The Predicted Performance of a Gas-Condensate System
Washington Field, Louisiana
JAMES E. BERRYMAN
JUNIOR MEMBER AIME
T. P. 4490
ABSTRACT
A method is presented for calculating the pressure
depletion performance of a gas-condensate reservoir
from the original reservoir fluid composition using the
laboratory determined pressure-production history and
retrograde liquid accumulation as guides. Equilibrium
vaporization ratios for this calculation were modified
from published data until the calculated dew point
pressure and retrograde liquid accumulation agreed
with the values observed in the laboratory.
The calculated results are compared with the pro-
duced gas composition determined by low temperature
analysis during constant volume laboratory experiments
of pressure depletion behavior. This comparison shows
that the calculation procedure is adequate for deter-
mination of gas phase composition.
Data from field separation tests in low temperature
separators are presented which verify the applicability
of published equilibrium vaporization ratios for a wide
ranRe of separator conditions.
INTRODUCTION
A reliable prediction of the pressure depletion per-
formance of a gas-condensate reservoir is necessary in
determining reserves and evaluating field separation
methods. The predicted performance is also used in
planning future operations and studying the economics
of projects for increasing liquid recovery. Because the
flow of fluid in a volumetric gas-condensate reservoir is
Ori,::dnal manuscript received in Society of' Petroleum Engineer!"
off!.ce on July 16. 1956. Revised manuscript received on Jan. 11.
19<17. Paper presented at Petroleum Branch Fan Meeting- in L()~
Angeles, Oct. 14-17, 1956.
D}scussion of this paper is invited. Discussion in writin~ t::~
('oples) may be sent to the offices of the Journal of Petroleum
1'echnologll. Any discussion off4?red after De('. 31, ]fHi7. shoull]
he in the form of a new paper.
SPE-698-G
PETROLEl'M TRA:\"SACTIONS, AIME
SOHIO PETROLEUM CO.
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.
usually single phase flow, the pressure-depletion per-
formance is primarily a function of the phase behavior
of the reservoir fluid.
The properties of a gas-condensate system of major
importance are: (1) compressibility factor at reservoir
temperature and pressure; (2) dew point pressure; (3)
composition changes of the vapor phase with pressure
depletion; (4) recovery of original in-place hydrocar-
bons at any pressure; and (5) retrograde condensate ac-
cumulation.
These properties are most generally determined by
a pressure depletion-type experiment on recombined
separator gas and liquid samples in the laboratory.
Ideally the pressure-depletion performance can be cal-
culated from the composition of the original reservoir
fluid if the reservoir temperature and initial pressure
are known.""" It has been reported " . . . compari-
son of such computations with depletion-type ex-
periments on recombined samples in the laboratory have
yielded results that appeared to be entirely adequate.'"
The success of such calculations is determined by the
equilibrium vaporization ratios chosen, especially those
for the higher boiling point hydrocarbons.
It is the purpose of this paper to present a method
for computing the change in composition of the vapor
phase during pressure depletion by production using
laboratory determined properties of the system to guide
the calculation and to illustrate the use of the method
with data from the Cockfield "D" sand of Washington
field, St. Landry Parish, La. Results of field tests and
laboratory analysis are included. As a result of this res-
ervoir fluid study, a cycling program has been evaluated,
the field has heen unitized, and the cycling started in
July, 1956.
I f{t'fen;'n~('s given at end of papel'.
J()~
 FIELD SAMPLING
During testing of the first three wells completed,
companion separator gas and liquid samples were col-
lected for laboratory analysis. Production test data ob-
served during the sampling were very similar and the
results for a typical well are summarized in Table 1.
Test data for three flow rates were obtained for each
well over a two or three day period. The wells were
shut in at night. Total gas production while on test was
less than 3 MMcf and the producing rates which varied
from test to test were in the range of 0.7 to 3.6
MMcf/D. Production through calibrated equipment per-
mitted frequent determinations of the separator gas-
condensate ratio. When this ratio had remained con-
stant for two hours under the conditions of the largest
flow rate the samples were taken. Comparison of the
gas-cond~nsate ratio tests of the sampled wells with
tests of other wells indicated that the properties of the
reservoir fluid were constant throughout the reservoir.
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
In the laboratory two of the companion separator gas
and liquid samples were recombined in their produced
ratio and the pressure depletion performance of each
sample was measured. The third sample was not anal-
yzed because the results obtained from the two sam-
ples compared favorably.
The laboratory equipment consists of two equilibrium
cells contained in an air bath; a double barrel, power-
driven, volumetric mercury pump; and auxiliary equip-
ment for measuring pressure, temperature and gas phase
production. One of the cells is equipped with windo~s
