SPE 166414

Estimating Reservoir Composition for Gas Condensates and Volatile Oils

From Field Data
John P. Spivey, SPE, Phoenix Reservoir Engineering and W.D. McCain, Jr., SPE, Texas A&M University

Copyright 2013, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 30 September–2 October 2013.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
This work describes a method for estimating reservoir fluid composition for gas condensates and volatile oils from readily
available field data. Required data are separator conditions; first stage separator gas specific gravity, non-hydrocarbon
impurities content, and gas-liquid ratio; and stock tank API gravity. The well must be stabilized, and the flowing bottomhole
pressure must be above the saturation pressure.
A database comprising compositions for 23 wet gases, 33 gas condensates, and 19 volatile oils was taken from the
literature. The data sets included compositions in mole fractions of methane through heptanes-plus and nonhydrocarbon
impurities, along with molecular weight and specific gravity of the heptanes-plus fraction. The database was restricted to
fluids with heptanes-plus content between 1 and 25 mole %, and with relatively low non-hydrocarbon impurities content (less
than 4 mole % H2S, less than 6 mole % CO2, less than 11 mole % N2, and less than 18 mole % total nonhydrocarbons).
The method predicts reservoir fluid composition through heptanes-plus along with molecular weight and specific gravity
of the heptanes-plus fraction. The resulting reservoir fluid composition may be used with an untuned equation of state to
obtain preliminary estimates of saturation pressure, maximum liquid dropout, and modified-black-oil (MBO) fluid property
tables for simulation. The predicted composition may also be used as a cross check of laboratory-measured composition.
The method has been tested on data sets for 16 gas condensates that were not part of the composition database. Predicted
compositions were surprisingly accurate, with average absolute errors (AAE) for methane, 1.0 mole %; ethane, 1.2 mole %;
propane, 0.7 mole %; butanes, 0.5 mole %; pentanes, 0.3 mole %; hexanes, 0.3 mole %, and heptanes-plus, 0.4 mole %.
Predicted specific gravities and molecular weights of the heptanes-plus fraction had average absolute relative errors (AARE)
of 1.3% and 9.7%, respectively. Saturation pressures calculated from the predicted gas-condensate compositions using an
untuned equation of state had an average relative error (ARE) of -0.3% and an AARE of 6.9%, with a median relative error of
-3.7% and a median absolute relative error of 4.5%.
Because of the current commercial importance of liquids-rich gas plays, the method should find application for 1)
obtaining preliminary estimates of composition before laboratory data are available, 2) estimating PVT properties such as
saturation pressure, maximum liquid dropout, and MBO fluid property tables from field data when PVT measurements are
not available, and 3) cross-checking laboratory-measured compositions.

Introduction
While accurate correlations are available for estimating virtually every fluid property of interest for dry and wet gases and
black oils, a relatively limited number of correlations for estimating fluid properties for gas condensates and volatile oils.
Unlike dry gases and black oils, the composition of the reservoir fluid is essential to understanding and predicting the
behavior of gas condensates and volatile oils.
We wanted to find some way of calculating modified black oil (MBO) property tables for gas condensates and volatile
oils from field data without requiring laboratory constant-volume depletion (CVD) data or composition data. Although a few
correlations have been proposed for calculating individual MBO properties from field data, none of the correlations of which
we were aware when we began this study provided complete sets of MBO property tables. MBO property tables must be
generated as an internally consistent set so that basic physical and thermodynamic constraints are satisfied, such as positive
total compressibility. None of the available correlations are guaranteed to meet this criterion.
2 SPE 166414

One recent correlation (Nassar et al 2013) has been proposed for calculating all four of the MBO volumetric properties,
but does not include viscosities of the reservoir liquid and vapor phases. It is based on equation-of-state calculations, which
honor the physical and thermodynamic constraints, but those constraints are not built into the correlations themselves.

Development of Method
Thermodynamically consistent MBO property tables are easily calculated from an equation of state if the composition is
known. If laboratory CVD test data are available, the equation of state is normally tuned to reproduce the laboratory CVD
data. Unfortunately, composition and/or CVD test data are often not available. We assumed that the only data available are
field production data, including separator conditions, primary separator gas/stock-tank liquid ratio (in scf/STB), primary
separator gas gravity, and stock tank API gravity, along with non-hydrocarbon impurities content of the primary separator
gas.

Concept. Although composition is not available, the field data do provide significant insight into the composition. The total
surface gas-oil ratio and the heptanes-plus content are highly correlated (Ovalle et al. 2007). The specific gravity of the
primary separator gas is largely determined by the relative proportions of C1, C2, and C3 in the separator gas. The specific
gravity of the stock tank liquid is a good indicator of the specific gravity of the heptanes-plus fraction.
If the composition were known, a standard separator flash calculation could be performed to estimate the properties of the
separator gas, the stock tank liquid, and the primary separator gas-stock-tank oil ratio. Might it be possible to estimate the
composition using nonlinear regression to match the available field data?
Obviously, there is one small problem. There are only three to six independent field data measurements available,
depending on the non-hydrocarbon impurities present in the separator gas. On the other hand, for a standard compositional
analysis through heptanes-plus, the number of independent unknowns to be estimated ranges from 10 to 13, again, depending
on the non-hydrocarbon impurities present. Thus, there are too many unknowns to provide a unique solution by nonlinear
regression on the field data alone.
The problem may be further constrained by requiring the composition to be internally consistent. Fig. 1 shows the
compositions for a wet gas, three gas condensates, and a volatile oil. As the mole-fraction methane decreases and the mole-
fraction heptanes-plus increases, the remaining components show consistent trends in composition. Expressing these trends
in the form of internal correlations will allow them to be incorporated in the nonlinear regression objective function.

Composition Database From Literature. To identify compositional trends, we collected composition data from the
literature for dry gases, wet gases, gas condensates, volatile oils, and black oils. The compositions of the wet gas, gas
condensate, and volatile oil data sets followed a single, consistent, set of trends. The dry gases and black oils did not appear
to follow the same trends. Since many correlations are available to describe the behavior of dry gases and black oils, we
eliminated these data from further consideration. We also eliminated all data sets with high non-hydrocarbon impurities
content. The remaining composition data included data sets from Weinaug and Bradley (1951), Hoffman et al. (1953),
Berryman (1957), Eilerts et al. (1957), Craft and Hawkins (1959), Jacoby et al. (1959), Katz et al. (1959), Yarborough
(1979), Whitson and Torp (1983), Clark (1985), Coats and Smart (1986), Drohm et al. (1988), Søreide (1989), Alvarado
(1992), Gomes and Correa (1992), Niemstschik et al. (1993), McVay (1994), Whitson and Brulé (2000), Al Meshari (2004),
and Ahmed (2010).
The final database contained compositions for 23 wet gases, 33 gas condensates, and 19 volatile oils, for a total of 75 data
sets. Of these 75 data sets, 39 also had molecular weight for the heptanes-plus fraction, while 34 data sets had heptanes-plus
specific gravity. Table 1 shows summary statistics for the compositional database. Although the compositional data were
distributed fairly evenly among wet gases, gas condensates and volatile oils, the heptanes-plus molecular weight and specific
gravity were not. Almost all of the volatile oil data sets had heptanes-plus molecular weight and specific gravity, while
slightly less than half of the gas condensates and less than one fourth of the wet gas data sets included the heptanes-plus
properties.

Development of Internal Correlations. We assumed that the presence of non-hydrocarbon components had no effect on the
relationships between the hydrocarbon components. We calculated the mole-fraction hydrocarbons from
z HC  1  z H 2 S  z CO2  z N 2 , ................................................................................................................................................ (1)

then normalized the composition of the hydrocarbon fraction for each data set to eliminate the non-hydrocarbon impurities
zj
zˆ j  , j  C1 , C2 , ... , C7 . ............................................................................................................................................. (2)
z HC
We cross-plotted the composition data a number of different ways to identify trends between the mole fractions of the various
components, the molecular weight of the heptanes-plus fraction, and the specific gravity of the heptanes-plus fraction. We
found a power law function of the form
SPE 166414 3

y  Axn ................................................................................................................................................................................ (3)

was suitable to describe these internal relationships. We chose the following parameters for the power law trends:
1  zˆC1  zˆC7 , 1  zˆC1 , zˆC2 , zˆC3 , zˆC4 , zˆC5 , zˆC6 , zˆC7  , zˆC6 zˆC7 ,  C7  , and M C7  . Table 2 gives the coefficients, exponents, and
standard deviations for the 59 power-law correlation equations used to provide internal consistency for non-linear regression.
Out of the 59 power-law correlation equations, 57 were used in the objective function. The other two correlation equations
are used to split the butane and pentane fractions into isobutane and n-butane and isopentane and n-pentane, respectively.
Figs. 2 through 32 show the 57 internal power-law correlation equations used in the objective function. Figs. 2 through
6 show the correlations of mole-fraction ethane through hexanes as functions of the total mole-fraction intermediates,
1  zˆC  zˆC . Of these relationships, propane, shown in Fig. 3, shows the strongest correlation, while hexanes, shown in Fig.
1 7

6, shows the weakest correlation.

Figs. 7 through 12 show the correlation of mole-fraction ethane through heptanes plus with methane. Since the mole-
fraction ethane and heavier components increase as methane decreases, the power law correlations were written in terms of
1  zˆC . For each of these pairs of variables, two correlation equations were obtained by switching the parameters used as
1

independent and dependent variables.

