Group Assignment G.E

ASIA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY
OF TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION

ASSIGNMENT
EE053-3-3-GE
GAS ENGINEERING
APD3F2211PE
1. ARIECH AYOK AGOTH-TP057726
2. MADOL MADOL ATAK-TP056450
3. MOHAMED BAKRI OSMAN ABDEMAGED-TP058786

Group Members
4. OMAR MAHMOUD SHEHATA HUSSEIN-TP056545
Intake: APD3F2211PE
Lecturer: Dr. WONG SIEW FAN
Subject: GAS ENGINEERING
HAND OUT DATE: 22nd June 2023
HAND IN DATE: 21st July 2023
Page 1 of 115
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHOSEN IPR CURVE FROM EXCEL. ............................................................................................... 5
Chosen Best Gas processing system. ..................................................................................................... 7
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR THE GAS PROCESS SYSTEM. .............................................. 9
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................... 10
Individual component-ARIECH AYOK AGOTH ................................................................................ 11
Evaluation of the Absolute Open flow (AOF) potential and Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR).
......................................................................................................................................................... 11
IPR Curve Determination. ............................................................................................................ 16
PROSPER SOFTWARE. .............................................................................................................. 21
GAS PROCESS SYSTEM. ........................................................................................................... 33
Individual Component-MOHAMED BAKRI OSMAN ABDEMAGED-TP058786........................... 37
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 37
OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................ 38
Inflow Performance Relationship .................................................................................................... 38
Gas Processing Systems ................................................................................................................. 53
The goals of gas processing are: ...................................................................................................... 53
Gas Composi4on Analysis: ............................................................................................................... 55
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 70
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 71
Individua Component- OMAR MAHMOUD SHEHATA HUSSEIN .................................................. 71
Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 71
• (AOF) and (IPR) Explanation ..................................................................................................... 72
Objec4ve .......................................................................................................................................... 73
• Given Data ................................................................................................................................... 74
• (AOF) Evaluation ........................................................................................................................ 76
• IPR Curve ..................................................................................................................................... 79
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................. 82
Appropriate gas process ................................................................................................................ 82
Gas Composi4on Analysis: ............................................................................................................... 83
Acid gas removal process .............................................................................................................. 84
• Advantages .................................................................................................................................. 85
• Disadvantages ............................................................................................................................. 86
• Environmental effects ................................................................................................................. 87
• Safety .......................................................................................................................................... 89
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 91
Page 2 of 115
Individual Component- MADOL MADOL ATAK .............................................................................. 92
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 92
Calculation Part for IPR Curve. ................................................................................................... 96
Prosper Software: ........................................................................................................................ 101
DISCUSSION. .............................................................................................................................. 109
GAS SEPARATION SYSTEM. .................................................................................................. 109
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 115
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:Best IPR Curve from Excel. .................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2: Best IPR Curve from the Prosper software.............................................................................. 6
Figure 3: The best chosen 3-phase gas separator. ................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Desiccant dehydration process. ............................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Absolute Open Flow. ............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 6: Inflow Performance curve. .................................................................................................... 13
Figure 7: Flow-after-flow test. .............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 8: Isochronal Test. ...................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 9: Modified isochronal test. ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 10: The given assignment data................................................................................................... 17
Figure 11: System data for the IPR curve. ............................................................................................ 22
Figure 12: PVT Data. ............................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 13: The Reservoir Model chosen. .............................................................................................. 24
Figure 14: AOF Data. ............................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 15: IPR curve with the Extended Flow for 1hr. ......................................................................... 25
Figure 16: Calculation Results for the IPR curve. ................................................................................ 25
Figure 17: System Data for the IPR curve. ........................................................................................... 26
Figure 18: PVT Data for the Reservoir Model. ..................................................................................... 26
Figure 19: MultiRate data for 3 hr. ........................................................................................................ 27
Figure 20: AOF Data. ............................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 21: The IPR curve for 3 hrs........................................................................................................ 28
Figure 22: Calculation results for 3 hrs. ................................................................................................ 28
Figure 23: PVT Data. ............................................................................................................................ 29
Figure 24: multi-rate data for 5 hrs. ...................................................................................................... 30
Figure 25: AOF Data for 5hrs. .............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 26: IPR Curve for 5hrs. .............................................................................................................. 31
Figure 27: Calculation results for the 5hrs. ........................................................................................... 32
Figure 28: Different types of separators for the Gas Processing system for 3-Phase separators. ......... 34
Figure 29: Two-Phase Gas Separator. ................................................................................................... 35
Figure 30: Amine process. ..................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 31.Inflow performance relationship curve ................................................................................. 92
Figure 32.Flow - after - flow testing ..................................................................................................... 93
Figure 33.Isochronal test ....................................................................................................................... 94
Page 3 of 115
Figure 34.Modified Isochronal test. ...................................................................................................... 95
Figure 35. A Scatter graph representing a IPR Curve for the above data. .......................................... 101
Figure 36. System Summary ............................................................................................................... 103
Figure 37.PVT Data ............................................................................................................................ 103
Figure 38.PVT. Input Data .................................................................................................................. 104
Figure 39.Reservoir model data for t1 ................................................................................................ 104
Figure 40. AOF Calculation Result for time, t1hr ............................................................................... 105
Figure 41. IPR Curve for time 1 included extended flow. .................................................................. 105
Figure 42.IPR calculation results for time, t1hr. ................................................................................. 106
Figure 43.IPR Curve for time, t3 with extended flow ......................................................................... 106
Figure 44. AOF Calculation Result for time, t3hr ............................................................................... 107
Figure 45. IPR calculations for time, t3hr ........................................................................................... 107
Figure 46. IPR Curve for time, t5hr with extended flow..................................................................... 108
Figure 47.AOF Calculation for time, t5hr with extended flow ........................................................... 108
Figure 48.IPR Calculations Result for Time, t5hr. .............................................................................. 109
Figure 49. Different types of separators. ............................................................................................. 111
Figure 50.Membrane Separation. ........................................................................................................ 112
Figure 51. Dehydration. ...................................................................................................................... 113
Figure 52.Cryogenic Expansion Process ............................................................................................. 114
Page 4 of 115
GROUP WORK.
CHOSEN IPR CURVE FROM EXCEL.