for visual observation of the fluids in the cell. ApproXI-
mately 18 per cent of the total volume of the cell is
below the window level. The cells are arranged so that
they may be used either separately or as a single unit
and either as variable or constant volume equipment.
The equipment is operated as a variable volume sys-
tem when determining dew point pressure and compres-
sibility factor of the recombined sample at reservoir
temperature. Sufficient quantities of the recombined
sample are charged to the windowed cell to give pres-
sures several hundred psi above the dew point pres-
sure. With the sample at reservoir temperature and
confined to the volume above the window in the win-
dowed cell, the pressure is lowered by removing mer-
cury from the second ceIl. The volume of the system
is increased until condensing liquid may be seen in the
windowed cell.
Pressure-volume measurements are recorded at regu-
lar intervals for calculation of the compressibility fac-
tor. After observation of the dew point the volume of
the system is increased further to obtain data for one
or two compressibility factor determinations below the
dew point. When the desired amount of data is ob-
tained, all the recombined sample is returned to the
windowed cell and the space it occupied is adjusted to
TABLE I-TEST DATA DURING SAMPLING
Test Date Aug. 29, 1952
Flowing Tubing Pressure 3,075 psig
Flowing Tubing Temperature 93°f
Separator
Separator
Pressure
Temperature
530 psig
74°f
Separator Liquid Production 12.12 bbl/hr
Separator Gas Production 133.4 Mcf/hr @ 15.025 psia and 60 0 F
Separator Woter Production o The change in composition of the produced gas dur-
Separator Gos~Condensote Ratio 11,007 cu ft/bbl
Stock Tank liquid 9.38 bbl/hr
Separator Gas-Stock Tank
Liquid Ratio 14,222 cu ft/bbl
Specific Gravity of Separator Gas 0.688
Gravity of Stock Tank Condensate 57" API
the volume required for the pressure depletion experi-
ment.
The average dew point pressure was 56 psi higher
than the original average BHP of 4,580 psig. For the
two samples the deviation between the laboratory dew
point pressure and the recorded BHP of the well at the
time of sampling was 16 and 90 psi. The data indicate
that the reservoir fluid was at the dew point under
original reservoir conditions and all calculations are
based on this conclusion. The visual determination of
the dew point was aided by marked color changes in
the gas-condensate system.
The compressibility factor was calculated from pres-
sure-volume measurements over a range in pressure
from 200 psi below the dew point to 400 psi above.
The average compressibility factor of 0.929 at initial
reservoir conditions gives an original gas in place value
of 1.50 Mcf/bbl of hydrocarbon pore space.
While determining the pressure-production perform-
ance, the equipment is operated at a constant volume
with the two cells connected together. Gas phase ma-
terial is removed from the top of the windowed cell by
production into a measuring system. The retrograde
liquid accumulation is determined by pumpi?g mercury
into the windowed cell and measurmg the mcremental
volume of mercury required to raise the gas-retrograde
liquid contact and the mercury-retrograde liquid con-
tact to window level.
depleting the pressure on the system by production with
the cell at a constant volume. This dew point pressure
agreed with what previously obtained in the variable
volume study. A sample of the fluid produced in re-
ducing the cell pressure to the dew point pressure was
collected for low temperature fractional analysis. Other
samples of the vapor phase material produced during
pressure depletion below the dew point were obtained
for analysis at pressure intervals of approximately 600
psi. A sample of the condensed liquid remaining at ap-
proximately 500 psig was also analyzed. The retrograde
liquid accumulation was measured at intervals cor-
responding to about 300 psi pressure reductions. Meas-
urement of the volumes of vapor phase material pro-
duced enabled the determination of the pressure-produc-
tion performance of the sample. This performance was
reported at per cent of hydrocarbons in place at the
dew point produced vs pressure. The compressibility
factor, the pressure-production performance and the
retrograde liquid accumulation for one of the pressure
depletion experiments are shown in Fig. 1.
Material balance checks on total hydrocarbons han-
dled and on individual components were made for the
system. Only small differences existed when comparing
the total material charged to the equilibrium cell with
the amount produced and remaining at low pressure.
Material balances on individual components using the
results of the low temperature analyses and the pres-
sure production performance were not nearly so good.
The data obtained from the low temperature analyses
were smoothed by changing the composition at each
analysis point by trial and error until material balance
checks were obtained on each component. The smoothed
values for one sample are compared with individual
data points in Fig. 2.
ing the various pressure depletion steps was used to
calculate the recovery of the individual components.
For the two samples, the recoveries for butanes and
lighter were 87.6 and 86.0 per cent, respectively, of
VOL. 210, J957
 so
- TABLE 2-COMPARISON OF RESERVOIR flUID COMPOSITIONS
laboratory Mathematically Recom,bined