Figs. 13 through 17 show the correlation of mole-fraction propane through heptanes plus with ethane. Interestingly, the
degree of correlation seems to be strongest between adjacent components, such as C2 and C3, shown in Fig. 13, and weakest
between components that are furthest apart, such as C2 and C7+, shown in Fig. 17.
This pattern is repeated for the correlations of mole-fractions C4 through C7+ with C3, Figs. 18 through 21, mole-fractions
C5 through C7+ with C4, Figs. 22 through 24, and mole-fractions C6 and C7+ with C5, Figs. 25 and 26. Interestingly, mole-
fraction heptanes plus and hexanes, Fig. 27, do not seem to be as strongly correlated as other pairs of adjacent components.
Heptanes-plus specific gravity and molecular weight are moderately correlated, as shown in Fig. 28. Weaker correlations
were found between heptanes-plus specific gravity and mole-fraction heptanes plus, Fig. 29, between heptanes-plus
molecular weight and mole-fraction heptanes plus, Fig. 30, between heptanes-plus specific gravity and the C6/C7+ ratio, Fig.
31, and between heptanes-plus molecular weight and the C6/C7+ ratio, Fig. 32.
Figs. 33 and 34 show the power-law correlations used to split the butanes and pentanes. Since these are used only to
predict the mole-fractions isobutane and isopentane from mole-fractions butanes and pentanes, respectively, total least
squares was used to develop a single equation for each of these two relationships.

Objective Function for Nonlinear Regression. The objective function for nonlinear regression is
2
 N int  g j  1  , ........................................................................................................................... (4)
2
 f
N ext
 f i ,obs
F    i ,calc     
i 1  si  s 
 j 1  j 
where the first sum represents the discrepancy between the observed and simulated field data (the external properties), and
the second sum represents the deviation from the internal correlations (the internal properties).
The external properties include the primary separator gas gravity, the stock tank liquid/primary separator gas ratio, the
specific gravity of the stock tank liquid, and the non-hydrocarbon impurities content (if any) of the primary separator gas.
The weight factors si for the separator gas gravity, the liquid-gas ratio, and stock tank liquid gravity, are set to 0.0001 times
the value of the corresponding observed field data variable, while the si for the non-hydrocarbon impurities are set to 0.0001
mole fraction.
The internal variable gj is defined as
nj
Aj x j
gj  , ....................................................................................................................................................................... (5)
yj
and xj and yj are the parameters corresponding to the jth internal correlation. The definitions of the parameters xj and yj, along
with the values of the coefficients Aj, the exponents nj, and the weight factors sj, are given in Table 2.
It should be noted that the objective function is not a chi-square statistic, in spite of the fact that it has a similar form. The
weight factors si for the external properties are chosen simply to force a close match between the observed and simulated
field data. Similarly, the internal properties are not independent random variables, since they represent 57 relationships
between 8 independent parameters. Since the objective function is not a chi-square statistic, the chi-square test cannot be
applied to evaluate whether or not a match is satisfactory.

Potential Accuracy. The accuracy of this method depends on several factors, including the accuracy of the field data
measurements, the accuracy of the separator flash calculations, the accuracy of the stock-tank liquid specific gravity
calculation, and the accuracy of the internal correlations.
The effect of error in the field data measurements depends on the magnitude of the error and the sensitivity of the method
to error in each field measurement. These topic will be investigated later in the paper.
4 SPE 166414

The accuracy of the internal correlations is inherently limited by the fact that real reservoir fluids will exhibit deviations
from the trends codified in the internal correlations. This is, of course, a universal issue with correlations, which can only
predict average behavior.
The remaining two sources of error, the accuracy of the separator flash calculations and the stock-tank liquid specific
gravity calculations, can be minimized by careful selection of the methods used to perform the calculations. Separator flash
calculations are commonly performed either using equilibrium ratio, or K-value, correlations, or using an equation of state.
Stock-tank liquid specific gravity is calculated from the density at standard conditions, which may be calculated using either
correlations or an equation of state. We initially used Standing’s (1979) low-pressure equilibrium ratio correlation equations
for the separator flash calculations, and the Standing and Katz (1941) correlation for liquid density for calculating stock-tank
specific gravity. While this approach gave results that were acceptable, we found that using a Peng-Robinson equation of
state gave even better results.

Equation of State. We used the Peng-Robinson (1976) equation of state for performing the separator vapor-liquid
equilibrium (VLE) calculations and for estimating the density of the stock-tank liquid. To improve the accuracy of the
calculated liquid densities, the equation of state incorporated the volume shift parameter (Martin 1967; Peneloux et al. 1982;
Jhaveri and Youngren 1988). The heptanes-plus component was split into five pseudo-components using Gaussian
quadrature with an exponential distribution (Whitson and Brulé 2000). We used the Søreide method to calculate the specific
gravity of each of the pseudo-components from its molecular weight (Søreide 1989):
 i  0.28554  C f M i  65.941850.129969 , ......................................................................................................................... (6)
where Cf is the Søreide characterization factor, typically in the range 0.27 to 0.31. The Søreide characterization factor Cf was
adjusted to force the average specific gravity of the pseudo-components to match the heptanes-plus specific gravity.
The Søreide boiling point correlation (Søreide 1989),
Tbi  Tbi  a expbM i  c i  dM i i M i  i , ................................................................................................................... (7)
 e f

was used to estimate Tb for each of the pseudo-components. The correlation constants for Eq. 7 are given in Table 3. The
Twu correlations were used to calculate critical temperature, critical pressure, and critical volume for the pseudocomponents.
The Søreide method was used to calculate acentric factor ω, and volume shift parameter s, to match the normal boiling point
temperature Tb , and specific gravity γ, respectively, for each of the pseudocomponents (Søreide 1989). In effect, the Søreide
method for determining the volume shift parameter s “tunes” the equation of state to improve the accuracy of the stock-tank
liquid specific gravity calculation.
The binary interaction parameters (BIPs) proposed by Nagy-Shirkovskiy (1982) and given in Table 1 of Whitson and
Brulé (2000), were used for BIPs between non-hydrocarbon components and hydrocarbon components, and the Chueh-
Prausnitz (1968) correlation was used to calculate BIPs between methane and the heptanes-plus pseudocomponents. All
other hydrocarbon-hydrocarbon BIPs were set to zero.

Nonlinear Regression. We used a modified Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm with linear constraints to minimize the
objective function given in Eq. 4. Table 4 gives the ranges of the matching parameters used during nonlinear regression.
Because of the use of power-law correlations, mole fractions of all of the hydrocarbon components must be greater than zero.
If any of the non-hydrocarbon components were absent from the separator gas, the mole fraction of that component in the
reservoir fluid was set to zero, and thus was not included as a matching parameter.
The mole fraction methane was calculated from the mole fractions of the other components, and thus was not used as an
independent matching parameter. While it would have been possible to add a constraint to force the mole fraction methane to
be physically reasonable, this did not appear to be necessary for any of the field data or simulated data sets tested.
Two constraints were found useful for reducing the number of iterations necessary to find a solution, although they did
not materially affect the final results:
   
ln  C7   ln  A49   n49 ln M C7   2.25s49 ............................................................................................................................. (8)

and
   
ln  C7   ln  A49   n49 ln M C7   2.25s49 . ............................................................................................................................ (9)

These two constraints force the specific gravity of the heptanes-plus fraction to be within a specified tolerance of the value
predicted by the internal power correlation with the molecular weight of the heptanes-plus fraction. The tolerance is
specified as 2.25 times the sample standard deviation obtained from the power-law fit of heptanes-plus specific gravity as a
function of molecular weight.

Results and Discussion

SPE 166414 5

Field Data Sets. We tested the proposed method against laboratory-measured compositions for 16 gas-condensate and wet-
gas field data sets, and 11 volatile oil data sets. Table 5 shows the summary statistics for the field data sets used for testing
the proposed method.
Predicted compositions. The method was used to estimate reservoir fluid composition from the field data in each lab
report. Table 6 gives summary statistics for the error in predicted composition for the 16 gas-condensate field data sets.
Three of the volatile oil data sets had reported separator gas gravities that were significantly different from those calculated
using an EOS. For one of the data sets, the proposed method was unable to converge; the other two gave results that were
obvious outliers. Because of the questionable data, summary statistics are not presented for volatile oils. Figs. 35 through
40 compare the predicted and measured compositions for selected field data sets. Figs. 41 through 49 compare the predicted
and measured mole fractions of each component, along with heptanes-plus molecular weight and specific gravity for the field
data sets.
Some of the predicted compositions were quite accurate, as wet gas WG44, Fig. 35, and gas condensates GC08, Fig. 36,
and Good Oil No. 7, Fig. 37. In some cases, such as gas condensate GC34, Fig. 38, the relative error for some components
was extremely large, even though the actual error was small, simply because the components in question were present in such
small amounts. For example, for data set GC34, the error in predicted C6 content was 0.7 mole %, but the relative error was
over 300%.
Fig. 39 compares the predicted and measured compositions for gas condensate GC41. This data set had a higher mole-
fraction C3 than C2, which is very unusual. The heptanes-plus fraction has a relatively low molecular weight of 135 lbm/lbm-
mole, and a relatively high specific gravity of 0.831. While neither of these values is unreasonable, the combination of low
molecular weight and high specific gravity is unusual. The specific gravity of 0.831 is almost 4 standard deviations higher
than the value 0.787 predicted by the internal correlation for a molecular weight of 135 lbm/lbm-mole. Given that GC41 is
atypical when compared with the fluids in the database used for the internal correlations, it should not be a surprise if the
proposed method gives poor results for this fluid. In fact, while only the results for C2 and C3 content are obvious outliers,
the error in the predicted C7+ content is almost twice as large for GC41 than for any of the other field data sets tested. The
errors in the remaining components and in the heptanes-plus properties were with the range of those for the other field data
sets.
Saturation Pressure Prediction. An untuned equation of state (EOS) was used to calculate saturation pressure for the
predicted compositions. One of the data sets, WG14, was predicted to remain a single-phase gas. The predicted saturation
pressures for the remaining data sets had an average relative error (ARE) of -0.3% and an average absolute relative error
(AARE) of 6.9%, with a median relative error of -3.7% and a median absolute relative error of 4.5%. In spite of the
relatively accurate prediction of saturation pressure, the untuned EOS did not reliably predict the type of fluid. For the rich
gas condensates with more than 10 mole % heptanes plus, the EOS tended to predict a bubble point rather than a dew point.

