is too low, large amounts of light com-
ponents will be separated from the liquid and they will
attract substantial quantities of intermediates and heav-
ier components, so it is necessary to optimize separator
pressures in winter and summer seasons. Considerable
gains could be realized by performing process simula-
tion to optimize the separator pressure for maximum
oil recovery. Apart from obtaining a high recovery of
oil, operating pressures have other important consid-
erations in the processing of the separated streams. A
minimum pressure has to be maintained for the oil to
be delivered to the next processing stage. In addition,
using high pressure will deliver the gas stream for sales
at higher output pressure, thus reducing the compressor
horsepower used for gas pumping. Therefore, it may
be concluded that a proper operating pressure has to
be selected and its value has to be between the two
extreme cases (high-pressure/low-pressure operations)
in order to maximize the oil yield.
OPTIMIZATION METHODS FOR STAGE
SEPARATION
Surface separation pressure and temperature conditions
play a major role in the amount of liquid recovery that
is realized at the stock tank. Although temperature of
separation is a function of the ambient temperature,
which is difficult to control, however, since separators
 2008 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
381
usually work at about the same (surface) temperature,
pressure is typically the key player in optimization
studies.
Empirical and quasi-empirical approaches are more
popular in determining the middle-stage separation pres-
sure. These approximations do not take into account the
entire chemical composition of the crude oil or any other
property of the mixture. Another suggested calculation
method for optimizing the surface separation operations
focuses on the maximum production of the liquid and
minimum gas re-compression costs associated with the
selection of a low middle-stage operating pressure. This
method is based on the minimization of the required
compressor horsepower. When produced gas must be
compressed to pipeline pressures, minimizing compres-
sor horsepower may yield the most economic option.[5]
However, experience shows that horsepower optimiza-
tion may not be as simple as maximizing stock tank oil
recovery and it has very little effect on oil production
and API gravity.[3]
The most accurate method for the optimization of the
middle-stage separator pressure is applying vapor/liquid
equilibrium thermodynamics in order to model the
behavior of crude oil through the separation process.
This defines the middle-stage pressure, which maxi-
mizes oil accumulation in the stock tank (i.e. mini-
mizes GOR) while enhancing its API. Although nat-
urally occurring reservoir hydrocarbons are commonly
described by a number of discrete components and com-
ponent groups, gamma probability function can be used
to improve and extend fluid characterization through
describing the plus fraction by a number of single
and multiple carbon number groups as proposed by
Whitson.[6] The distribution function is generally used
to describe the C7+ fraction with its parameters deter-
mined by group experimental data. In this study, Twu,[7]
and Kesler and Lee[8] methods are used to predict the
critical properties and molecular weight of the C7+
fraction, respectively.
SOLUTION METHODOLOGY
The computational steps of the separator calculation
are described below in conjunction with Fig. 1, which
schematically shows a bubble point reservoir fluid
flowing into a surface separation unit consisting four
stages operating at successively lower pressures.
Step 1: Given the composition of the feed stream (Zi) to
the first separator and the operating conditions of the
separator (i.e. separator pressure and temperature),
calculate the equilibrium ratios of the hydrocarbon
mixture by a pretuned EOS. In this work, the Peng
and Robinson[9] EOS was used.
Step 2: Assuming a total of F moles of the feed enter-
ing the first separator and using the above calcu-
lated equilibrium ratios, perform flash calculations
Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2008; 3: 380–386
DOI: 10.1002/apj
382 A. BAHADORI, H. B. VUTHALURU AND S. MOKHATAB Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of four-stage oil production unit.

to obtain the compositions and quantities (in moles) Total moles of liquid remaining in the stock tank can
of the gas and the liquid leaving the first separator. also be calculated as:
Designating these moles as NL1 and NV1 , the actual
number of moles of the liquid and gas leaving the 
N

first separation stage are: NLT = F nLi (7)

i=1
NL1 = FnL1 (1)
Step 6: Determine the volume of stock tank oil occupied
NV1 = FnV1 (2) by moles of liquid from:

where, nL1 and nv1 represent the liquid and vapor (NLT )(MWOST )
fraction of the feed. VOST = (8)
ρOST
Step 3: Using the composition of the liquid leaving the
first separator as the feed for the second separator, Step 7: Calculate the specific gravity and the API
calculate the equilibrium ratios of the hydrocarbon gravity of the stock tank oil by applying:
mixture at the prevailing pressure and temperature
of the separator. ρOST
Step 4: On the basis of 1 mol of the feed, perform γo = (9)
flash calculation to determine the compositions and 1000
quantities of the gas and liquid leaving the second ◦ 141.5
API = − 131.5 (10)
separation stage. The actual numbers of moles of the γo
two phases are then calculated as:
Step 8: Calculate the total GOR:
NL2 = NL1 nL2 = FnL1 nL2 (3)
VG (ρOST )(NVT )
NV2 = NL1 nV2 = FnL1 nV2 (4) GOR = =
Vo (NLT )(MWOST )
Step 5: The previously outlined procedure is repeated (ρOST NVT )
= (stdm 3 /m 3 ) (11)
for each separation stage, including the stock tank (NLT )(MWOST )
stage, and the calculated moles and compositions are
recorded. The total number of moles of the gas given In the above equation, VG and VO are the volume of
off in all stages is then calculated as: gas (scf/mol) and volume of stock tank oil (bbl),
respectively; and MWOST is the apparent molecular


N weight of stock tank oil.
NVT = NVi = NV1 + NV2 + NV3 + NV4 The separator pressure can be optimized by calculating
i the API gravity and GOR in the manner outlined
= FnV1 + FnL1 nV2 + FnL1 nL2 nV3 above at different assumed pressures. The optimum
pressure corresponds to a maximum in the API
+ FnL1 nL2 nL3 nV4 (5) gravity and a minimum in GOR.
In a more compact form, the above expression can be
written as:
  CASE STUDY


N i −1

NVT = F nV1 + nVi nLj  (6) The data in Table 1 are fluid properties of Pazanan-
i =2 j =1 Asmari reservoir located in Iran.[10] Table 2 shows
 2008 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2008; 3: 380–386
DOI: 10.1002/apj
Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering OPTIMIZING SEPARATOR PRESSURES IN CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION UNIT 383

Table 1. Pazanan-Asmari reservoir fluid composition. cuts, which can lead to differences in predicting the fluid
properties when we define single or splitted heavy cuts
mol during simulation and optimization of the oil production
Component (%)
unit.
C1 52.510
C2 6.242
C3 4.237
IC4 0.855 RESULTS
NC4 2.213
IC5 1.124 Figures 4–9 show the optimum pressures of the sepa-
NC5 1.271 rators in different stages of separation for summer and
NC6 2.289 winter conditions without installing any new separators
H2 S 0.084 or equipment. These figures illustrate that the accuracy
CO2 1.587
C7 + C7+ (SP. GR. = 0.8646, MW = 236) 27.55
of calculation results is reduced by use of single C7+
cut instead of using splitted C7+ cuts.
Reservoir pressure (psig) 3700, bottom hole temperature 208 ◦ F.

5000
4500
Table 2. Pazanan-Asmari reservoir fluid composition 4000

Pressure (psig)
with splitted C7+ cut. 3500
3000
Component mol (%) 2500
2000
C1 52.5100 1500
C2 6.2420 1000
C3 4.2370 500
0
IC4 0.8550 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
NC4 2.2130 Temperature, °F
IC5 1.1240
NC5 1.2710 Figure 2. Phase envelope of Pazanan fluid based on
NC6 2.2890 single heavy cut (C7+).
H2 S 0.0840
CO2 1.5870
C7+ CUT1 0.8501 6000
C7+ (SP. GR. = 0.7411, MW = 108.47)
5000
C7+ CUT2 1.2802
Pressure, psig

C7+ (SP. GR. = 0.755, MW = 120.4) 4000

C7+ CUT3 1.6603 3000
C7+ (SP. GR. = 0.7695, MW = 133.63
2000
C7+ CUT4 6.5311
C7+ (SP. GR. = 0.799, MW = 164.78 1000
C7+ CUT5 6.3311 0
C7+ (SP. GR. = 0.8387, MW = 215.94 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
C7+ CUT6 4.9618 Temperature, °F
C7+ (SP. GR. = 0.8754, MW = 274.34
C7+ CUT7 2.9105 Figure 3. Phase envelope of Pazanan fluid based on
C7+ (SP. GR. = 0.9073, MW = 334.92 splitted heavy cut (C7+).
C7+ CUT8 3.0505
C7+ (SP. GR. = 0.9575, MW = 412.79
1078 36.8
Gas Oil Ratio (scf/bbl)