V ~
Componen_t_ Recombined Sample Field Test Sample
Methane ----~- ·112:'09"----
<T
/' Ethane
Propane
5.53
3.95
5.56
4.31

\
Iso·butane 1.11 1.12
N-butane 1.38 1.44
Iso·pentane .65 .71
N·pentone .64 .51
Hexanes 1.10 .83

RETROGRADE,~
LIQUID ACCUMULATION
Heptanes pi us 3.33
100.00
3.43
100.00
<II",
JU TABLE 3-FIELD TEST DATA-LOW TEMPERATURE SEPARATION
bl « 20
O:J
0:0.
<
\ Test Oate
Free Water Knockout Pressure
Oct. 14, 1954
3,100 psig
mZ Free Water Knockout Temperature 90°F

~ 10 \ LTX
l TX
Pressure
Top Temperature
750 psig
40°F

\
l TX Bottom Temperature 85°F
low Pressure Separator Pressure 85 psig
~ow Pressure Separator Temperature 75°F
o 1,753 psig to check the equilibrium vaporization ratios
<II
Z
used in evaluating methods of field separation. Gas and
o liquid compositions calculated using the equilibrium
m
~ 80
...... 0.98 N
vaporization ratios of Winn are compared to the actual
U
o "\ COMPRESSIBIL~
i
> analysis in Table 5. Unfortunately, this series of tests
~
II: f-
o FACTOR "- ::;
> was not made through calibrated equipment and the
X 60 0.94 ~ field gas-liquid ratio is not available for checking against
~
~-
"'U <II

<
J
"'a:0. the calculated ratio. A plot of the published K factors
~ vs the normal boiling point is shown in Fig. 3 for a
0. ::1
:; 40 -- 0.90 S pressure of 1,306 psig and temperature of 63 The 0

PRODUCTlON~
,
...o test data are also shown. The results of these test data
f-
Z i'" are also shown. The results of these tests justified the
",20
use of the published data in the study of field separation
~
U
0:
"'0. over a wide range of operating pressures.

1000 2000 3000

PRESSURE - PS I G
4000

FIG. l-LADORATORY PRESSURE-DEPLETIO:-i PERFOR:\IANCE.