Identification of the best IPR curve from different individual curves.
The Multi-rate C and n approach is one of the methods for determining the IPR curve. IPR
curve can be obtained manually or using software once C and n parameters have been
determined. IPR curve and the absolute open flow may both be obtained using Prosper, a
powerful software program for evaluating data. However, for this job, prosper software was
used together with manual labour. Other computations must be made before calculating the
IPR curve. Whenever you perform the absolute open flow. Due to the pwf dropping to zero at
maximum flowrate, the pwf is set to zero. The C and n values are the necessary data for AOF.
The chosen calculated AOF from the Prosper software was 20.329 MMscfd/day and 21.294
MMscf/d but we decided to use 20.684676 MMscfd/day for the IPR curve using Excel.
Qsc (AOF) = 0.016(2967.972 – 02) = 20684.676 Mscf/day
Qsc (AOF) = 20.684676 MMscf/day.
Page 5 of 115
Figure 1:Best IPR Curve from Excel.
Figure 2: Best IPR Curve from the Prosper software.
Page 6 of 115
CHOSEN BEST GAS PROCESSING SYSTEM.
In a natural gas processing system, fluids and other impurities are removed along with
hazardous compounds to make the gas dry enough to be transported by pipeline. A large
portion of the natural gas liquids, including sulphur and other gases, are recovered by the gas
production sector. In each part, the best techniques for separating natural gas were addressed
and examined. However, we will go into more detail about the most effective way to separate
natural gas from other contaminants below. The committee was able to choose the optimal
processing design because all assumptions were established in accordance with the reservoir
characteristics that were supplied.
The initial method for gas processing that was selected was separation, however it comes in
two flavours: vertical and horizontal. It was discovered that vertical separation was superior
to horizontal separation in terms of effectiveness. Gravity is used in this vertical vessel to
separate the gas from the liquids and solids. When a well has a high liquid-to-gas ratio and
poor fluid properties, production engineers opt for vertical separators. When a well contains a
lot of clay and sand among other things, vertical separators are also desired.
There were two main types of gas processing system mainly three-phase and two-phase gas
separators which were used in the gas processing system. But for this case, we chose the three-
phase gas separators for our assignment since it has the ability to accommodate bigger volume
separation and improved efficiency in high GOR separation are the primary benefits of
horizontal separators then the two-phase gas separators.
Figure 3: The best chosen 3-phase gas separator.
Page 7 of 115
The amine sweetening procedure was chosen as the best gas sweetening method because it
has the potential to reduce or eliminate carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide gas. On the
other hand, gas sweetening methods were employed. Due to amine's inherent attraction for
CO2 and H2O, these gases are extracted from natural gas during the amine process.
The technology used in the procedure is highly successful and efficient for separating natural
gas from CO2 and water. This method is also preferred because it helps remove H2O and
CO2 from natural gas and liquid hydrocarbons through chemical reaction and absorption
processes. Compared to DEA, monoethanolamide requires low pressure natural gas
treatment. Additionally, oxidizing molecules that are absent from the gas created are reacted
with during the process. MEA and DEA both generate acid gases. But MEA is at its best the
most appropriate. The gas processing system also included the dehydration process. The best
and most acceptable approach for dehydrating was determined to be employing solid
desiccant. It has a very low moisturizing point and produces gas that is extremely dry—less
than 1.0 lb/MMscf. Two vessels or containers will be used in this procedure. Then, granular
desiccant and regeneration tools are placed in these two containers. This method was chosen
as the best because it is less complicated and requires less steps than glycol dehydration, in
addition to being more effective.
Figure 4: Desiccant dehydration process.

Two containers or vertical vessels are packed with adsorbents, as seen from above. The
vessels are subsequently filled from the top with wet gas. The desiccant is then transported
Page 8 of 115
through the gas and subsequently adsorbed in the desiccant components. The dry gas is then
ejected from the vessel's bottom and released for usage.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR THE GAS PROCESS SYSTEM.
Fixed gas detector monitoring system.
Fixed gas detectors are used to continuously monitor the environment and are installed on-site
permanently. Fixed detectors perform comparable tasks to smoke and fire alarms. target gas-
specific on-site detectors that are placed and connected to a control centre. The controller keeps
track of the fixed detectors and sets alarm settings based on gas levels. The simplest level of
alerting personnel is activating audible and visible alerts. More sophisticated and complex
installations can do additional tasks, such as alerting other monitoring systems, initiating a
complete shutdown of the system, logging, and trending data, and connecting to cloud-based
services. The typical monitoring area/volume for fixed detectors is 5 meters in radius. Location
needs to be carefully considered to produce the finest effects.
It's crucial to consider the detector's detection limit and confirm that the alert levels meet
HSE/COSHH/DSEAR requirements. Detectors can occasionally operate independently and
include built-in warnings and audible visual displays. Additionally, with the proper approval
for use in each, fixed detectors may be designated of use in safe zones or ATEX-zoned
hazardous locations. That choice will often be supported by a DSEAR report and/or a gas
hazard survey, depending on the site and application. Fixed gas detectors can be strategically
placed to detect leaks or emissions and are suited for usage in places where the gas threat has
been determined. The advantages of fixed gas detectors are listed below.
• The environment is continuously observed 24 hours a day.

• Can take actions such as shutting down gas supplies and issuing site-wide alarms.
• Remote alarms are possible, including GSM text and email alerts and cloud
monitoring.
• If specified correctly, clear unambiguous alarms.
• For HSE purposes, events can be recorded.
• Data can be recorded for trending purposes.
Portable gas detectors.
Page 9 of 115
Gas detectors that are portable are designed to be worn or fastened to garments. They are a
component of personal protective equipment (PPE) for individuals. This kind of detector
informs the wearer when the target gas level exceeds the safety limits, perhaps saving their
life. They can be used for restricted space entry testing or to screen for potentially dangerous
species that might reach an operator's respiratory zone. Portable gas detectors can keep an eye
out for one gas or up to seven distinct types of gases. They can be pumped or diffusion-based,
depending on the application. In circumstances where a fixed system would be impractical,
portable gas detectors are intended for use.
Most situations will be best served by these 2 gas monitoring systems. Gas detection systems
are highly capable and should be regarded as mandatory when it comes to securing the safety
of personnel and safeguarding equipment. It will be more difficult for an oil and gas company
to compete in this market if these cutting-edge monitoring technologies are not used.
CONCLUSION
The objective of that task was to evaluate the absolute open flow and IPR curve from the given
data as well as to find the suitable gas treatment for the given question. The AOF calculated for
two members is 20.68476 MMscf/d from production and 20.68476 MMscf/d from Madol, used
to derive the IPR curve. Pwf dropped to 0 at maximum flow rate, so on IPR curve table the first
value is 0. Our IPR curve shows that when our pwf is at maximum it is 2967.97 Psia, our traffic
was zero but when pwf drops to 2800 psia the traffic increases dramatically to 20,68476
MMscf/day. Many methods have been used to confirm whether the IPR curve was correct, but
all of them provide similar values with slight differences. The shape of the IPR curve can be
determined by the behaviour and composition of the fluid. Therefore, prosperity is also used
with all used liquid ingredients included, but it also provided the same values. Since the two
IPR curves are similar, the best chosen IPR values are 20.684 MMscf/d which are manually
proven and used profusely. For that task, we have agreed to use a vertical separator using a gas
Page 10 of 115
sweetening process which is an amine sweetening process due to its ability to reduce or
eliminate carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas. Dehydration has also been used. In terms of gas
monitoring, we have chosen to deploy stationary gas detectors that were permanently located
in place to continuously monitor the environment as well as portable gas detectors.
INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT-ARIECH AYOK AGOTH