Simulated Data Sets. There are a number of factors that can cause errors in the compositions predicted by the proposed
method. One obvious source of error is the use of internal correlations to supplement the available field measurements when
matching the composition. Another source of error is the accuracy of the separator and density calculations. A third source of
error is the accuracy of the field data measurements themselves. To evaluate the effect of the internal correlations, we need
to somehow eliminate the effects of errors in the separator and density calculations and in the field data measurements.
Simulated Gas Condensate Data Sets. We used the measured compositions for the 16 gas-condensate data sets to
generate simulated data sets by doing the separator and density calculations using the same method as used in history-
matching the field data. We then predicted compositions from the simulated data sets. Table 7 gives summary statistics for
the error in predicted composition for the 16 simulated gas-condensate data sets.
Fig. 50 compares the error in the predicted composition for the field and simulated gas condensate data sets. The
minimum and maximum errors for the field and simulated data sets are very close, suggesting that neither error in the
measured data nor inaccuracy in the separator and density calculations limit the accuracy of the proposed method. Fig. 51
shows the average error in greater detail. The average errors for field and simulated data sets are also very close.
The large positive error in ethane and the large negative error in propane are caused by a single data set, gas condensate
GC41, seen earlier in Fig. 39. GC41 is also responsible for the obvious outliers in the mole fractions predicted from field
data, Figs. 42 and 43, and in the mole fractions predicted from simulated data sets, Figs. 55 and 56.
Fig. 52 compares the average and maximum absolute error for the predicted composition for the field and simulated gas
condensate data sets. Mole-fractions C1 and C2 have the highest average absolute errors, approximately 1.0 mole % and 1.2
mole %, respectively, while C4 through C7+ all have average absolute errors less than 0.5 mole %.
Fig. 53 compares the median and maximum absolute relative error for the predicted composition for the field and
simulated gas condensate data sets. The maximum absolute relative error is heavily affected by components present in small
amounts, as in gas condensate data set GC34, shown in Fig. 38. The median absolute relative error (MARE) is about 1.5%
for C1, between 9% and 12% for C2 through C5, about 18% for C6, and about 4% for C7+.
Simulated Data Sets—Literature Composition Database. Simulated gas-condensate and volatile-oil data sets were also
generated for the data used to develop the internal correlations, using two-stage separation with primary separator at
85°F/500 psia and stock tank at 60°F/14.7 psia. Only 17 of the wet gases and gas condensates in the database had both
molecular weight and specific gravity of the heptanes-plus fraction. These 17 wet gases and gas condensates were used to
6 SPE 166414

generate simulated data for testing the proposed method. Table 8 gives summary statistics for the error in predicted
composition for the simulated gas condensate data sets using the composition data from the literature.
The database also had 17 volatile oils with both molecular weight and specific gravity of the heptanes-plus fraction.
Table 9 gives the summary statistics for the error in predicted composition for the simulated volatile oil data sets from the
literature database.
Combined Results for Simulated Data Sets. Figs. 54 through 62 compare the predicted and measured mole fractions of
each component, along with heptanes-plus molecular weight and specific gravity for all of the simulated data sets.

Sensitivity Analysis. We performed a sensitivity study to identify how much each of the input parameters affected the
predicted composition. For the sensitivity study, we systematically varied each of the input parameters one at a time, and
predicted the composition for the modified data set. We calculated sensitivity coefficients for each combination of input
parameter and output value as the fractional change in the output value y per unit fractional change in the input parameter x:
 ln y y y y y . ............................................................................................................................................. (10)
S  
 ln x x x x x
Simply put, a sensitivity coefficient of 5 means that a 1% change in x causes a 5% change in y.
We calculated sensitivity coefficients for 14 different fluid compositions, having C7+ content ranging from 2% to 24%.
To get an overall sense of the effects of each parameter, we averaged the absolute values of the sensitivity coefficients for the
14 compositions. Since only one of the fluids used in the sensitivity analysis contained H2S, the sensitivity coefficients
involving H2S in either the separator gas or the reservoir fluid are based on that single sample.
Based on the similarity of the sensitivity coefficients, the input parameters were grouped as 1) primary separator
temperature, pressure, and gas specific gravity; 2) non-hydrocarbon impurities content of the primary separator gas; and 3)
stock tank temperature and pressure, specific gravity of the stock tank liquid, and the primary separator gas/stock tank liquid
ratio.
Fig. 63 shows the sensitivity coefficients for Group 1. The specific gravity of the primary separator gas, γgsp1 (labeled
SGsp1 in the figure), has a much greater effect on the composition than any of the other input data, with high sensitivity
coefficients for the mole fraction intermediates, ranging from 7 for C2 to 3 for C6. The sensitivity coefficient for γgsp1 on C1
was approximately 2, while those for γgsp1 on C7+ content and molecular weight were about 1, and for γgsp1 on N2 content was
about 0.5. The sensitivity coefficients for primary separator temperature Tsp1 and pressure psp1 had similar shape as those for
γgsp1, although those for Tsp1 were about an order of magnitude smaller than those for γgsp1, and the sensitivity coefficients for
psp1 were another factor of two smaller than those for Tsp1.
Fig. 64 shows the sensitivity coefficients for Group 2, the non-hydrocarbon impurities content of the primary separator
gas. Each non-hydrocarbon component present in the separator gas has direct effect on the amount of that component in the
reservoir fluid, and little effect on the other components. The H2S content of the primary separator gas has a significant
effect on the intermediates C2 through C6, with sensitivity coefficients close to 1. The sensitivity coefficients for CO2 on the
intermediates are approximately 5 times smaller than those for H2S, while those for N2 are about 2.5 times smaller than those
for CO2.
Fig. 65 shows the sensitivity coefficients for Group 3. The sensitivity coefficients for stock tank temperature Tst and
pressure pst were almost identical, and were less than 0.1 for all of the predicted properties. The primary separator gas-stock
tank oil ratio Rsp1 had its greatest effect on the heptanes-plus content, with a sensitivity coefficient approximately 0.7. The
specific gravity of the stock tank liquid, γost, (labeled SGst in the figure) has its greatest effect on the hexanes content and
molecular weight of the heptanes-plus fraction, with sensitivity coefficients close to 4 for both. It also has a significant effect
on the butanes and pentanes, with sensitivity coefficients close to 2. It is the only input parameter that has a significant effect
on the specific gravity of the heptanes-plus fraction, with a sensitivity coefficient slightly less than 1.
The two most important input parameters are the primary separator gas gravity and the specific gravity of the stock tank
liquid. Of the remaining properties, the primary separator gas/stock-tank liquid ratio, the primary separator temperature and
pressure, the H2S and CO2 content of the primary separator gas all have sensitivity coefficients between 0.1 and 1. It should
be noted that in many of the field data sets used for testing the method, the field-measured primary separator gas gravity was
not included in the lab report. Rather, the lab report gave the separator gas gravity calculated from the primary separator gas
composition. If field-measured gas gravity is less accurate than that calculated from laboratory composition, the proposed
method is likely to give poorer results than suggested by the results obtained for the field data sets reported in this paper.

Conclusions
We conclude:
1. A new method has been developed for estimating the composition of the initial reservoir fluid for wet gases, gas
condensates, and volatile oils from field data. The method uses the separator conditions, the first stage separator gas
gravity and non-hydrocarbon impurities content, the primary separator gas/stock tank oil ratio, and the specific
gravity of the stock tank oil. The method predicts the reservoir fluid composition through heptanes plus, along with
the molecular weight and specific gravity of the heptanes-plus fraction.
SPE 166414 7

2. The new method predicted reservoir compositions for 16 gas-condensate field data sets with average absolute errors
for methane, 1.0 mole %, ethane, 1.2 mole %, propane, 0.7 mole %, butanes, 0.5 mole %, pentanes, 0.3 mole %,
hexanes, 0.3 mole %, and heptanes-plus, 0.4 mole %.
3. The new method gave mixed results for the 11 volatile-oil field data sets. Most of the data sets gave errors that were
consistent with the results for gas condensates. Two of the data sets had questionable separator gas gravity data, and
gave results that were obvious outliers.
4. Saturation pressures calculated from the predicted gas-condensate compositions using an untuned equation of state
had an average relative error of -0.3% and an average absolute error of 6.9%.
5. The method is most sensitive to the specific gravity of the primary separator gas and the specific gravity of the
stock-tank liquid. These properties must be measured as accurately as possible for the method to give accurate
results.
6. The method is also sensitive to primary separator gas/stock-tank liquid ratio, the first stage separator temperature
and pressure, and the non-hydrocarbon impurities content of the first stage separator gas. These properties should
also be measured accurately.
7. The method is relatively insensitive to stock-tank temperature and pressure.