"" 5000 CALCULATION OF PRESSURE DEPLETION
PERFORMANCE
The general differential vaporization method of cal-
the amount in place initially at the dew point pressure.
The pentanes plus in the two original samples aver- culating the effect of retrograde condensation upon the
aged 66.1 bbljMMcf and their recoveries to a final cell gas phase composition outlined by Allen and Roe" was
pressure of 500 psig were 48.0 and 48.9 per cent of that followed. A much more detailed explanation of the
initially in place at the dew point pressure. 1000
80.0
0 - _0 a ------a- i-

FIELD TESTS 60.0

In Oct., 1954, nine months after the start of gas 40.0

sales from the field, samples of the liquid and gas stream
were taken at the low temperature separator, the low
pressure separator and the stock tank. Recombination 20.0
of these samples resulted in a fluid composition that
has been accepted as best representing the reservoir fluid
of the field. A comparison of the fluid compositions 10.0

determined from the laboratory recombined sample f- B.O

and the field test samples is shown in Table 2. A &um-

maryof the field test conditions is presented in Table 3.
Z
'"
u
0:
6.0
0-
• . 0
oc.
c._
Stage separator flash calculations at the actual oper- '"0. 4.0
o -r - - -
ating temperatures and pressures of the field installa- a:
\ , • ~OC7·
<
J
q
,/. oc.
tion were made to compare calculated recovery with ::>
2.0
0 0
0
./
actual recovery and to compare calculated composi-
U
'"0J V-
tions with the actual analysis. The calculated stock tank
recoveries in bbljMMcf of sales gas using the labora-
tory determined composition and the field test composi-
::1

1.0
0.8
0 ___

0
'I:-~-
/ 0
_0--
o~ -:::::i~5
C.

g
tion were 80.6 and 78.7, respectively. Actual average 0.6 \ \

production for nine months was 78.6 bbl/MMcf. The \, 0

reservoir fluid composition obtained from the field test 0.4

analysis was used to calculate the theoretical compo-
sitions at the various sample points. These data are pre-
I
sented for comparison with the actual analysis in Table 0.2

4. The equilibrium vaporization ratios used were those

presented by Winn'.
In July, 1955, another series of separator gas and 0 1'------- I
o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
liquid samples from a high pressure separator were col- PRESSURE - PSIG
lected at separator pressures of 1,026, 1,306 and FIG. 2·--L~BORATORY ANAI.YSIS OF EXPE/lIME:\TAL PROOlJfl:O GA~.

101
 TABLE 4--COMPARISON OF CALCULATED AND ACTUAL ANALYSIS 10.0

"
COMPOSITIONS FOR LOW TEMPERATURE SEPARATOR TEST
LIQUID

'"
GAS
Actual Mol
Per Cent
High Pressure Separator
Calculated Mol
Per Cent
Actual Mol
Per Cent
Calculated Mol
Per Cent

~ '" "'"'"
~
~~.,
90.11 89.97 18.14 19.17

'"
Methane
Ethane 5.34 5.39 7.30 6.79

~
Propane 3.07 3.14 14.19 13.57
Iso-butane .59 .55 5.36 5.66
N-butone .48 .58 9.07 8.30 ~

~ ,~ "'"l'- ~
~
Iso-pentane .13 .15 5.36 5.17
N-pentane .09 .09 3.83 3.90
Hexane .07 .05 6.89 7.07 0",
Heptane plus .12
100.00
.08
100.00
29.86
100.00
30.37
100.00 o 0
:f",~ f'\
r-.....
low Pressure Separator
Methane
Ethane
Propane
62.69
15.38
14.44
59.40
14.78
16.18
.96
3.26
12.86
1.70
3.32
12.44
>=
«
a:
z
~ '" ~,h
~ 1'-.,
1'-.,

t"-r--.
V
......v

""
3.50 7.55 6.60 o
Iso-butane
N-butane
3.09
2.81 3.88 10.36 10.22 >=
« /1/
Iso-pentane
N-pentone
.79
.32
1.04
.60
6.65
5.31
6.96
5.34
~