Evaluation of the Absolute Open flow (AOF) potential and Inflow Performance Relationship
(IPR).
(a). The Absolute Open flow (AOF) potential:
The Absolute Open flow (AOF) potential of a well is defined as the rate with which the well
would produce against the zero-sand face back pressure. The Absolute Open flow (AOF)
potential can be used in the measure of gas well performance due to its strong ability to make
the reservoir to transport the gas to the wellbore. It cannot be measured directly but may be
obtained from the deliverability test. The Deliverability test can be used to predict the flow
rates against any back pressure which include the Absolute Open flow (AOF) with a zero-
back pressure.
Page 11 of 115
Figure 5: Absolute Open Flow.
The result shows an Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) plot that was used to determine
the Absolute Open flow performance (AOF). The gas flow rate in an Absolute Open flow
performance potential can be determined when the bottom-hole pressure is equal to the
atmospheric pressure which in turn influences the productivity and allocation of the gas
wells. Determining the Absolute Open flow (AOF) potential can be time consuming and has
an adverse economic effect.
(b). Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR).
Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) of a well is determined as the connection between the
production rate and the flowing bottom hole pressure.
In oil wells, it is normally assumed that the fluid inflow rate is usually proportional to the
difference between the reservoir pressure and the wellbore pressure. This assumption of the
relationship creates a line relationship which can be derived from Darcy’s law of steady state
flow of a single-phase fluid called the Productivity Index (PI). But this assumption can be
valid above the bubble point pressure. The knowledge of the Inflow Performance
Relationship can be an essential piece of data when evaluating and optimizing the well
performance. In a single-phase oil flow, the production rate is directly proportional to the
pressure drawdown, and this gives the Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) curve a
straight line. There were several empirical relations which have been proposed to predict the
performance of the oil wells with two phase flow conditions but however, these relationships
were empirical and limited in application.
Page 12 of 115
Figure 6: Inflow Performance curve.
The shape of the above curve can be influenced by the reservoir fluid composition and the
characteristics of water molecules in the flow condition. The well’s Absolute Open flow
(AOF) potential is the maximum rate of production in absence of backpressure. Since it
measures the reservoir’s ability to drive gas to the wellbore, then it is applied as gauge for the
gas well performance and used in the plot of the IPR curve.
There are different Deliverability tests which exists, and we will look at a few types in this
assignment.
• Flow-after-Flow test
The method of Flow-after-flow test was reported back around 1929. This method of testing
became subsequently adopted by regulatory bodies in the United States which ended up
becoming a statutory requirement in most states. This testing method was used to influence
deliverability and by extrapolation of the Absolut Open flow potential (AOF). The flow-after-
flow test can sometimes be called gas backpressure which can be conducted by the induction
of the well at a series of various stabilized flow rates while measuring the stabilized Bottom-
hole flowing pressure (BHFP) at the sand face. The various flow rates are created in a series
either with or without a very short intermediate shut-in period. The flow-after flow test was
developed to overcome the limitation of the long testing times required to reach stabilization
at each rate.
Page 13 of 115
Figure 7: Flow-after-flow test.
The stabilized rate and pressure are recorded, and this rate is then changed and the well flows
until the pressure stabilizes again at a new rate. This process is repeated for as much as three,
four or sometimes five rates.
• Isochronal test
The Isochronal test is a sequence of a single point tests which are developed to estimate the
stabilized deliverability characteristics without flowing the well of the time required to
achieve the stabilized conditions. This method of testing makes the well to be produced at a
fixed rate with the flowing periods of equal duration. It can be conducted by alternatively
producing the well and then shutting in the well and allowing it to build to average reservoir
pressure. This well could then be flowed at a second rate for equal length of time.
Page 14 of 115
Figure 8: Isochronal Test.
• Modified isochronal test.
The modified isochronal test has some low-permeability wells and the time required to obtain
stabilized shut-in pressures may be impractical. The Objective of the modified isochronal test
is to gain the same data as an isochronal test doing so without the lengthy shut-in periods
required for pressure to stabilize before each flow test is run. The modified isochronal test
can sometimes be the same as the isochronal test except that shut-in periods separating the
flow periods are equal to or longer than the flow periods. The isochronal tests are modelled
exactly while modified isochronal tests are not. The modified isochronal test is more widely
used because they save time and money and for this have proved to be excellent
approximations to true isochronal tests.
Page 15 of 115
Figure 9: Modified isochronal test.
IPR Curve Determination.

The liquid flow into an oil well generally depends on both the reservoir characteristics and
the sand face flowing pressure. The liquid inflow rate to sand face flowing pressure is called
the Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR). The relationship can be plotted to determine the
well’s flow potential, or this rate can be determined at different flowing sand face pressures.
The process of Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) can be used in the determination of
the deliverability of an oil producing well or a formation.
The following formulas can be used to determine the IPR curve.
𝒍𝒐𝒈(𝒒𝒔𝒄)𝟏*𝒍𝒐𝒈(𝒒𝒔𝒄)𝟓
n=
𝒍𝒐𝒈(𝜟𝑷𝟐)𝟏*𝒍𝒐𝒈(𝜟𝑷𝟐)𝟓
𝒒𝒔𝒄
C= n
(𝜟𝑷𝟐)
qsc (AOF) = c (P2r – Pwf2)n
Where,
Q = Gas flow rate, MMscfd
Page 16 of 115
Pr = Average reservoir pressure, psia
Pwf = Bottom-hole flowing pressure, psia
C = Stabilized Performance coefficient, constant
n = numerical exponent, constant
The data below was given to be used to calculate the results for this assignment.
Figure 10: The given assignment data.

The Original reservoir pressure was given in psig, and we need to convert to psia.
2,953.27 + 14.7 = 2,967.97 psia
Page 17 of 115
Solve for 𝞓p2:
𝞓p2 = PR2 – Pwf2
t, hr Q, Mscf/D Pwf (psia) 𝞓p2 = PR2 – Pwf2 Log (𝞓P)
8221 2602.12 2,037,817.427 6.3092
19922 1855.65 5,365,408.998 6.7296

1 hr
10435 2482.71 2,644,996.977 6.4224
15811 2154.51 4,166,932.581 6.6198
16681 2095.38 4,418,228.577 6.6452
8220 2451.09 2,801,003.733 6.4473
19921 1033.23 7,741,281.688 6.8888

3 hr
10433 2463.95 3,683,376.318 6.5662
15811 1694.83 5,936,397.192 6.7735
16800 1579.85 6,312,919.898 6.8002
8219 2441.72 2,846,849.363 6.4544
19919 892.58 8,012,146.865 6.9037

5 hr
10431 2246.51 3,762,038.741 6.5754
15808 1641.27 6,115,078.708 6.7864
16800 1516.17 6,510,074.452 6.8136
72 hr 18972 790.43 8,184,066.336 6.9129
Table 1: Calculated values for 𝞓p2
From the above table, we can find the numerical exponent n.