Nomenclature
Latin.
A = coefficient of power law function, units vary
Cf = Søreide characterization factor, dimensionless
f = separator data, units vary
F = objective function, dimensionless
g = internal variable, units vary
i = index variable
j = index variable
K = equilibrium ratio, dimensionless
M = molecular weight, lbm/lbm-mole
n = exponent of power law function, dimensionless
Next = number of external terms, or field data measurements, in objective function
Nint = number of internal terms, or internal correlations, in objective function
p = pressure, psia
s = standard deviation, used as weight factor, units vary
s = volume shift factor, dimensionless
S = sensitivity coefficient, dimensionless
T = temperature, °F
Tb = normal boiling point temperature, °R
x = independent parameter, units vary
y = dependent parameter, units vary
y = separator gas composition, mole fraction
z = reservoir fluid composition, mole fraction
ẑ = composition of hydrocarbon fraction of reservoir fluid, mole fraction

Greek.
 = specific gravity, dimensionless
 = acentric factor, dimensionless

Subscripts.
calc = calculated from composition
ext = external (measured) data
g = gas
HC = hydrocarbon
i = index variable
int = internal correlation
j = index variable
o = oil
obs = observed field data
sp1 = first stage separator conditions
st = stock tank conditions
8 SPE 166414

Abbreviations.
AAE = average absolute error
AARE = average absolute relative error
AE = average error
ARE = average relative error
BIP = binary interaction parameter
CVD = constant-volume depletion
EOS = equation of state
MAE = median absolute error
MARE = median absolute relative error
ME = median error
MRE = median relative error
MBO = modified black oil
PVT = modified black oil

References
Ahmed, K. 2010. Volatile Oil and Gas Condensate Reservoir Fluid Behavior. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.

Al-Meshari, A.A. 2004. New Strategic Method to Tune Equation-of-State to Match Experimental Data for Compositional Simulation.
PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA (December 2004).

Alvarado, G., Le Blanc, J.L., and Farshad, F. 1992. A New and Improved Material Balance Equation For Retrograde Gas Condensate
Reservoirs - Part I. Paper SPE 24355 presented at the SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, May 18-21.
SPE-24355-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/24355-MS.

Berryman, J.E. 1957. The Predicted Performance of a Gas-Condensate System Washington Field, Louisiana. Trans. AIME 210, 102-107.
SPE-698-G.

Cheuh, P.L., and Prausnitz, J.M. 1968. Calculation of High-Pressure Vapor-Liquid Equilibria. Ind Eng Chem 60 (3) 34-52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie50699a007.

Clark, T.J. 1985. The Application of a 2-D Compositional, Radial Model To Predict Single-Well Performance in a Rich Gas Condensate
Reservoir. Paper SPE 14413 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 22-26 September, Las Vegas,
Nevada, USA. SPE-14413-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/14413-MS.

Coats, K.H., and Smart, G.T. 1986. Application of a Regression-Based EOS PVT Program to Laboratory Data. SPE Res Eng 1 (3) 277-
299. SPE-11197-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/11197-PA.

Craft, B.C., and Hawkins, M.F. Jr. 1959. Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA:Prentice-Hall,
Inc.

Drohm, J.K., Trengove, R.D., and Goldthorpe, W.H. 1988. On the Quality of Data From Standard Gas-Condensate PVT Experiments.
Paper SPE 17768 presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Dallas, Texas, 13-15 June. SPE-17768-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/17768-MS.

Eilerts, C.K. 1957. Phase Relations of Gas Condensate Fluids, Vol. I. New York City:American Gas Association.

Gomes, H.P., and Correa, A.C.F. 1992. Fully Implicit Compositional Modelling of Gas Condensate and Volatile Oil Reservoirs. Paper
SPE 23700 presented at the SPE Latin America Petroleum Engineering Conference, Caracas, Venezuela, 8-11 March.
SPE-23700-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/23700-MS.

Hoffman, A.E., Crump, J.S., and Hocott, C.R. 1953. Equilibrium Constants for a Gas-Condensate System. J Pet Tech 5 (1), 1-10.
SPE-219-G. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/219-G.

Jacoby, R.H., Koeller, R.C., and Berry, V.J. Jr. 1959. Effect of Composition and Temperature on Phase Behavior and Depletion
Performance of Rich Gas-Condensate Systems. SPE-1093-G. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1093-G.

Jhaveri, B.S., and Youngren, G.K. 1988. Three-Parameter Modification of the Peng-Robinson Equation of State To Improve Volumetric
Predictions. SPE Res Eng 3 (3) 1033-1040. SPE-13118-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/13118-PA.

Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., et al. 1959. Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering. New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Martin, J.J. 1967. Equations of State. Ind Eng Chem 59 (12) 34-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie50696a008.
SPE 166414 9

McVay, D.A. 1994. Generation of PVT Properties for Modified Black-Oil Simulation of Volatile Oil and Gas Condensate Reservoirs.
PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA (December 1994).

Nagy, Z. and Shirkovskiy, A.I. 1982. Mathematical Simulation of Natural Gas Condensation Processes Using the Peng-Robinson
Equation of State. Paper SPE 10982 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 26-29
September. SPE-10982-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/10982-MS.

Nassar, I.S., El-Banbi, A.H., and Sayyouh, M.H. 2013. Modified Black Oil PVT Correlations for Volatile Oil and Gas Condensate
Reservoirs. Paper SPE 164712 presented at the North Africa Technical Conference & Exhibition, Cairo, Egypt, 15-17 April.
SPE-164712-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/164712-MS.

Niemstschik, G.E., Poettmann, F.H., and Thompson, R.S. 1993. Correlation for Determining Gas Condensate Composition. Paper SPE-
26183 presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 28-30 June. SPE-26183-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/26183-MS.

Ovalle, A.P., Lenn, C.P., and McCain, W.D. Jr. 2007. Tools To Manage Gas/Condensate Reservoirs; Novel Fluid-Property Correlations
on the Basis of Commonly Available Field Data. SPE Res Eval & Eng 10 (6) 687-694. SPE-112977-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/112977-PA.

Peneloux, A., Rauzy, E., and Freze, R. 1982. A Consistent Correction for Redlich-Kwong-Soave Volumes. Fluid Phase Equilibria 8 (1)
7-23.

Peng, D.-Y., and Robinson, D.B. 1976. A New Two-Constant Equation of State. Ind Eng Chem, Fundam 15 (1) 59-64.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/i160057a011.

Søreide, I. 1989. Improved Phase Behavior Predictions of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids from a Cubic Equation of State. D. Ing. dissertation,
The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway (April 1989).

Standing, M.B. 1979. A Set of Equations for Computing Equilibrium Ratios of a Crude Oil/Natural Gas System at Pressures below 1,000
psia. J Pet Tech, 31 (9) 1193-1195. SPE-7903-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/7903-PA.

Standing, M.B., and Katz, D.L. 1941. Density of Crude Oils Staturated with Natural Gas. Trans AIME 146 (1) 159-165. SPE-942159-G.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/942159-G.

Twu, C.H. 1984. An Internally Consistent Correlation for Predicting the Critical Properties and Molecular Weights of Petroleum and Coal-
Tar Liquids. Fluid Phase Equilibria 16 (2) 137-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-3812(84)85027-X.

Weinaug, C.F., and Bradley, H.B. 1951. The Phase Behavior of a Natural Hydrocarbon System. J Pet Tech 3 (8) 233-238. SPE-951233-G.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/951233-G.

Whitson, C.H., and Brulé, M.R. 2000. Phase Behavior. Richardson, Texas, USA:Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Whitson, C.H., and Torp, S.B. 1983. Evaluating Constant-Volume Depletion Data. J Pet Tech 35 (3) 610-620. SPE-10067-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/10067-PA.

Yarborough, L. 1979. Application of a Generalized Equation of State to Petroleum Reservoir Fluids. In Equations of State in Engineering
and Research, ed. K.C. Chao and R.L. Robinson Jr., Chap. 21, 385-439. Washington, DC:Advances in Chemistry Series, ACS.
10 SPE 166414

Tables

Table 1—Summary statistics for composition database taken from the literature.