.. ~
a:
o . " " "'A
1'--
- V/
~"'''
Hexane .30 .36 9.73 9.98
Heptane plus .18
-100:00
.26 ~
100.00
43.44
100.00 .
~ ~"'~ V/1J
100.00
t--.. 1- ~
~ Vj
~

.
:>
a:
method is presented by Organick and Meyer'. The
:J 0 .I ~-t.,-\( ./
necessary calculations were performed on a Model II ~
IBM CPC using the general purpose control panels
:>
a ./'" ['
developed by Rachford and Peaceman'. The computa-
'" !
tions of vapor liquid equilibrium were programmed for
the digital computer by the widely used "twenty ques-
"-
0iIGINAL DATA y !
tions" method described by Rachford and Rice".
"-
"-
"- I. ,,~/
~~
q'jl rh:ALUES
MATCH l.ABORATORY
uSE. TO

Equilibrium vaporization ratios or K factors from 1',, I'~V

,,~.~.'
M
~
LIQUID ACCUMULATION

the correlated data of Rzasa, Glass and OpfelI' were "

--
~
:.-~

used for the calculations. Starting with values for 194°F

and a convergence pressure of 5,000 psi a as the first
I
estimate, the factors were adjusted by trial until the ex- ,0100 1000 10.000

perimental dew point of 4,580 psig was matched by cal- PRESSURE - PSIG

culation. This occurred with a convergence pressure
of 5,300 psig. The curve for the heptane plus fraction
was estimated using the molecular weight and specific
gravity as guides. The adjusted K values used in the cal-
culations are shown plotted against pressure in Fig. 4.
Reasonable agreement exists between the selected K
factors and other published data and points determined
from the laboratory analysis of this gas-condensate sys-
tem.
10.0
FIG. 4-EQU1LlURWM VAPORIZATION RATIO-K. AT
TEMPERATURE OF 192°F.
After selecting the equilibrium vaporization ratios,
the calculation was started using 4,580 psig as initial
reservoir pressure and the composition as determined
by the field tests of the low temperature separator in-
stallation as the composition of the reservoir fluid. The
main point of divergence from the reported method of
computation was the use of laboratory pressure-produc-
tion performance (per cent of in place hydrocarbons
produced vs pressure in Fig. 1), to determine the amount
of gas phase material removed or produced from the
system during a pressure depletion intervaL

~ Use of the laboratory data eliminates the need of

obtaining compressibility factors for the vapor phase
1.0 ""- .
~
TABLE 5-COMPARISON OF CALCULATED -t-ND ACTUAL ANALYSIS
COMPOSITIONS AT VARIOUS SEPARATOR CONDITIONS
GAS liQUID
z Actual Mol Calculated Mol Actual Moll Calculated Mol
o
~N
a: o. I
N" •
u

,",c
.
u Methane
Ethane
Per Cent

91.28
90.05
4.26
5.29
Per Cent
Test l-Seporafor Pressure 1,026 psig-Separator Temperature 53°F
Per Cent

25.91
7.40
Per Cent

26.48
7.45
o

"'~f
Propane 2.84
3.13 11.28 12.53
Q.
'-u Butane 1.09
1.12 10.93 12.61
«
> oc
..
u
Pentane
Hexane
Heptane plus
.32
.26
.08
.07
.13
.08
6.62
5.46
32.40
7.96
6.12
26.85
li

K ioo.oo' 100:00
::> "iOQ.OO 1 00.00
a:cD Test 2-Separafor Pressure 1,306 psig-Separator Temperature 64°F
:::i Methane 90.86 89.87 33.80 31.53
:; Ethane 4.15 5.26 8.00 7.51