𝒍𝒐𝒈(𝒒𝒔𝒄)𝟏*𝒍𝒐𝒈(𝒒𝒔𝒄)𝟓
n=
𝒍𝒐𝒈(𝜟𝑷𝟐)𝟏*𝒍𝒐𝒈(𝜟𝑷𝟐)𝟓
Page 18 of 115
For 1 hr
𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝟖𝟐𝟐𝟏) * 𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝟏𝟔𝟔𝟖𝟏)
n1 = = 0.91
𝟔.𝟑𝟎𝟗𝟐 * 𝟔.𝟔𝟒𝟓𝟐
For 3 hr
𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝟖𝟐𝟐𝟎) * 𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝟏𝟔𝟖𝟎𝟎)
n2 = = 0.88
𝟔.𝟒𝟒𝟕𝟑 * 𝟔.𝟖𝟎𝟎𝟐
For 5 hr
𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝟖𝟐𝟏𝟗) * 𝐥𝐨𝐠(𝟏𝟔𝟖𝟎𝟎)
n3 = = 0.86
𝟔.𝟒𝟓𝟒𝟒 * 𝟔.𝟖𝟏𝟑𝟔
;.<= > ;.?? >;.?@

Average n value = = 0.883
A
Calculating the stabilized Performance Coefficient, C
𝒒𝒔𝒄 𝟏𝟖𝟗𝟕𝟒
C= n C=
(𝟐𝟗𝟔𝟕.𝟗𝟕^𝟐) *(𝟕𝟗𝟎.𝟒𝟑^𝟐)𝟎.𝟓𝟑
= 0.0157
(𝜟𝑷𝟐)
To calculate for Absolute Open flow, the Pwf is zero due to backpressure at the sand face.
qsc (AOF) = c (P2R – Pwf2)n
QSC = 0.0157 (2967.972 – 02)0.883 = 21,294.289 Mscf/d
Page 19 of 115
Pwf (psia) Flow rate (Mscf/d)
2967.97 0
2800 6117.3
2400 11231.4
2000 14299.6
1600 16429.2
1200 17929.3
400 19517.7
0 19708.3
Table 2: IPR Curve.

The above curve was generated from using Excel with Flow rate (Mscf/d) being compared
against the Bottom-hole flow pressure (psi).
Page 20 of 115
PROSPER SOFTWARE.
Around the world, there are numerous oil and gas wells that have not been optimized to
efficiently reach an objective rate. Many might have regularly completed in a way that prevents
them from operating at their optimum possible rate. Oil and gas well production optimization
utilizing well models has helped promote increased production with enhanced completion
methods, efficiency, and many of wells. One of the most crucial components of well analysis
is to provide an acknowledgement of those wells that have the potential to produce at rates
higher than the existing rate.
This initiative focuses on increasing the output of a field around the Malay basin in the south
(Field-X). Involved in this project are three oil production wells.
Three well models have been created by introducing the idea of the Integrated Production
Modelling IPM and using PROSPER. The link between the reservoir and surface models is
well established using PROSPER. The model includes comprehensive descriptions of the
reservoir and vertical lift performance along with all the well's attributes.
To analyse the actual behaviour of the well, it is crucial to make sure the model is accurately
calibrated. The well matching process can be carried out utilizing the well test data after the
well model has been developed. Each component of the production system is then subjected to
a well analysis to ascertain whether it is producing at a lower rate than its maximum potential
rate. An essential prerequisite for well analysis is the ascertain whether it is producing at a
lower rate than its maximum potential rate. The ability to characterize the current well's inflow
performance relationship (IPR) is a prerequisite for well analysis. For a successful study,
accurate well test data must be gathered and the correct IPR model employed.
Page 21 of 115
Evaluation of AOF & IPR
The Prosper software was used to find the accurate reservoir settings for the assignment with
the given data and we were able to find the IPR curve.
Figure 11: System data for the IPR curve.
Page 22 of 115
PVT Data
1hour.
After using the Prosper software to enter different data into the software for the generation of
the curve. The given data for the software included the gas gravity, pressure, temperature,
water salinity which were key factors for the generation of the curve.
Figure 12: PVT Data.

After entering the Reservoir model data with the Extended flow, then we chose multirate C
and N as our pressure and temperature. For this graph, I only included the values for 1 hr only
together with the Extended flow.
Page 23 of 115
Figure 13: The Reservoir Model chosen.
AOF Value with the Extended Flow.
Figure 14: AOF Data.

The Data is verified in the model and computing the reservoir model then the AOF value can
be obtained.
Page 24 of 115
The plot for the IPR curve with the Extended Flow.
Figure 15: IPR curve with the Extended Flow for 1hr.
IPR data from the calculation of results.
Figure 16: Calculation Results for the IPR curve.
Page 25 of 115
3 hours.
The explanation on the steps to obtain the IPR curve are repeated for the 3 hour curve.
Figure 17: System Data for the IPR curve.

After entering the PVT Data for 3 hours.
Figure 18: PVT Data for the Reservoir Model.

The similar data are used in obtaining the IPR curve for 3 hours and then we click on done.
Page 26 of 115
Figure 19: MultiRate data for 3 hr.
The AOF Value for the 3 hr.
Figure 20: AOF Data.
Page 27 of 115
Figure 21: The IPR curve for 3 hrs.
The results are then calculated for the 3 hr curve as shown below.
Figure 22: Calculation results for 3 hrs.
Page 28 of 115
5 hours.
The system Data is entered for the Reservoir model with given data for gas gravity,
temperature, Separator pressure, Condensate Gravity, water salinity, and the acidic gases like
hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide, and Nitrogen.
Figure 23: PVT Data.
Page 29 of 115
Figure 24: multi-rate data for 5 hrs.
The Multi-rate data for the rate (MMscf/day) and the pressure in psig whereby we needed to
subtract 14.7 psia from the original pressures which were given in psia.
Page 30 of 115
The AOF Data for 5hrs.
Figure 25: AOF Data for 5hrs.
Figure 26: IPR Curve for 5hrs.
Page 31 of 115
Figure 27: Calculation results for the 5hrs.
Page 32 of 115
GAS PROCESS SYSTEM.
Natural gas processing is a commercial procedure used to clean up raw natural gas by
removing contaminants, pollutants, and molecular weight hydrocarbons to provide high-
quality dry gas for pipelines. Natural gas goes through a purification procedure to get it ready
for usage, just like oil. The numerous procedures used to isolate natural gas from other
hydrocarbons will be covered in more detail below.
Consumer-grade natural gas differs greatly from that which is brought up to the wellhead
from underground. Even though it is less difficult in many ways than processing and refining
crude oil, processing natural gas is still required before it is used by end customers.
The Separation Process.
A separator is a device used to separate a well stream mixture of Oil/gas/water into its
constituents. The gas liquid separator is used to normally extract and collect the entrained
fluids from natural gas streams.
The oil is where separation begins. The most popular technique makes use of a piece of
machinery called a Conventional Separator, which is situated close to wellheads so it may begin
sorting as soon as natural gas rose to the surface. The process relies on gravity: in a
straightforward, closed tank, heavier oil separates from lighter gas.
Groundwater frequently coexists with natural gas. Following oil separation, a more
challenging process is used to remove the accompanying water. Absorption or adsorption is
involved in the process, depending on how the water condenses. By treating with a membrane
or amine, more enclosed acid gases are eliminated. The two main types of separators are two-
phase and three-phase separators.
Page 33 of 115
3-Phase Gas Separators.
Figure 28: Different types of separators for the Gas Processing system for 3-Phase
separators.
When separating precious resources from non-value ones, oil and gas companies must take
separator vessel design into account.
Different ratios of oil, water, natural gas, and sediment make up produced well fluid. That
emulsion was divided into three separate components using vertical and horizontal three-phase
separators.
Below are the four types of three-phase separators: -
• Horizontal with Overflow Weir

• Horizontal with Oil bucket and Water Weir
• Vertical with Interface control
• Vertical with a Downcomer and Separator
The intake diverter deflects the hydrated fluid stream as it reaches the separator's inlet, which
also lessens its speed. The major (initial) step of separation is at this point.
In the second separation step, which divides the constituents into the lighter and heavier
fractions depending on their specific gravities, the fluid's momentum is decreased by the
increased vessel surface after it has passed the inlet diverter. For instance, water and oil are
separated because they are heavier components. A separator vessel may be oriented vertically
Page 34 of 115
or horizontally, as was previously mentioned. Low gas-oil ratio (GOR) combinations are
perfect for the vertical three-phase separator design because it takes up less room. The ability
to accommodate bigger volume separation and improved efficiency in high GOR separation
are the primary benefits of horizontal separators.
2-Phase Gas Separators.
Figure 29: Two-Phase Gas Separator.