1076 36.75
1074
36.7
1072
the composition of Pazanan fluid with splitted C7+ 1070 36.65
cuts. 1068 36.6
1066
Given the composition of the feed stream and apply- 1064
36.55
ing the new proposed methodology, we can optimize the 1062 36.5
separator pressure in the four - stage oil separation unit 1060 36.45
1200
0 200 400 600 800 1000
as shown in Fig. 1. The HYSYS simulation software[11] Separator Pressure (psig)
was used in this study to carry out the simulation of GOR ( C7+ splitting) GOR API (C7+ splitting) API
separation.
Figures 2 and 3 show the phase envelope of Pazanan Figure 4. Optimum pressures of first-stage separator for
reservoir fluid based on the single and splitted C7+ single heavy cut and splitted C7+ cuts (summer case).
 2008 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2008; 3: 380–386
DOI: 10.1002/apj
384 A. BAHADORI, H. B. VUTHALURU AND S. MOKHATAB Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering

1085 36.8 1040 38

36.75 37.95
Gas Oil Ratio (scf/bbl)
1035 37.9

Gas Oil Ratio (scf/bbl)

1080 36.7
37.85
36.65 1030
1075 37.8
36.6 37.75
36.55 1025
1070 37.7
36.5 1020 37.65
36.45 37.6
1065
36.4 1015 37.55
37.5
1060 36.35
0 50 100 150 200 1010 37.45
0 50 100 150 200
Separator Pressure (Psig)
Separator Pressure (Psig)
GOR GOR (C7+ splitting) API API (C7+splitting) GOR GOR (C7+ splitting) API API (C7+splitting)

Figure 5. Optimum pressures of second-stage separator Figure 8. Optimum pressures of second-stage separator
for single heavy cut and splitted C7+ cuts (summer case). for single heavy cut and splitted C7+ cuts (winter case).

1078 36.8 1035 38

1076
Gas Oil Ratio (scf/bbl)

37.95

Gas Oil Ratio (scf/bbl)

36.75
1074 1030
37.9
1072 36.7
1025 37.85
1070
36.65
1068 37.8
1020
1066 36.6
37.75
1064 1015
36.55 37.7
1062
1060 36.5 1010 37.65
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Separator Pressure (Psig) Separator Pressure (Psig)

GOR GOR (C7+ splitting) API API (C7+ splitting) GOR GOR (C7+ splitting) API API (C7+ splitting)

Figure 6. Optimum pressures of third-stage separator Figure 9. Optimum pressures of third-stage separator
for single heavy cut and splitted C7+ cuts (summer case). for single heavy cut and splitted C7+ cuts (winter case).

1035 38 using splitted C7+ cuts. This increases the produced oil
37.95 quality around 0.4◦ and 0.5◦ API for summer and winter
Gas Oil Ratio (scf/bbl)

1030
37.9 seasons, respectively. As can be seen from Figs 4–6,
1025 37.85 total gas–oil ratio in summer case is higher than its
37.8 value in winter case (Figs 7–9), since in the summer
1020
37.75
case more gas is liberated from the liquid phase. In the
1015
37.7
meantime, the oil production rate in the winter case is
higher than in summer and the quality of produced crude
1010 37.65
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 oil is also much better in comparison with the summer
Separator Pressure (Psig) season. API in summer case is 36.7 in average, whereas
it is 38◦ API in winter.
GOR GOR (C7+ spliting) API API (C7+ splitting)

Figure 7. Optimum pressures of first-stage separator for

single heavy cut and splitted C7+ cuts (winter case). CONCLUSIONS

In the present work, an accurate methodology is pre-

Table 3 presents the optimum pressures of each sep- sented for optimizing separator pressures in a crude
aration stage in summer and winter conditions. Table 4 oil production unit without installing any additional
presents the liquid production rates at the optimum pres- equipment and without any added cost. The new pro-
sures using HYSYS software. posed methodology determines the optimum pressures
As shown in Table 4, the rate of oil production of separators in different stages of separation and
was increased by 6 and 5 m3 /day during summer and consequently optimizes the operating conditions. Using
winter conditions by applying optimum pressures on this new method, the optimum separator pressures for a
each separator in different stages of separation based on 5724 m3 /day oil production unit were determined. As a
 2008 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2008; 3: 380–386
DOI: 10.1002/apj
Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering OPTIMIZING SEPARATOR PRESSURES IN CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION UNIT 385

Table 3. Operating and optimum pressures at different stages of separation unit.