K
a 0.0 I Propane 2.89 3.17 11.31 11.73
..... Butane 1.38 1.19 10.21 11.41
o F'IEI.D TEST DETERMINATIONS
Pentane .36 .31 6.71 7.19
- AF'TER WINN .19 5.74 5.65
Hexane .08
Heptane pi us .17 .12 24.23 24.98
100.00 100:-00 100.00 100.00
Test 3-Separator Pressure 1,753 psig-Separator Temperature 77°F
Methane 89.59 89.36 41.83 38.85
0.00 I Ethane 4.19 5.24 7.62 7.48
-300 -200 -100 o 100 200 300 Propane 3.33 3.28 11.85 10.42
Butane 1.68 1.36 8.32 9.70
NORMAl. BOII.ING POINT - OF. Pentane .55 .40 5.12 6.11
Hexane .29 .15 4.79 4.87
FIG. 3-COMPARISON OF PUBLISHED "K" VALUES WITH Heptane plus .37 .21 20.47 ~
FIELD TEST DATA. -100:00
100.00 100.00 100.00

VOL. 210. 1957

from pseudo critical temperature and pressure correla-
tions. Another change was the assumption that the
compositions of the produced gas during an interval was
equal to the composition of the vapor phase at the start
of the pressure depletion step.
An improved method of determining the composition
of the gas to be removed from the system would be to
assume a composition equal to the arithmetic average
composition of the vapor phase at the start and final
pressure of an interval. This computation properly per-
formed would require iterative procedures to determine
the average composition of fluid removed in each step.
Limited machine storage and programming for as auto-
matic a computation as possible eliminated the latter
method for use with the CPC although it will be used
when the computation is programmed for the magnetic
drum calculator now available.
The first pressure reduction interval was 280 psi and
all subsequent intervals represented 300 psi steps. The
calculation was continued to a final pressure of 400
psig. The volume occupied by the liquid phase at thc
end of each pressure depletion step was determined
from the phase composition by the method of Standing
and Katz'.
During the first prediction the equilibrium vaporiza-
tion ratios for the heptane plus fraction were used as
originally drawn. The molecular weight and specific
gravity of the heptane plus fraction in the liquid phase
on the calculations. The volumes computed using the
estimated properties for the heptane plus fraction are
shown primarily for comparison with the volume cal-
culated using constant properties for this fraction. The
effect of this change is relatively small and no attempt
was made, nor believed to be necessary, to change the
over-all calculation so that these volumes would match
the laboratory data.
Original laboratory data of the change in composi-
tion of the vapor phase during pressure depletion are
shown in Fig. 2. The calculated data are plotted in Fig.
5. For a better comparison, the calculated and labora-
tory data for the individual components are plotted
separately in Fig. 8 so there will be no overlap and the
differences may be easily seen. The composition from
the low temperature separator installation which was
used as a starting point in the calculation agrees very
100,0
80,0
.r,,_
60.0
40.0
20.0
10,0

--
8.0
were assumed to remain constant at 144 and 0.788, re- I-
~ 6.0
spectively. The calculation procedure was then repeated u
Cz
a: c.
just as before except that the K factor for the heptane ~ 4.0
plus fraction was changed by trial until the calculated a:
~C7+
~
volume of condensed liquid agreed closely with the «
-'
:::> "- -:./'-
C.
laboratory observed data. The properties of the heptane
plus fraction were assumed to remain constant. The final
values of K factors for heptane plus used in this calcu-
lation are shown in Fig. 4. The calculated change in
u 2.0
w
-'
o
::;

1.0
........'s,.
_? ......
c.

-
C._
composition of the vapor phase is plotted in Fig. 5. 0.8

There is little difference in the calculated change in 0,6 '- ./

.= <-=
~-
composition for the methane through pentane frac-
tions in the two computations performed. The changes 0.4
'"
- - CALCULATED BY CHANGING K Of C7~
in composition for the hexane and heptane plus frac- - - CALCULATED BY USING ORIGINAL ESTIMATE
tions calculated using the original K factors are also Of K fOR C7+
0.2
shown in Fig. 5.
The calculated volumes of retrograde condensate for
the two computations are shown in Fig. 6 along with o. I
the curve of the laboratory observed data redrawn fwm o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
PRESSURE - PSIG
Fig. 1. The fourth set of data on Fig. 6 represents the
FIG. 5-CALCULATED CO~IPOSITION OF VAPOR PHASE.
volumes calculated using an estimate of the change in
properties of the heptane plus fraction with pressure '" 50