Liquids are extracted from natural gas using a two-stage separator. They come in round,
horizontal, and vertical arrangements. In onshore or offshore oil and gas facilities as well as
petrochemical applications, two-phase separators are frequently employed. In many industrial
facilities, two-phase separators are employed for liquid-liquid or solid-liquid separation.
There are two types of two-phase gas separators.
• Liquid-liquid Separators.
These machines use variations in viscosity, interfacial tension, or specific gravity between
liquid components to divide immiscible liquids into the various fractions.
• Solid-liquid Separators.
These separators use centrifugation, semi-permeable media (such as filters and membranes)
or settling to separate solid particles from liquids. The size disparities between the mixture's
solid and liquid molecules serve as the separation principle.
Page 35 of 115
Chosen Design for the Gas processing system.
The primary output of natural gas processing is to produce pure natural gas. Prior to being
bought and sold, unwanted components including H2S, CO2, N2, and water vapor are
eliminated. Simply defined, cleaning and removing contaminants is what natural gas
processing is all about. Acid gas separation, water vapor removal, and heavy hydrocarbon
separation are all steps in the processing of natural gas.
Amine Process.
The term "amine treatment" refers to a group of processes used to remove acid gases from
process streams, such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide, using solvents. It is extensively
used in gas plants and refineries to improve safety, prevent corrosion, and adhere to
environmental norms. A typical amine unit consists of an absorber, a regenerator, and any
additional equipment that is required. A process gas stream is first sent via the absorber, where
H2S and CO2 are eliminated by the "lean" solvent. Before transferring the newly "rich" solvent
to a flare or a sulphur recovery plant, the regenerator eliminates the acid gases.
Figure 30: Amine process.
Page 36 of 115
INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT-MOHAMED BAKRI OSMAN ABDEMAGED-
TP058786
INTRODUCTION
Natural gas, a valuable fuel source, is made up of several components, including methane,
ethane, propane, and trace amounts of acid gases like hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and carbon
dioxide (CO2). Because of their corrosive and harmful properties, these acid gases must be
removed from the final gas product through a process known as sweetening.
Figure: Sweetening process
The removal of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2) from the gas itself is known
as sweetening. Both H2S and CO2 accelerate pipe corrosion by generating acids in the presence
of water and can cause stress cracking.
To sweeten natural gas, H2S and CO2 are reduced or removed in a contractor using an amine
scrubbing procedure. Natural gas having a higher amount of H2S travels via a device called a
contactor, where sulfur compounds in the gas are absorbed by an amine solution. The
contractor is fueled by "sweet" natural gas with low H2S levels.
Accurate tracking of H2S and CO2 concentrations in the sweetness process is necessary at both
the intake and exit of the amine contactor. These tests ensure that both impurities are within
Page 37 of 115
the tariff or contract limit prior to natural gas transit through pipeline and optimize the
sweetening methods.
A competent natural gas sweetening system is essential in the natural gas processing industry
because it efficiently eliminates acid gases from the raw gas stream. This method improves
worker safety, protects the environment, reduces corrosion, and yields a high-quality
commercial natural gas product. Engineers and operators may provide an efficient but cost-
effective solution to acid gas separation by selecting the appropriate sweetening process and
optimizing system design, so contributing to the continued use of natural gas as a clean and
vital energy source.
OBJECTIVES
The goal of this project is to demonstrate an appropriate natural gas sweetening system
for acid gas separation.
Inflow Performance Relationship
t, hr’s q, MMscf/D (Pwf), psia (Pwf), psig

1 8.221 2602.12 2587.42
1 19.922 1855.65 1840.95
1 10.435 2482.71 2468.01
1 15.811 2154.51 2139.81
1 16.681 2095.38 2080.68
72 18.974 790.43 775.73
3 8.220 2451.09 2436.39
3 19.921 1033.23 1018.53
3 10.433 2263.95 2249.25
3 15.810 1694.83 1680.13
3 16.680 1579.85 1565.15
72 18.974 790.43 775.73
5 8.219 2441.72 2427.02
5 19.919 892.58 877.88
5 10.431 2246.51 2231.81
5 15.808 1641.27 1626.47
5 16.680 1516.17 1501.47
Page 38 of 115
72 18.974 790.43 775.73
Table 1: Inflow Performance Relationship table (Pisa, Pisg)
Evaluation for AOF & IPR FOR 1 Hour:
Using the software program Prosper, you will be able to find the most accurate reservoir setting
for your project by first adding the system data and then selecting the kind of fluid description
and well data.
Figure: 2 system data
After entering the PVT data:
After entering PVT data such as gas gravity, pressure, water salinity, and other information
such as reservoir data. Pressure-Volume-Temperature data is critical in gas engineering and
plays a critical role in understanding and analyzing natural gas behavior under various
situations.
Page 39 of 115
Figure 3 : PVT data
After verifying the Reservoir Model data without the Extended Flow: Because we had various
data points and temporal differences, we choose to mutilate C and N, as well as intern the
reservoir pressure and temperature. I also input the reservoir model for the first hour without
the Extended Flow.
Figure 4 Reservoir model data
Page 40 of 115
AOF VALUSE without the Extended Flow:
Figure 5: AOF data
After verifying the reservoir model and computing the reservoir model, the AOF value is
obtained.
The highest flow rate of gas from a reservoir or wellbore under natural circumstances, without
any constraints or surface backpressure, is referred to as AOF (Absolute Open Flow). It aids in
calculating a reservoir's production potential.
The plot for the IPR value without the Extended Flow:
Page 41 of 115
After including the Extended Flow:
The maximum flow rate of gas at reservoir conditions is represented by the AOF. This figure
is useful in determining total gas production potential and pipeline capacity.
IPR CURVE AFTER INCLDING Extended Flow:
Engineers may determine the well's "reservoir limit" by analyzing the IPR plot, which is the
maximum rate at which the well can produce without experiencing significant pressure
drawdown. It is also useful in determining the optimal artificial lift system.
When the extended flow is included in the IPR analysis, it indicates that the curve takes into
account the reservoir's potential to transport fluids to the wellbore beyond the well's present
production rate.
Page 42 of 115
When the extended flow is omitted from the IPR analysis, the curve only evaluates the inflow
performance based on the reservoir's natural capacity to transport fluids to the wellbore. Any
extra external assistance or recharge is ignored in this instance.
The IPR curve may represent a more cautious production scenario, implying that greater
production rates based only on the reservoir's inherent capacity may not be viable.
IPR data after including the Extended Flow:
IPR data that been optioned from the AOF, and the other data inserted.
Page 43 of 115
Page 44 of 115
You can consider the above explanation for the first hour, for the text 3 and hours.
Page 45 of 115
After validating the Reservoir Model data without the Extended Flow:
Page 46 of 115
IPR data before including the Extended Flow:
After including the Extended Flow:
IPR PLOT AFTER INCLUDING THE EXTEND FLOW.
Page 47 of 115
IPR DATA AFTER INCLING THE IPR DATA:
Page 48 of 115
After validating the Reservoir Model data without the Extended Flow:
Page 49 of 115
The plot for the IPR value without the Extended Flow:
Page 50 of 115
IPR calculation results:
AOF VALUSE after the Extended Flow:
IPR CURVE AFTER INCLDING Extended Flow:
Page 51 of 115
IPR data after including the Extended Flow:
Page 52 of 115
Gas Processing Systems
Natural gas processing is a complicated industrial purification technology that is applied to raw
natural gas after it has been recovered from a well. Purifying the extracted natural gas requires
processing.
The goals of gas processing are:
1. To generate transportable gas
2. ready to fulfil certain sales standards (pipeline grade dry natural gas)
3. Increase liquid recovery.
Page 53 of 115
Several critical procedures engage in natural gas processing to eliminate contaminants and
produce pipeline-quality dry gas. Here is a synopsis of the procedure:
1. Large Particle Removal:
Scrubbers remove substantial pollutants such as sand, and heaters keep the temperature above
a specific level.
2. Separation of Oil, Condensate, and Water:
Oil, gas, and water are separated. The resultant gas, known as sour gas, may still include
Sulphur, which can cause pipeline damage.
3. Removal of Sulphur and Carbon Dioxide:
Sulphur and carbon dioxide are removed from natural gas to avoid corrosion and increase
quality.
4. Natural Gas Liquids Separation:

Natural gas liquids recovery entails extracting hydrocarbons other than methane, such as
propane, butane, and ethane, which have a variety of lucrative applications.
Gas processing systems increase the value of natural gas resources, offering a clean and diverse
energy source for consumers and industry across the world. They play an important role in the
natural gas supply chain, guaranteeing the effective and safe use of this precious energy
resource.
Page 54 of 115
Gas Composition Analysis:
Analyze the gas composition to identify its constituents, which may include methane, ethane,
propane, butane, and other contaminants such as CO2, H2S, and water vapor. This study aids
in the design of appropriate separation and purification methods.
Component Wt%
H2S 1.62
CO2 2.43
N2 2.05
H2O 3.83
Methane 81.01
Ethane 4.19
Propane 2.90
i-Butane 1.09
n-Butane 0.44
i-Pentane 0.11
Hexanes 0.09
Heptanes Plus 0.24
1. Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) Removal: Process: Sweetening Gas Description: Hydrogen

sulphide is a corrosive and dangerous gas that must be eliminated. In a gas sweetening unit,
amine-based solutions or other chemical absorbents are often used to sweeten the gas.
2. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Removal: Process: CO2 Removal and Gas Dehydration Carbon
dioxide is generally removed using a gas dehydration unit that employs molecular sieves or
glycol to eliminate both water vapour and CO2.
3. Water Vapour (H2O) Removal: Process: Dehydration of Gas A gas dehydration unit removes
water vapour from the gas stream by applying molecular sieves, glycol, or membrane
technology.
4. Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs) Separation: Process: Distillation and fractionation The gas can
be fractionated or distilled to separate the NGLs, which include ethane, propane, i-butane, n-
Page 55 of 115
butane, i-pentane, hexanes, and heptane's plus. These beneficial components can be employed
as feedstock in a variety of petrochemical processes.
5. Methane Enrichment: Method: Separation of Methane If higher-purity methane is desired,

further separation can be performed to increase the methane concentration in the gas stream.
1. 1-Hour Data:
Given Gas Composition (wt%):
• H2S: 1.62%
• CO2: 2.43%
• N2: 2.05%
• H2O: 3.83%
• Methane: 81.01%
• Ethane: 4.19%
• Propane: 2.90%
• i-Butane: 1.09%
• n-Butane: 0.44%
• i-Pentane: 0.11%
• Hexanes: 0.09%
• Heptane’s Plus: 0.24%
Step 1: Convert weight percentages to mole fractions.

Mole fraction (Xi) = (Weight fraction (Wi) / Molar weight of component) * 100
Molar weights:
• H2S: 34.08 g/mol
• CO2: 44.01 g/mol
• N2: 28.02 g/mol
• H2O: 18.02 g/mol
• Methane: 16.04 g/mol
• Ethane: 30.07 g/mol
Page 56 of 115
• Propane: 44.10 g/mol
• i-Butane: 58.12 g/mol
• n-Butane: 58.12 g/mol
• i-Pentane: 72.15 g/mol
• Hexanes: 86.18 g/mol
• Heptanes Plus: Assumed as C7+ hydrocarbons, so we will not include it in this analysis.
Calculations:
• X_H2S = (1.62 / 34.08) * 100 ≈ 0.00476
• X_CO2 = (2.43 / 44.01) * 100 ≈ 0.00552
• X_N2 = (2.05 / 28.02) * 100 ≈ 0.00731
• X_H2O = (3.83 / 18.02) * 100 ≈ 0.02126
• X_Methane = (81.01 / 16.04) * 100 ≈ 50.50
• X_Ethane = (4.19 / 30.07) * 100 ≈ 0.01394
• X_Propane = (2.90 / 44.10) * 100 ≈ 0.00657
• X_i-Butane = (1.09 / 58.12) * 100 ≈ 0.00188
• X_n-Butane = (0.44 / 58.12) * 100 ≈ 0.00076
• X_i-Pentane = (0.11 / 72.15) * 100 ≈ 0.00015
• X_Hexanes = (0.09 / 86.18) * 100 ≈ 0.00010
Step 2: Calculate the mole fraction of hydrocarbons.
X_C1-C4+ = X_Methane + X_Ethane + X_Propane + X_i-Butane + X_n-Butane

X_C1-C4+ ≈ 50.50 + 0.01394 + 0.00657 + 0.00188 + 0.00076 ≈ 50.53
Step 3: Determine the nitrogen (N2) mole fraction.
X_N2 ≈ 0.00731
Step 4: Determine the carbon dioxide (CO2) mole fraction.
Page 57 of 115
X_CO2 ≈ 0.00552
Step 5: Determine the hydrogen sulphide (H2S) mole fraction.
X_H2S ≈ 0.00476
Step 6: Determine the water vapour (H2O) mole fraction.
X_H2O ≈ 0.02126
Step 7: Calculate the mole fraction of other components (C5+ hydrocarbons and Heptanes
Plus).
X_Others = 1 - (X_C1-C4+ + X_N2 + X_CO2 + X_H2S + X_H2O)
X_Others ≈ 1 - (50.53 + 0.00731 + 0.00552 + 0.00476 + 0.02126) ≈ 0.91062
Gas Composition (Mole Fractions) for 1-Hour Data:

• Methane (C1): ≈ 50.53%
• Ethane (C2): ≈ 0.01394%
• Propane (C3): ≈ 0.00657%
• i-Butane (C4): ≈ 0.00188%
• n-Butane (C4): ≈ 0.00076%
• Nitrogen (N2): ≈ 0.00731%
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2): ≈ 0.00552%
• Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S): ≈ 0.00476%
• Water Vapor (H2O): ≈ 0.02126%
• Other Hydrocarbons (C5+): ≈ 0.91062%
2.
The gas composition reveals that the bulk of the gas is methane (C1), with large amounts
of other hydrocarbons (C5+) and tiny amounts of ethane, propane, i-butane, n-butane,
nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, and water vapour.
Page 58 of 115
2. Process Design:
Separation by Absorption:
• A appropriate liquid solvent, such as amine, can be utilised to selectively absorb H2S and
CO2 from the gas mixture during the absorption process. In an absorption column, the gas
stream with the specified composition will come into contact with the liquid amine. The amine
will preferentially absorb H2S and CO2, leaving the purified methane-rich gas in the column's
overhead.
Step 2: Absorbent regeneration
• The H2S and CO2-containing amine is then transferred to a regeneration unit, where the
absorbed impurities are removed from the amine, allowing it to be recycled back to the
absorption column.
Distillation-based separation:
Step 3: Hydrocarbon Fractionation
• Following the absorption stage, the filtered gas will be distilled to remove any remaining
hydrocarbons (ethane, propane, i-butane, n-butane, i-pentane, hexanes, and other higher
hydrocarbons). To get a more refined methane stream, the hydrocarbons will be fractionated
depending on their boiling points.
• The distillation column will have numerous trays or packing material that will facilitate the
separation of various hydrocarbon components based on their vapor-liquid equilibrium.
Page 59 of 115
• Methane (C1) has the lowest boiling point and will be collected as the above product, whilst
higher hydrocarbons will be collected at various points of the column.
• The distillation column's bottom product will contain heavier hydrocarbons (C5+), which can
be further treated or sold separately.
The combined absorption and distillation process will yield a purified methane stream with
fewer contaminants, namely H2S, CO2, and other higher hydrocarbons.
3. Safety and Environmental Considerations:
Ensure that all safety and environmental requirements are followed. Implement safety
precautions while handling flammable or toxic components such as H2S.
The following are some of the potential environmental consequences of natural gas processing:
1. Emissions from the atmosphere
Leaks in tubing, valves, connections, flanges, packings, open-ended lines, floating roof storage
tank, pump, and compressor seals; gas conveyance systems, pressure relief valves, tanks or
open pits / containments, and hydrocarbon loading and unloading operations are all sources of
fugitive emissions in natural gas processing facilities. The major sources of concern and
pollutants include volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from storage tanks during
filling and tank breathing; floating roof seals in the event of floating roof storage tanks; and
Regularly monitoring fugitive emissions from pipelines, valves, seals, tanks, and other
infrastructure components with vapour detection equipment, as well as prioritised repair or
replacement of components, can help to avoid and regulate fugitive emissions.
1. Process wastewater and other wastewaters that may include dissolved hydrocarbons,
oxygenated chemicals, and other pollutants
Amines spilled from the carbon dioxide alkaline removal system downstream of the
Gasification Unit should be collected into a dedicated closed drain system and recycled back
into the process after filtration, provided the amine was not contaminated as a result of being
spilled and/or collected.
Page 60 of 115
1. Wastes Industrial wastes mostly consist of depleted molecular sieves from the air separation
unit, as well as household wastes. Office and packing trash, building rubble, and scrap metal
are examples of non-hazardous waste.
1. Noise
Large rotating equipment (e.g., compressors, turbines, pumps, electric motors, air coolers, and
fired heaters) are the primary sources of noise in natural gas processing plants. High noise
levels can be created during emergency depressurization due to the discharge of high-pressure
gases to flare and/or steam release into the atmosphere.
Process Safety
Because of industry-specific characteristics such as complicated chemical processes, the usage
of hazardous materials (e.g., poisonous, reactive, flammable, or explosive compounds), and
multi-step reactions, process safety programs should be developed. The following actions are
included in process safety management:
1. Material and response physical hazard testing.
2. Hazard analysis investigations, including thermodynamics and kinetics, to assess process

chemistry and engineering practises.
3. Inspected preventative maintenance and mechanical integrity of process equipment and

utilities.
3. Employee education
Fire and Explosions Fire and explosion hazards
Process processes may result in the unintentional emission of Syngas (including carbon
monoxide and hydrogen), oxygen, and methanol. High-pressure Syn-gas emissions may result
in "Jet Fires" or a Vapour Cloud Explosion (VCE), "Fireball," or "Flash Fire," depending on
the amount of combustible material involved and the degree of cloud confinement. Even in the
absence of ignition sources, hydrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide gases can ignite if their
Page 61 of 115
temperatures surpass their auto-ignition points of 500°C, 580°C, and 609°C, respectively.
Spills of flammable liquids might result in "Pool Fires."
4. Flow and Pressure Considerations:
Create a system that can manage the projected flow rate and pressure of the gas. Consider the
pressure drop across various components and make sure the system can tolerate changes in gas
flow and pressure.
Gas gravity 0.737

Reservoir pressure 2953.27
Reservoir temperature 60
1-hour AOF 25.8594
C 0.20528
N 0.7344
1 hour data
Points Gas rate MMscf/day Pressure psig Temperature deg F

1 0.000 2952.83 60.00
2 1.361 2925.78 59.65
3 2.722 2882.81 59.10
4 4.083 2830.12 58.41
5 5.444 2769.36 57.61
6 6.805 2701.23 56.69
7 8.166 2626.01 55.68
8 9.527 2543.67 54.54
9 10.888 2453.99 53.29
10 12.249 2356.53 51.89
11 13.610 2250.61 50.34
12 14.971 2135.28 48.61
13 16.332 2009.19 46.65
14 17.693 1870.44 44.42
15 19.054 1716.22 41.82
16 20.415 1542.15 38.72
17 21.776 1340.85 34.87
18 23. 137 1097.88 26.86
19 24.498 776.05 20.00
20 25.859 1.64 20.00
Page 62 of 115
1 hour
Gas gravity 0.737

Reservoir temperature 60
3-hour AOF 21.601
C 0.22684
N 0.71699
3 Hour data

1 0.000 2951.63 60.00
2 1.138 2928.10 59.68
3 2.277 2887.70 59.16
4 3.415 2873.34 58.50
5 4.553 2778.67 57.73
6 5.692 2712.40 56.85
7 6.830 2638.78 55.85
8 7.968 2557.82 54.74
9 9.106 2469.27 53.50
10 10.245 2372.70 52.13
11 11.383 2267.42 50.59
12 12.521 2152.49 48.87
13 13.660 2026.53 46.93
14 14.798 1887.61 44.70
15 15.936 1732.88 42.11
16 17.075 1557.93 39.01
17 18.213 1355.25 35.16
18 19.351 1110.23 27.19
19 20.490 785.18 20.00
20 21.628 1.79 20.00
3 Hours data
Gas gravity 0.737