H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7+ MC7+ C7+

mol mol mol mol mol mol mol mol mol mol lbm/ H2O=1
frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. lb-mol
Wet gases
count 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 6 5
min 0 0 0 0.7643 0.0267 0.0117 0.0063 0.0032 0.0028 0.0094 110.3 0.7600
max 0.0143 0.0456 0.0205 0.9190 0.0792 0.0430 0.0306 0.0172 0.0141 0.0374 197.4 0.8329
avg. 0.0006 0.0069 0.0060 0.8719 0.0462 0.0216 0.0130 0.0066 0.0058 0.0214 145.5 0.7916
median 0 0.0034 0.0037 0.8865 0.0456 0.0180 0.0115 0.0056 0.0057 0.0201 143.6 0.7906
Gas condensates
count 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 15 12
min 0 0 0 0.5391 0.0404 0.0186 0.0132 0.0066 0.0051 0.0430 132.0 0.7936
max 0.0394 0.0598 0.1086 0.8466 0.1433 0.0964 0.0554 0.0299 0.0272 0.1269 215.6 0.8345
avg. 0.0020 0.0185 0.0189 0.6858 0.0871 0.0481 0.0296 0.0161 0.0126 0.0813 167.6 0.8122
median 0 0.0157 0.0056 0.6822 0.0812 0.0460 0.0272 0.0150 0.0121 0.0749 170.0 0.8129
Volatile oils
count 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 17
min 0 0 0 0.3768 0.0537 0.0322 0.0257 0.0167 0.0119 0.1145 172.0 0.7990
max 0.0004 0.0584 0.0349 0.6984 0.1409 0.0879 0.0620 0.0459 0.0363 0.2370 250.0 0.8601
avg. 0.0000 0.0143 0.0081 0.5600 0.0974 0.0650 0.0430 0.0254 0.0188 0.1680 193.0 0.8257
median 0 0.0069 0.0030 0.5581 0.0926 0.0642 0.0412 0.0248 0.0179 0.1692 190.0 0.8270
Entire database
count 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 39 34
min 0 0 0 0.3768 0.0267 0.0117 0.0063 0.0032 0.0063 0.0032 110.3 0.7600
max 0.0394 0.0598 0.1086 0.9190 0.1433 0.0964 0.0620 0.0459 0.0620 0.0459 250.0 0.8601
avg. 0.0011 0.0139 0.0122 0.7110 0.0772 0.0442 0.0279 0.0156 0.0279 0.0156 175.9 0.8159
median 0.0000 0.0070 0.0041 0.6893 0.0752 0.0406 0.0260 0.0146 0.0260 0.0146 177.7 0.8139
SPE 166414 11

Table 2—Coefficients for internal power-law correlation equations.

j xj yj Aj nj sj j xj yj Aj nj sj
1 1-zC1-zC7+ zC2 0.32180 0.81641 0.11717 36 zC6 1-zC1 14.9791 0.91576 0.19597
2 1-zC1-zC7+ zC3 0.30772 1.13382 0.07912 37 zC6 zC2 1.07120 0.59070 0.24442
3 1-zC1-zC7+ zC4 0.20817 1.18023 0.13816 38 zC6 zC3 2.11239 0.87669 0.24612
4 1-zC1-zC7+ zC5 0.12389 1.22839 0.22225 39 zC6 zC4 1.97355 0.96624 0.20404
5 1-zC1-zC7+ zC6 0.07723 1.09320 0.22877 40 zC6 zC5 1.65001 1.06023 0.18226
41 zC6 zC7+ 19.7499 1.25958 0.42598

6 1-zC1 zC2 0.19312 0.66743 0.26428 42 zC7+ 1-zC1 1.32392 0.63336 0.19605
7 1-zC1 zC3 0.15749 0.95387 0.27098 43 zC7+ zC2 0.20040 0.36800 0.28889
8 1-zC1 zC4 0.10808 1.02162 0.29858 44 zC7+ zC3 0.17765 0.55053 0.33047
9 1-zC1 zC5 0.06555 1.09457 0.36073 45 zC7+ zC4 0.13252 0.61689 0.30229
10 1-zC1 zC6 0.04349 0.96881 0.41583 46 zC7+ zC5 0.08789 0.68823 0.28542
11 1-zC1 zC7+ 0.49512 1.40063 0.30088 47 zC7+ zC6 0.05537 0.60257 0.29463

12 zC2 1-zC1 5.75375 1.22552 0.24896 48 MC7+ γC7+ 0.40866 0.13364 0.01388
13 zC2 zC3 1.08806 1.26971 0.19616 49 γC7+ MC7+ 508.87 5.20545 0.08661
14 zC2 zC4 0.65729 1.25871 0.29006
zC2 zC5 0.37879 1.27987 0.36655
5
16 zC2 zC6 0.21347 1.14746 0.34066
17 zC2 zC7+ 3.20994 1.49430 0.58213

18 zC3 1-zC1 5.25749 0.96250 0.16699 50 zC7+ MC7+ 237.92 0.13286 0.13477
19 zC3 zC2 0.69946 0.69776 0.14542 51 zC6/zC7+ MC7+ 100.29 -0.27995 0.11849
20 zC3 zC4 0.68206 1.02858 0.14467
21 zC3 zC5 0.40587 1.05558 0.24927 52 zC7+ γC7+ 0.85434 0.01977 0.01967
22 zC3 zC6 0.21951 0.93587 0.25429 53 zC6/zC7+ γC7+ 0.74686 -0.04373 0.01845
23 zC3 zC7+ 3.43520 1.22848 0.49366

24 zC4 1-zC1 7.10414 0.92040 0.14257 54 MC7+ zC7+ 6.11E-08 2.76097 0.61437
25 zC4 zC2 0.72351 0.61759 0.20317 55 MC7+ zC6/zC7+ 1710.69 -1.82373 0.30243
26 zC4 zC3 1.18766 0.91836 0.13670
27 zC4 zC5 0.65939 1.05117 0.14326 56 γC7+ zC7+ 5.26382 19.6481 0.62008
28 zC4 zC6 0.32397 0.92093 0.19920 57 γC7+ zC6/zC7+ 1.55E-02 -10.5650 0.28675
29 zC4 zC7+ 6.17194 1.22905 0.42668

30 zC5 1-zC1 9.18434 0.85064 0.15317 58 zC4 ziC4 0.21874 0.85975 not used
31 zC5 zC2 0.75805 0.54170 0.23847 59 zC5 ziC5 0.43504 0.96876 not used
32 zC5 zC3 1.31472 0.81298 0.21876
33 zC5 zC4 1.22580 0.90675 0.13305
34 zC5 zC6 0.45778 0.87168 0.16526
35 zC5 zC7+ 10.6505 1.18280 0.37418

Table 3—Correlation constants for Soreide boiling point correlation.

Constant Value

Tb 1928.3
5
a 1.695×10
-3
b -4.922×10
c -4.7685
-3
d 3.462×10
-2
e -3.522×10
f 3.266

Table 4—Minimum and maximum values used as constraints during nonlinear regression.

H2S
mol
CO2
mol
N2
mol
C1
mol
C2
mol
C3
mol
C4
mol
C5
mol
C6
mol
C7+
mol
MC7+
lbm/
C7+
frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. lb-mol H2O=1
min 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 n/a 0.0027 0.0012 0.0006 0.003 0.0003 0.010 103 0.732
max 0.18 0.09 0.18 n/a 0.225 0.15 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.35 275 0.880
12 SPE 166414

Table 5—Summary statistics for field data sets used for testing proposed method.

H2S
mol
CO2
mol
N2
mol
C1
mol
C2
mol
C3
mol
C4
mol
C5
mol
C6
mol
C7+
mol
MC7+
lbm/
C7+
frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. frac. lb-mol H2O=1

Gas condensates and wet gases

count 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 15
min 0 0 0 0.4417 0.0260 0.0157 0.0096 0.0045 0.0023 0.0189 127.1 0.7665
max 0.1640 0.0809 0.0231 0.9010 0.1666 0.1227 0.0672 0.0327 0.0212 0.1220 204.0 0.8310
avg. 0.0103 0.0178 0.0071 0.6517 0.1000 0.0607 0.0363 0.0186 0.0136 0.0839 159.0 0.8044
median 0 0.0098 0.0031 0.6583 0.1020 0.0538 0.0337 0.0186 0.0150 0.1006 156.4 0.8030
Volatile oils
count 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
min 0 0.0005 0.0011 0.2310 0.0537 0.0322 0.0257 0.0159 0.0116 0.1292 144.0 0.7795
max 0.1270 0.0368 0.2104 0.6984 0.1299 0.0835 0.0860 0.0591 0.0469 0.2259 239.0 0.8601
avg. 0.0122 0.0145 0.0329 0.4931 0.0948 0.0642 0.0510 0.0330 0.0261 0.1782 184.3 0.8203
median 0 0.0101 0.0118 0.4948 0.1030 0.0656 0.0472 0.0276 0.0231 0.1633 177.9 0.8264

Table 6—Summary statistics for error in predicted composition, gas condensate field data sets.

CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7+ MC7+ C7+

Error
min -0.00003 -0.00043 -0.01991 -0.02554 -0.03852 -0.01207 -0.00904 -0.00689 -0.01300 -22.12 -0.02671
max 0.00111 0.00098 0.02290 0.03560 0.00839 0.00803 0.00771 0.00697 0.01161 31.42 0.02557
AE 0.00042 0.00006 0.00009 0.00078 -0.00168 -0.00074 0.00056 0.00068 0.00037 1.98 0.00506
ME 0.00018 -0.00002 -0.00154 0.00141 0.00247 -0.00021 0.00064 0.00088 0.00034 -1.23 0.00767
Absolute Error
min 0.00000 0.00000 0.00103 0.00087 0.00139 0.00006 0.00002 0.00004 0.00002 1.15 0.00080
max 0.00111 0.00098 0.02290 0.03560 0.03852 0.01207 0.00904 0.00697 0.01300 31.42 0.02671
AAE 0.00042 0.00021 0.01031 0.01206 0.00731 0.00478 0.00303 0.00282 0.00435 15.25 0.01072
MAE 0.00018 0.00004 0.01037 0.00939 0.00493 0.00457 0.00169 0.00263 0.00229 16.78 0.00845
Relative Error
min -1.3% -12.3% -2.5% -22.0% -31.4% -27.9% -35.2% -34.5% -13.0% -15.1% -3.2%
max 19.8% 6.0% 4.7% 33.5% 25.0% 32.5% 171.3% 302.8% 23.0% 20.5% 3.2%
ARE 3.2% -0.4% 0.1% 3.1% 1.3% 2.0% 12.5% 25.6% 0.8% 1.8% 0.6%
MRE 1.0% -0.3% -0.2% 0.9% 4.3% -0.6% 2.1% 6.1% 0.3% -0.8% 0.9%
Absolute Relative Error
min 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 4.0% 0.2% 0.3% 0.9% 0.1% 0.7% 0.1%
max 19.7% 12.3% 4.7% 33.5% 31.4% 32.5% 171.3% 302.8% 23.0% 20.5% 3.2%
AARE 3.1% 2.5% 1.6% 13.5% 11.0% 14.1% 22.9% 37.0% 6.0% 9.7% 1.3%
MARE 1.1% 1.7% 1.5% 11.6% 9.2% 11.7% 10.4% 17.9% 3.7% 9.7% 1.1%
SPE 166414 13

Table 7—Summary statistics for error in predicted composition, simulated gas condensate data sets
generated using field data set compositions.

CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7+ MC7+ C 7+

Error
min -0.00012 -0.00054 -0.01625 -0.02525 -0.02888 -0.01240 -0.00809 -0.00567 -0.00934 -24.03 -0.01165
max 0.00169 0.00080 0.01041 0.05568 0.00852 0.00744 0.00660 0.00646 0.00913 20.47 0.01839
AE 0.00012 0.00002 -0.00038 0.00126 -0.00127 -0.00067 0.00059 0.00082 -0.00047 -0.99 0.00115
ME -0.00001 0.00000 0.00077 0.00353 0.00066 -0.00122 0.00039 0.00092 -0.00084 1.03 0.00391
Absolute Error
min 0.00000 0.00000 0.00020 0.00230 0.00002 0.00040 0.00001 0.00007 0.00037 1.00 0.00028
max 0.00169 0.00080 0.01625 0.05568 0.02888 0.01240 0.00809 0.00646 0.00934 24.03 0.01839
AAE 0.00020 0.00019 0.00616 0.01354 0.00551 0.00442 0.00300 0.00263 0.00442 14.52 0.00614
MAE 0.00010 0.00003 0.00484 0.01001 0.00420 0.00285 0.00268 0.00203 0.00410 14.57 0.00526
Relative Error
min -2.0% -2.8% -3.5% -24.3% -23.5% -21.5% -26.8% -28.4% -7.7% -17.7% -1.5%
max 6.0% 4.0% 1.4% 52.4% 16.1% 27.1% 146.7% 280.7% 13.3% 14.9% 2.4%
ARE 0.3% 0.0% -0.2% 2.7% 0.3% 1.2% 11.3% 25.6% 0.3% -0.2% 0.1%
MRE -0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 4.1% 1.0% -3.3% 3.1% 5.9% -1.9% 0.8% 0.5%
Absolute Relative Error
min 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.1% 1.1% 0.1% 1.7% 0.3% 0.6% 0.0%
max 6.0% 4.0% 3.5% 52.4% 23.5% 27.1% 146.7% 280.7% 13.3% 17.7% 2.4%
AARE 1.3% 1.6% 1.1% 14.5% 8.5% 13.2% 21.7% 35.2% 5.9% 9.3% 0.8%
MARE 1.1% 1.9% 0.9% 9.6% 6.6% 14.5% 12.7% 13.3% 5.6% 9.6% 0.7%

Table 8—Summary statistics for error in predicted composition, simulated gas condensate data sets
generated using compositions from literature database.

CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7+ MC7+ C 7+

Error
min -0.00009 -0.00015 -0.00558 -0.01571 -0.00422 -0.00965 -0.00705 -0.00613 -0.01443 -38.70 -0.00903
max 0.00070 0.00017 0.01478 0.02085 0.00354 0.00511 0.00659 0.00561 0.00990 27.83 0.00720
AE 0.00008 0.00000 0.00191 -0.00134 0.00006 0.00021 -0.00002 -0.00016 -0.00073 -1.79 0.00015
ME 0.00000 0.00000 0.00200 -0.00127 -0.00018 0.00042 0.00001 -0.00007 0.00055 -3.19 0.00022
Absolute Error
min 0.00000 0.00000 0.00077 0.00032 0.00009 0.00015 0.00001 0.00007 0.00040 1.48 0.00002
max 0.00070 0.00017 0.01478 0.02085 0.00422 0.00965 0.00705 0.00613 0.01443 38.70 0.00903
AAE 0.00011 0.00005 0.00477 0.00509 0.00140 0.00217 0.00169 0.00168 0.00449 12.52 0.00270
MAE 0.00005 0.00003 0.00411 0.00376 0.00107 0.00068 0.00103 0.00078 0.00392 10.75 0.00202
Relative Error
min -0.8% -0.9% -0.8% -12.8% -6.5% -19.6% -23.6% -25.8% -11.8% -19.6% -1.1%
max 1.6% 6.0% 2.2% 27.0% 10.6% 15.4% 47.1% 55.0% 22.8% 16.4% 0.9%
ARE 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% -1.9% 0.7% 2.2% 3.2% 3.7% 1.5% -0.8% 0.0%
MRE 0.0% -0.1% 0.3% -1.2% -0.6% 2.8% 0.2% -1.7% 1.9% -1.8% 0.0%
Absolute Relative Error
min 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 0.4% 0.9% 0.2% 1.7% 0.9% 0.9% 0.0%
max 1.6% 6.0% 2.2% 27.0% 10.6% 19.6% 47.1% 55.0% 22.8% 19.6% 1.1%
AARE 0.4% 1.2% 0.7% 6.5% 3.7% 7.7% 12.3% 14.7% 7.0% 7.5% 0.3%
MARE 0.3% 0.6% 0.7% 5.2% 3.2% 7.1% 9.3% 7.7% 6.7% 7.5% 0.2%
14 SPE 166414

Table 9—Summary statistics for error in predicted composition, simulated volatile oil data sets
generated using compositions from literature database.

CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7+ MC7+ C7+

Error
min -0.00015 -0.00021 -0.01513 -0.01183 -0.01336 -0.01238 -0.01071 -0.00947 -0.01699 -21.68 -0.00676
max 0.00081 0.00094 0.01502 0.02332 0.00759 0.00638 0.00545 0.00459 0.01103 24.17 0.00277
AE 0.00011 0.00009 0.00329 0.00326 -0.00193 -0.00242 -0.00136 -0.00016 -0.00085 4.04 -0.00152
ME 0.00002 0.00003 0.00313 0.00338 0.00036 -0.00072 -0.00109 0.00083 0.00136 4.19 -0.00092
Absolute Error
min 0.00000 0.00001 0.00065 0.00010 0.00010 0.00011 0.00074 0.00073 0.00036 0.87 0.00025
max 0.00081 0.00094 0.01513 0.02332 0.01336 0.01238 0.01071 0.00947 0.01699 24.17 0.00676
AAE 0.00015 0.00016 0.00771 0.00660 0.00444 0.00412 0.00445 0.00298 0.00680 10.66 0.00282
MAE 0.00012 0.00010 0.00818 0.00458 0.00157 0.00209 0.00322 0.00284 0.00564 6.98 0.00205
Relative Error
min -1.9% -3.2% -2.8% -8.8% -15.2% -24.5% -35.0% -26.1% -10.0% -10.4% -0.8%
max 2.0% 3.3% 2.8% 26.1% 8.7% 15.4% 26.1% 38.6% 6.4% 14.0% 0.3%
ARE 0.3% 0.8% 0.6% 4.5% -2.3% -5.2% -3.3% 3.1% -0.3% 2.4% -0.2%
MRE 0.5% 1.2% 0.5% 3.9% 0.8% -1.4% -6.3% 4.2% 1.1% 2.4% -0.1%
Absolute Relative Error
min 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.4% 4.2% 4.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.0%
max 2.0% 3.3% 2.8% 26.1% 15.2% 24.5% 35.0% 38.6% 10.0% 14.0% 0.8%
AARE 1.1% 1.9% 1.4% 7.1% 5.8% 9.2% 16.6% 16.5% 4.0% 5.5% 0.3%
MARE 1.2% 1.9% 1.5% 4.2% 3.1% 4.5% 13.0% 14.8% 3.8% 3.9% 0.2%
 SPE 166414 15

Figures

1 0.08
Wet gas
0.9 Wet gas
Gas condensate
Lean gas condensate
Volatile oil
0.8 Gas condensate
0.04
Rich gas condensate
0.7 Volatile oil

zC4, mole fraction

0.6
0.02
0.5

0.4

0.3 0.01

0.2

zC4  0.20817 1  zC1  zC7 
1.18023

0.1
0.005
0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64
0
C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7+ 1-zC1 -zC7+, mole fraction

Fig. 1—Composition shows consistent trends with fluid type. Fig. 4—Correlation of mole-fraction butanes with
mole-fraction intermediates.

0.32 0.064

Wet gas Wet gas

Gas condensate Gas condensate
Volatile oil 0.032 Volatile oil
0.16
zC5, mole fraction
zC2, mole fraction

0.016

0.08

0.008

0.04
0.004


zC2  0.32180 1  zC1  zC7 
0.81641

zC5  0.12389 1  zC1  zC7 
1.22839

0.02 0.002
0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64
1-zC1 -zC7+, mole fraction 1-zC1 -zC7+, mole fraction

Fig. 2—Correlation of mole-fraction ethane with Fig. 5—Correlation of mole-fraction pentanes with
mole-fraction intermediates. mole-fraction intermediates.