~~
z o a
depletion of the system and the liquid phase compo-
sitions determined by changing the K factors for the
o
III
a:
«
! Q~---'"
o
~
~

0" ~

heptane plus factor. The properties used in this latter

case were estimated from the change in molecular
u
o 40
a:
",.
-+ Q

0
~
~

"\ ~
,.." ~

weight and specific gravity of the produced gas observed :0::

~

in the laboratory experiments. The estimated values for w

\\
u 30
the molecular weight of the liquid and vapor phases «
J
0.
and the laboratory observed data are plotted in Fig. 7. ~
...o 20
COMPARISON OF CALCULATIONS WITH ...u -
LABORATORY SAMPLE
\
LABORATORY WORK J;
A ORIGINAL CURVE fOR K OF C7·

One of the assumptions for the calculations was that

J;

a:
w
10 f---o CHANGING K Of C7+-CONSTANT
C7+ PROPERTIES
1\
\
0.
the calculated retrograde liquid accumulation should be o CHANGING K OF C7~-CHANGING
equal to that observed in the laboratory. The original r~ PROPERI'ES -I
laboratory data used as guides in the calculations are 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
shown in Fig. 1. The volume of retrograde liquid ob- PRESSURE - PSIG
served in the laboratory are com!,ared in Fig. 6 with FIG. 6-COl\IPARISON OF CALCULATED RETROGRADE LIQUID TO
the computed volumes for the three conditions imposed LABORATORY OBSERVED DATA.

PETROLEI'''' TR'\;\~ACTI()N~. \1\lE 106

 --
160
0
z
0
~ 150
- 20'-----·
i ~ETHANE

0
«
a:
............... ~ PHASE '!:~~~~~
----1-- - - - - - - - - - - .
4~---- -----.~-----
\L
+ 0
S
\L
140
7
0 0[7
l-
X

"
W 130
:t
/ ______________

6~-------.----. ----
---" ___________________

--~--------.------'----
PROPAN:'_

a:
«
...J
:>
0 120
0............
r-.-~ _0/
k VAPOR I PHASE
4 -... ---+-----------'__ ..
2---~=====~====~=~
_ L '- - -

'"...J
0
- ESTIMATED MOLECULAR WEIGHT
I
~
0 LABORA~ORY DETER,MINATIONS ,
• PENTANE
04"---------·----~------·--~--
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 2()-----=------- ------- -~ _________ ~ --- -,..--.0----

PRESSURE - PSIG
FI(;. 7-_\luu:ClJLAR WEIGHT OF
.'1.>;0 VAPOR PHASES.
C; L, IAQI III " _._~I _ _~:F--r-;
:;1_. ___ .~
i' _-+-- _____ _

well with the laboratory data. The propane fraction is 00------ ~---__.________-----_, ~-.

an exception and for this component it appears that 401--- - - ---i--- - ---~---.--,- - - - .- - - -

the molecular per cent used was high. The data for 20r-- _.- .

the pentane and heptane plus fractions show that both 1Ot----· -
08~-·--.I----
-~