Summer Winter
Optimum pressure (kPa) Optimum pressure (kPa)
Operating
Separation pressure Temperature
stage (kPa) (◦ C) Single C7+ cut C7+ Splitting Temperature (◦ C) Single C7+ cut C7+ Splitting
First 2586 46.1 4380 4170 23.9 4240 4103
Second 690 44.4 827 793 21.1 862 841
Third 221 43.3 234 227 18.3 241 234
Fourth 110 42.2 110 110 17.2 110 110

Table 4. Liquid flow rates at different stages of separation unit (feed rate = 2791 kg mol/h or 8178 m3 /day).

Summer (kg mol/h) Winter (kg mol/h)

Separation Optimum Optimum Optimum Optimum
stage Original (single cut) (C7+ splitting) Original (single cut) (C7+ splitting)
First 1188 1325 1306 1257 1397 1381
Second 1070 1096 1089 1110 1153 1148
Third 1022 1033 1028 1074 1085 1081
Fourth 996 1003 1000 1049 1054 1051

Liquid production Liquid production

3
kg mol/h m /day kg mol/h m3 /day
Original 996 5734 1049 5834
Optimized (Single C7+ cut) 1003 5774 1054 5872
Optimized (Splitting C7+ cut) 1000 5740 1051 5839

result, the oil recovery was increased by 6 and 5 m3 /day of Technology, Perth, Western Australia for provid-
during summer and winter seasons, respectively, which ing Curtin University postgraduate Research Scholar-
is equivalent to 3600 $/day and 3000 $/day, respec- ship.
tively. In the meantime, we have a huge amount of crude
oil (more than 5724 m3 /day) in 0.5 API higher gravity, NOMENCLATURE
which is a considerable improvement for crude oil qual-
ity without installing any new equipment in production NV Number of vapor moles mol
unit. In this work, the C7 + fraction was also treated NL Number of liquid moles mol
as one cut and then breakdown of heavy fraction cuts VG Volume of gas Scm/
(C7 + splitting) with respect to the most widely used mol
distribution function (gamma probability function). The VO Volume of stock tank oil m3
results obtained showed that the accuracy of calcula- MWOST Apparent molecular weight
tions with C7 + fraction breakdown is more accurate ρO Stock tank oil density kg/m3
than definition of feed stream with single C7 + frac- γO Oil specific gravity
tion. GOR Gas–oil ratio Scm/m3

Subscripts
Acknowledgements 1, 2, 3, 4, . . ., N Number of stage
G Gas
The lead author acknowledges the Australian Gov- L Liquid
ernment’s Department of Education, Employment and O Oil
workplace relations for Endeavor International Post- ST Stock tank
graduate Research Scholarship (EIPRS), and the Office T Total
of Research & Development at the Curtin University V Vapor
 2008 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2008; 3: 380–386
DOI: 10.1002/apj
386 A. BAHADORI, H. B. VUTHALURU AND S. MOKHATAB
REFERENCES
[1] H.K. Abdel-Aal, M. Aggour, M.A. Fahim. Petroleum and Gas
Field Processing, 1st edn, Marcel Dekker Inc: New York,
2003.
[2] S. Mokhatab, W.A. Poe, J.G. Speight. Handbook of Natural
Gas Transmission & Processing, Gulf Professional Publishing:
Burlington, MA, 2006.
[3] F.S. Manning, R.E. Thompson. Oilfield Processing of
Petroleum, Vol 2: Crude Oil, PennWell Books: Tulsa, OK,
1995.
[4] A. Rojey, C. Jaffret, S. Cornot-Gandolphe, B. Durand,
S. Julian, M. Valais. Natural Gas Production, Processing,
Transport, Editions Technip: Paris, 1997.
 2008 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering
[5] T.B. Kryska, K.B. Lindsey, J.W. Hasz. Oil Gas J., 1976; 12,
129–135.
[6] C.H. Whitson. SPE J., 1983; 3, 683–694.
[7] C.H. Twu. Fluid Phase Equilib., 1984; 16, 137–150.
[8] M.G. Kesler, B.I. Lee. Hydrocarbon Process., 1976; 3,
153–158.
[9] D.Y. Peng, D.B. Robinson. Ind. Eng. Chem., 1976; 15, 59–64.
[10] A. Bahadori, S. Mokhatab. World Oil, 2007; 6, 101–105.
[11] HYSYS Software. Revision (3.1), Hyprotech, Ltd., Calgary,
AB, Canada, 2002.
Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. 2008; 3: 380–386
DOI: 10.1002/apj