0.16 0.064

Wet gas Wet gas

Gas condensate Gas condensate
Volatile oil 0.032 Volatile oil
0.08
zC6, mole fraction
zC3, mole fraction

0.04 0.016

0.02 0.008

0.01 0.004


zC3  0.30772 1  zC1  zC7 
1.13382

zC6  0.07723 1  zC1  zC7 
1.09320

0.005 0.002
0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64
1-zC1 -zC7+, mole fraction 1-zC1 -zC7+, mole fraction

Fig. 3—Correlation of mole-fraction propane with Fig. 6—Correlation of mole-fraction hexanes with
mole-fraction intermediates. mole-fraction intermediates.
16 SPE 166414

0.32 0.064
Wet gas Wet gas
Gas condensate Gas condensate
Volatile oil 0.032 Volatile oil
0.16
zC2, mole fraction

zC5, mole fraction

0.016

0.08

0.008

0.04
0.004
zC2  0.193121  zC1  zC5  0.065551  zC1 
0.66743 1.09457

1  zC1  5.75375zC2 
1.22552
1  zC1  9.18434 zC5   0.85064

0.02 0.002
0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64 1.28 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64 1.28
1-zC1, mole fraction 1-zC1, mole fraction

Fig. 7—Correlation between mole-fraction ethane and Fig. 10—Correlation between mole-fraction pentanes and mole-
mole-fraction methane. fraction methane.

0.16 0.064
Wet gas Wet gas
Gas condensate Gas condensate
0.08 Volatile oil 0.032 Volatile oil
zC3, mole fraction

zC6, mole fraction

0.04 0.016

0.02 0.008

0.01 0.004

zC3  0.15749 1  zC1  0.95387

zC6  0.04349 1  zC1  0.96881

1  zC1  5.25749z  1  zC1  14.9791z 

0.96250 0.91576
C3 C6

0.005 0.002
0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64 1.28 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64 1.28
1-zC1, mole fraction 1-zC1, mole fraction

Fig. 8—Correlation between mole-fraction propane and mole- Fig. 11—Correlation between mole-fraction hexanes and mole-
fraction methane. fraction methane.

0.16 0.64
Wet gas Wet gas
Gas condensate 0.32 Gas condensate
0.08 Volatile oil Volatile oil

0.16
zC7+, mole fraction
zC4, mole fraction

0.04
0.08

0.04
0.02

0.02

0.01
zC4  0.108081  zC1  
zC7  0.49512 1  zC1
1.02162 1.4006
0.01
1  zC1  7.10414zC4  1  zC1  1.32392z 
0.92040 0.63336
C 7

0.005 0.005
0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64 1.28 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64 1.28
1-zC1, mole fraction 1-zC1, mole fraction

Fig. 9—Correlation between mole-fraction butanes and mole- Fig. 12—Correlation between mole-fraction heptanes plus and
fraction methane. mole-fraction methane.
SPE 166414 17

0.32 0.064
Wet gas Wet gas
Gas condensate Gas condensate
0.16 Volatile oil
Volatile oil 0.032

0.08
zC3, mole fraction

zC6, mole fraction

0.016

0.04

0.008
0.02

0.004
0.01  
zC3  1.08806 zC2
1.26971
 
zC6  0.21347 zC2
1.14746

 0.69946z   1.07120z 
0.69776 0.59070
zC2 C3 zC2 C6

0.005 0.002
0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32
zC2, mole fraction zC2, mole fraction

Fig. 13—Correlation between mole-fraction propane and mole- Fig. 16—Correlation between mole-fraction hexanes and mole-
fraction ethane. fraction ethane.

0.16 0.64
Wet gas Wet gas
Gas condensate 0.32 Gas condensate
0.08 Volatile oil Volatile oil

0.16
zC7+, mole fraction
zC4, mole fraction

0.04
0.08

0.04
0.02

0.02

0.01
zC4  0.65729zC2 
1.25871
0.01  
zC7  3.20994 zC2
1.49430

zC2  0.72351zC4   0.20040z 

0.61759 0.36800
zC2 C7 

0.005 0.005
0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32
zC2, mole fraction zC2, mole fraction

Fig. 14—Correlation between mole-fraction butanes and mole- Fig. 17—Correlation between mole-fraction heptanes plus and
fraction ethane. mole-fraction ethane.

0.064 0.08
Wet gas Wet gas
Gas condensate Gas condensate
Volatile oil Volatile oil
0.032
0.04
zC4, mole fraction
zC5, mole fraction

0.016

0.02

0.008

0.01
0.004
 
zC5  0.37879 zC2
1.27987
 
zC4  0.68206 zC3
1.02858

 0.75805z   1.18766z 
0.54170 0.91836
zC2 C5 z C3 C4

0.002 0.005
0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16
zC2, mole fraction zC3, mole fraction

Fig. 15—Correlation between mole-fraction pentanes and mole- Fig. 18—Correlation between mole-fraction butanes and mole-
fraction ethane. fraction propane.
18 SPE 166414

0.064 0.064
Wet gas Wet gas
Gas condensate Gas condensate
Volatile oil Volatile oil
0.032 0.032
zC5, mole fraction

zC5, mole fraction

0.016 0.016

0.008 0.008

0.004 0.004
 
zC5  0.40587 zC3
1.05558
 
zC5  0.65939 zC4
1.05117

 1.31472z   1.22580z 
0.81298 0.90675
z C3 C5 zC4 C5

0.002 0.002
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08
zC3, mole fraction zC4, mole fraction

Fig. 19—Correlation between mole-fraction pentanes and mole- Fig. 22—Correlation between mole-fraction pentanes and mole-
fraction propane. fraction butanes.

0.064 0.064
Wet gas Wet gas
Gas condensate Gas condensate
Volatile oil Volatile oil
0.032 0.032
zC6, mole fraction

zC6, mole fraction

0.016 0.016

0.008 0.008

0.004 0.004
 
zC6  0.21951 zC3
0.93587
 
zC6  0.32397 zC4
0.92093

 2.1124z   1.97355z 
0.87669 0.96624
zC3 C6 zC4 C6

0.002 0.002
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08
zC3, mole fraction zC4, mole fraction

Fig. 20—Correlation between mole-fraction hexanes and mole- Fig. 23—Correlation between mole-fraction hexanes and mole-
fraction propane. fraction butanes.

0.64 0.64
Wet gas Wet gas
0.32 Gas condensate 0.32 Gas condensate
Volatile oil Volatile oil

0.16 0.16
zC7+, mole fraction

zC7+, mole fraction

0.08 0.08

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0.01  
zC7  3.4352 zC3
1.22848
0.01  
zC7  6.1719 zC4
1.22905

 0.17765z   0.13252z 
0.55053 0.61689
zC3 C7  zC4 C7 

0.005 0.005
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08
zC3, mole fraction zC4, mole fraction

Fig. 21—Correlation between mole-fraction heptanes plus and Fig. 24—Correlation between mole-fraction heptanes plus and
mole-fraction propane. mole-fraction butanes.
SPE 166414 19

0.064 0.90
Wet gas Wet gas
Gas condensate 0.88 Gas condensate
Volatile oil Volatile oil
0.032
0.86
zC6, mole fraction

0.84
0.016

C7+, H2O=1
0.82

0.008
0.80

0.78
0.004
 
zC6  0.45778 zC5
0.87168

0.76
 C  0.40866M C
7
 7
0.13364

 1.65001z   508.87 
1.06023 5.20545
zC5 C6 M C 7 C7 

0.002 0.74
0.002 0.004 0.008 0.016 0.032 0.064 80 160 320
zC5, mole fraction MC7+, lbm/lbm-mole

Fig. 25—Correlation between mole-fraction hexanes and mole- Fig. 28—Correlation between heptanes-plus specific gravity and
fraction pentanes. heptanes-plus molecular weight.

0.64 0.90
Wet gas Wet gas
Gas condensate 0.88 Gas condensate
0.32
Volatile oil Volatile oil
0.86
0.16
zC7+, mole fraction

0.84
C7+, H2O=1

0.08
0.82
0.04
0.80

0.02
0.78

0.01  
zC7  10.6505 zC5
1.18280

0.76
 C  0.85434zC
7
 7
0.01977

 0.08789z   5.2638 
0.68823 19.648
z C5 C7  z C7  C7

0.005 0.74
0.002 0.004 0.008 0.016 0.032 0.064 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64
zC5, mole fraction zC7+, mole fraction

Fig. 26—Correlation between mole-fraction heptanes plus and Fig. 29—Correlation between heptanes-plus specific gravity and
mole-fraction pentanes. mole-fraction heptanes plus.

0.64 320
Wet gas Wet gas
Gas condensate Gas condensate
0.32
Volatile oil Volatile oil

0.16
MC7+, lbm/lbm-mole
zC7+, mole fraction

0.08
160
0.04

0.02

0.01  
zC7  19.7499 zC6
1.25958
 
M C7  237.92 zC7
0.13286

 0.05537z   6.1110 M 
8
0.60257 2.761
z C6 C7  z C7  C 7

0.005 80
0.002 0.004 0.008 0.016 0.032 0.064 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64
zC6, mole fraction zC7+, mole fraction

Fig. 27—Correlation between mole-fraction heptanes plus and Fig. 30—Correlation between heptanes-plus molecular weight
mole-fraction hexanes. and mole-fraction heptanes plus.
20 SPE 166414

0.90 0.032
Wet gas Wet gas
0.88 Gas condensate Gas condensate
Volatile oil Volatile oil
0.016
0.86

ziC5, mole fraction

0.84
0.008
C7+, H2O=1

0.82

0.004
0.80

0.78
0.002
 C  0.74686zC zC 
0.04373

0.76 7 6 7

zC6 zC7  0.015485  C7   10.565

 
ziC5  0.43504 zC5
0.96876

0.74 0.001
0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.016 0.032 0.064
zC6 /zC7+ zC5, mole fraction

Fig. 31—Correlation between heptanes-plus specific gravity and Fig. 34—Correlation of mole-fraction isopentane with
hexanes-heptanes plus ratio. mole-fraction pentanes.