•
--- .. - - - - - - - - -.-..- - . - - .. ----
•
~

declined more in the laboratory experiment that did the
calculated values.
The agreement between the laboratory observed data
and the calculated change in vapor phase composition
is very good. The differences that do exist are due in
part to the fact that changing the K factor for the hep-
tane plus fraction can not correct the values from pub-
lished data to the true K factors for the system. Ex-
perience has also demonstrated the difficulty of sam-
pling and transferring to the fractionating column a
sample of gas containing small amounts of the pentane
plus fractions. The trend of experimental error in anal-
ysis of such samples is to yield low results for the
heavier components which is what the data shown in
Fig. 8 indicate.
The method of computation outlined has been ap-
plied to another laboratory sample and the agreement
of calculated and observed results was similar to the
agreement shown for the data presented in this paper.
CONCLUSIONS
The agreement of data from field tests, laboratory
analysis and engineering calculations and the relation-
ship of each part of the data to be predicted perform-
ance of a gas-condensate system has been presented.
It has been shown that samples collected during
initial field tests of relatively short duration were rep-
resentative of the reservoir fluid. Although the com-
position calculated from separator samples taken after
nine months of production has been accepted as being
more representative of the reservoir fluid, the compo-
sition as determined from the early test samples falls
within the normal range of accuracy expected when de-
termining compositions by recombining the low tem-
perature analysis of liquid and gas samples in their
produced ratio.
The actual stock tank production for a nine month
period agrees with the liquid recovery calculated using
published equilibrium vaporization ratios. Field separa-
tion tests at high pressure verify the applicability of
the published K factor data over a wide range of separa-
tor conditions.
The calculated change in vapor phase composition
with pressure depletion has heen compared to the ex-
107
OS'- ._. ~. __ ~_=--=r.:-------~-_-J:-~_~_.- ~.:~ . _ PLUS ~
040-- 1000 2000 3000' 4000 !lOOO
F](;. 8--CO~IPARISO'\ OF CALCCLATED i\Iou:cCLAR PER CDI'
WITH LABORATORY ANALYSIS.
perimental data. This comparison shows that the phase
behavior can be calculated by the method of matching
calculated and laboratory observed retrograde liquid
volumes as accurately as the vapor phase composition
may be determined in the laboratory experiment of pro-
ducing vapor phase material and making low tem-
perature analysis of the produced fluid.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author wishes to express his thanks to the man-
agement of Sohio Petroleum Co. and of Gulf Oil Corp.
for permission to publish this paper. Special thanks is
clue the Gas-Gasoline Div. of Sohio Petroleum Co.
for supervising the field tests during which a great part
of the data was collected.
REFERENCE:;
1. Organick, E. I., and Meyer, H. I.: "The Stepwise Gas De-
pletion as Performed With the Aid of an IBM Model 604
Electronic Calculating Punch", paper presented at IBM
Pet. Con£., Endicott, N. Y. (Oct., 1953). " ..
2. Hoffman, A. E., Crump, J. S., and Hoeott, C. R.;, Eqtul!-
brium Constants for a Gas·Condensate System, Trans.
AI1\l£ (1953), 198, l.
~. Allen, F. H., and Roe, R. P.: "Performance Characteristics
of a Volumetric Condensate Reservoir", Trans. AIME
(1950). 189, 83.
t Winn, F. W.: "Simplified Nomographic Presentation Hydro-
carbon Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium", Chern. Eng. Progress
Symposium Series No.2 (1952).48, 12l.
:J. Rachford, H. H., and Peaceman, D. W.: "A High-Speed
Ei<Yht·Di<Yit Floating-Point General Purpose System for the
~I~del If CPC". paper presented at IBM Customer Admin-
istrative School. Endicott, N. Y. (Aug .• 1953).
Ii. Rachford, H. H., and Rice. J. D.: "Procedure for USf~ of
Electronic Digital Computers in Calculating Flash Vapori-
zation Hydrocarbon Equilibrium", TrailS. AIME (1952l.
195, 327. .
i. Rzasa. M. J., Glass. E. D.. and Opfell, .I. ll.: "Prediction
of Critical Properties and Equilibrium Vaporization Con-
stants for Complex Hydrocarbon Systems", Chern. Eng.
Progress Svmposium Series No. 2 (1952), 48, 28,
K. Stamling, M. B., and Katz, D. L.: "Density of Crude Oil
Saturater! with Natural Gas", Tran." AIME (1942), 146,
159. ***
VOL. 210, 1957