320 100%
Wet gas Measured
90% Predicted
Gas condensate
Volatile oil
80%

Composition, mole percent

70%
MC7+, lbm/lbm-mole

60%

160 50%

40%

30%

20%

M C7  100.29 zC6 zC7 
0.27995

zC6 zC7  1710.7 M C7 

1.82373 10%

80 0%
0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32 0.64 H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7+
zC6 /zC7+ Component

Fig. 32—Correlation between heptanes-plus molecular weight Fig. 35—Comparison of predicted and measured composition for
and hexanes-heptanes plus ratio. wet gas data set WG44.

0.032 70%
Wet gas Measured
Gas condensate Predicted
60%
Volatile oil
Composition, mole percent

0.016
50%
ziC4, mole fraction

40%
0.008
30%

20%
0.004

10%
ziC4  0.21874zC4 
0.85975

0.002 0%
0.005 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.08 H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7+
zC4, mole fraction Component

Fig. 33—Correlation of mole-fraction isobutane with Fig. 36—Comparison of predicted and measured composition for
mole-fraction butanes. gas condensate data set GC08.
SPE 166414 21

70% 50%
Measured Measured
Predicted Predicted
60%
40%
Composition, mole percent

Composition, mole percent

50%

30%
40%

30%
20%

20%

10%
10%

0% 0%
H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7+ H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7+
Component Component

Fig. 37—Comparison of predicted and measured composition for Fig. 40—Comparison of predicted and measured composition for
gas condensate data set Good Oil No. 7. volatile oil data set VO21.

90% 1
Measured Gas condensate
80% Predicted Volatile oil
0.9 VO suspect data
70% + 0.02
Composition, mole percent

Predicted zC1, mole fraction

True
0.8
60% – 0.02

50% 0.7

40%
0.6

30%
0.5
20%
Small errors may cause
large relative errors 0.4
10%

0% 0.3
H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7+ 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Component Measured zC1, mole fraction
Fig. 38—Comparison of predicted and measured composition Fig. 41—Comparison of predicted and measured
for gas condensate data set GC34, showing large relative errors. mole-fraction methane for field data sets.

60% 0.2
Measured Gas condensate
Predicted Volatile oil GC41
50% VO suspect data
+ 0.01
Composition, mole percent

Predicted zC2, mole fraction

0.15 True
40% – 0.01

30% 0.1

20% Lab data zC3 > zC2

0.05
10%

0% 0
H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7+ 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Component Measured zC2, mole fraction
Fig. 39—Comparison of predicted and measured composition for Fig. 42—Comparison of predicted and measured
gas condensate data set GC41, with inverted lab C2/C3. mole-fraction ethane for field data sets.
22 SPE 166414

0.2 0.05
Gas condensate Gas condensate
VO suspect data Volatile oil
Volatile oil VO suspect data
+ 0.005 0.04 + 0.005
Predicted zC3, mole fraction

Predicted zC6, mole fraction

0.15 True True
– 0.005 – 0.005

0.03

0.1

0.02

0.05 GC41
0.01

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Measured zC3, mole fraction Measured zC6, mole fraction
Fig. 43—Comparison of predicted and measured Fig. 46—Comparison of predicted and measured
mole-fraction propane for field data sets. mole-fraction hexanes for field data sets.

0.1 0.3
Gas condensate Gas condensate
Volatile oil Volatile oil
VO suspect data 0.25 VO suspect data
0.08 + 0.005 + 0.01

Predicted zC7+, mole fraction

Predicted zC4, mole fraction

True True
– 0.005 – 0.01
0.2
0.06

0.15

0.04
0.1

0.02
0.05

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Measured zC4, mole fraction Measured zC7+, mole fraction
Fig. 44—Comparison of predicted and measured Fig. 47—Comparison of predicted and measured
mole-fraction butanes for field data sets. mole-fraction heptanes plus for field data sets.

0.06 240
Gas condensate Gas condensate
Volatile oil Volatile oil
VO suspect data 220 VO suspect data
0.05
+ 0.005 + 10%
Predicted MC7+, lbm/lbm-mole
Predicted zC5, mole fraction

True True
200
– 0.005 – 10%
0.04

180
0.03
160

0.02
140

0.01
120

0 100
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Measured zC5, mole fraction Measured MC7+, lbm/lbm-mole
Fig. 45—Comparison of predicted and measured Fig. 48—Comparison of predicted and measured
mole-fraction pentanes for field data sets. heptanes-plus molecular weight for field data sets.
SPE 166414 23

0.9 1
Gas condensate Fld max
Volatile oil Fld AAE
VO suspect data Sim max
+ 1% Sim AAE

Absolute Error, mole fraction

0.1
True
Predicted C7+, H2O=1

– 1%
0.85

0.01

0.8
0.001

0.75 0.0001
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7+
Measured C7+, H2O=1 Component

Fig. 49—Comparison of predicted and measured Fig. 52—Absolute error in composition for field and simulated
heptanes-plus specific gravity for field data sets. gas condensate data sets.

0.06 1000.0%
Fld min Fld max
Fld max Fld MARE
0.04 Fld AE Sim max
Sim min Sim MARE
100.0%

Absolute Relative Error, %

Sim max
Sim AE
Error, mole fraction

0.02

0.00 10.0%

-0.02

1.0%

-0.04

-0.06 0.1%
CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7+ CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7+
Component Component

Fig. 50—Error in predicted composition for field and simulated Fig. 53—Absolute relative error in predicted composition for
gas condensate data sets. field and simulated gas condensate data sets.

0.004 1
Fld AE Gas condensate
0.003 Sim AE Volatile oil
0.9 + 0.02
True
Predicted zC1, mole fraction

0.002
– 0.02
0.8
Error, mole fraction

0.001
0.7
0.000

0.6
-0.001

0.5
-0.002

-0.003 0.4

-0.004 0.3
CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7+ 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Component Measured zC1, mole fraction
Fig. 51—Error in predicted composition for field and simulated Fig. 54—Comparison of predicted and measured
gas condensate data sets, expanded scale. mole-fraction methane for simulated data sets.
24 SPE 166414

0.2 0.06
Gas condensate GC41 Gas condensate
Volatile oil Volatile oil
+ 0.01 0.05 + 0.005
True True
Predicted zC2, mole fraction

Predicted zC5, mole fraction

0.15 – 0.01 – 0.005

0.04

0.1 0.03

0.02

0.05

0.01

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Measured zC2, mole fraction Measured zC5, mole fraction
Fig. 55—Comparison of predicted and measured Fig. 58—Comparison of predicted and measured
mole-fraction ethane for simulated data sets. mole-fraction pentanes for simulated data sets.

0.2 0.05
Gas condensate Gas condensate
Volatile oil Volatile oil
+ 0.005 + 0.005
True 0.04 True
Predicted zC3, mole fraction

Predicted zC6, mole fraction

0.15 – 0.005 – 0.005

0.03

0.1

0.02

GC41
0.05
0.01

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Measured zC3, mole fraction Measured zC6, mole fraction
Fig. 56—Comparison of predicted and measured Fig. 59—Comparison of predicted and measured
mole-fraction propane for simulated data sets. mole-fraction hexanes for simulated data sets.

0.1 0.3
Gas condensate Gas condensate
Volatile oil Volatile oil
+ 0.005 0.25 + 0.01
0.08 True True
Predicted zC7+, mole fraction
Predicted zC4, mole fraction

– 0.005 – 0.01

0.2
0.06

0.15

0.04
0.1

0.02
0.05

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Measured zC4, mole fraction Measured zC7+, mole fraction
Fig. 57—Comparison of predicted and measured Fig. 60—Comparison of predicted and measured
mole-fraction butanes for simulated data sets. mole-fraction heptanes plus for simulated data sets.
SPE 166414 25

240
Gas condensate
Volatile oil
220 + 10%
True
Predicted MC7+, lbm/lbm-mole

– 10%
200

180

160

140

120

100
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Measured MC7+, lbm/lbm-mole
Fig. 61—Comparison of predicted and measured Fig. 64—Sensitivity coefficients for non-hydrocarbon impurities
heptanes-plus molecular weight for simulated data sets. content of the primary separator gas.

0.9
Gas condensate
Volatile oil
+ 1%
True
– 1%
Predicted C7+, H2O=1

0.85

0.8

0.75
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
Measured C7+, H2O=1
Fig. 62—Comparison of predicted and measured Fig. 65—Sensitivity coefficients for non-hydrocarbon impurities
heptanes-plus specific gravity for simulated data sets. content of the primary separator gas.

10
Sensitivity Coefficient, dimensionless

0.1

0.01 Tsp1
psp1
SGsp1

0.001
H2S CO2 N2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7+ MC7+ GC7+
Reservoir Fluid Component/Property

Fig. 63—Sensitivity coefficients for primary separator

temperature, pressure, and gas specific gravity.