Reservoir 60
temperature
Page 63 of 115
3-hour AOF 21.6221
C 0.049531
N 0.81213
5 Hour data

1 0.000 2951.53 60.00
2 1.138 2912.75 59.49
3 2.276 2858.26 58.78
4 2.414 2795.08 57.03
5 4.552 2650.47 56.01
6 5.690 2568.89 54.90
7 6.828 2481.26 53.67
8 7.966 2387.32 52.34
9 9.104 2286.61 50.88
10 10.242 2178.48 49.27
11 11.380 2061.99 47.48
12 12.518 1935.86 45.49
13 13.656 1798.25 43.22
14 14.794 1646.51 40.61
15 15.932 1476.49 37.50
16 17.070 1281.20 31.43
17 18.208 1046.95 25.49
18 19.346 1046.95 25.49
19 20.484 738.50 20.00
20 21.622 1.39 20.00
5 hours data
1. 1-Hour Data:
• Gas Rate: The gas rate begins at 0 MMscf/day and slowly climbs to 25.8594 MMscf/day at
the 20th data point. This statistic indicates the rate of gas flow over a one-hour period.
Page 64 of 115
• Pressure: The pressure begins at 2952.83 psig and rapidly falls as we progress through the
data points. The pressure decline is discernible, particularly near the conclusion of the data set.
• Temperature: Throughout the 1-hour data, the temperature remains constant at 60°F.
2. 3-Hour Data:
• Gas Rate: At the 20th data point, the gas rate rises from 0 MMscf/day to 21.601 MMscf/day.
This data set shows the gas flow rate during a three-hour period.
• Pressure: The pressure begins at 2951.63 psig and progressively declines as we progress
through the data points, showing a considerable pressure reduction.
• Temperature: Throughout the 3-hour period, the temperature remains constant at 60°F.
3. 5-Hour Data:
• Gas Rate: At the 20th data point, the gas rate rises from 0 MMscf/day to 21.6221 MMscf/day.
This data set depicts the rate of gas flow over a 5-hour period.
• Pressure: The pressure begins at 2951.53 psig and progressively falls, comparable to the 3-
hour data, showing a significant pressure reduction over time.
• Temperature: Throughout the 5-hour period, the temperature remains constant at 60°F.
• For all three data sets, the gas gravity remains constant at 0.737, suggesting that the gas
composition remains steady.
Page 65 of 115
• The reservoir pressure for all data sets is 2952.83 psig, indicating that the pressure decrease
is caused by the movement of gas through the well and production system.
• For all data sets, the reservoir temperature is 60°F, suggesting that the temperature does not
fluctuate over the production period.
Pipeline Design:
To construct a pipeline system, we must calculate the pressure drop:
To compute the pressure, drop (psig) at various sites along the pipeline path, first determine the
pressure difference between successive points. By subtracting the pressure at one position from
the pressure at the previous point, the pressure drop is computed. The pressure decrease for the
1-hour, 3-hour, and 5-hour data may be calculated as follows:
1 hour’s data
Points Gas rate Pressure Temperature

1 0.000 2952.83 60.00
2 1.361 2952.83 59.65
3 2.722 2925.78 59.10
4 4.083 2882.81 58.41
5 5.444 2830.12 57.61
To calculate the pressure, drop for the 1-hour data:
Pressure Drop (Point 2 to Point 1) = Pressure at Point 2 - Pressure at Point 1 = 2925.78 psig -
2952.83 psig ≈ -27.05 psig
Page 66 of 115
Pressure Drop (Point 3 to Point 2) = Pressure at Point 3 - Pressure at Point 2 = 2882.81 psig -
2925.78 psig ≈ -42.97 psig
3 hours data
1 0.000 2951.63 60.00
2 1.138 2928.10 59.68
3 2.277 2887.70 59.16
4 3.415 2873.34 58.50
5 4.553 2778.67 57.73
5 Hours data:
1 0.000 2951.53 60.00
2 1.138 2912.75 59.49
3 2.276 2858.26 58.78
4 2.414 2795.08 57.03
5 4.552 2650.47 56.01
The specified gas composition is made up of numerous components; assess the impact of these
gas compositions on the pipeline:
1. Methane (C1) - 50.53%: Methane is the most abundant component of the gas mixture,
accounting for roughly 50.53% of the overall gas composition. It is the most valuable
component for energy generation since it is the main hydrocarbon. Methane has low boiling
and freezing temperatures, making it ideal for pipeline transmission.
2. Ethane (C2) - 0.01394%: Ethane is a small component in the gas mixture, accounting for
around 0.01394% of the total. It is also a valuable hydrocarbon that is utilised in petrochemical
operations as a feedstock. Even though its concentration is minimal, it must be addressed
during gas processing.
Page 67 of 115
3. Propane (C3) - 0.00657%: Propane is found in trace levels, around 0.00657%. It, like ethane,
is used in a variety of industrial applications, including heating and cooking, as well as as a
petrochemical feedstock.
4. i-Butane (C4) and n-Butane (C4) - 0.00188% and 0.00076%: The gas mixture also contains
trace quantities of isobutane (i-Butane) and n-butane (regular butane). These components are
used to produce LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) for a variety of domestic and industrial
applications.
5. Nitrogen (N2) - 0.00731%: Nitrogen is an inert component that contributes nothing to the
gas's energy content. Its presence in natural gas is undesirable since it can reduce energy content
and cause pipeline operating concerns.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 0.00552%: Carbon dioxide is another non-combustible component

that lowers the gas's energy content. It can also cause pipeline corrosion and must be eliminated
during gas processing.
7. Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) - 0.00476%: Hydrogen sulfide is a poisonous and extremely

corrosive component that can be hazardous to one's health. Its presence in natural gas
necessitates treatment and removal to ensure safety.
Overall, the gas composition shows that methane makes up the bulk of the gas, with
considerable levels of other hydrocarbons (C5+). There are also trace quantities of ethane,
propane, i-butane, n-butane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, and water vapour.
Impurities such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, and water vapour can impair
pipeline operation, increase corrosion, and reduce the heating value of the gas. To fulfil
safety, environmental, and contractual requirements, gas processing and treatment are
required prior to delivering the gas through pipelines.
Continuous Improvement:
Underestimating the needs of your process might result in delayed output or accidental
shutdowns. Overestimation of process requirements might result in the squandering of precious
capital.
Page 68 of 115
MAPPING OF VALUE STREAM
When it comes to process optimization, a value stream map might be a useful tool. The
movement of materials and information as a product or service passes through the value stream
is depicted by a value stream map. It encompasses all of the actions necessary to create a
product or service. You may make value stream maps that depict your existing process or the
process you want to have in the future.
An example of a value stream map for an oil refinery process is shown above. A high-level
view might be used to identify widespread inefficiencies. To boost productivity, you might
also go deeper into a certain process, such as refining or distribution.
FUEL FOR REFINING
By eliminating hazardous contaminants and increasing combustion dependability, refining

and processing lessen the environmental effect of oil and gas-derived fuels. Refineries and
processing plants, on the other hand, have their own environmental implications, with
matching methods for mitigating those problems.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is present in various amounts in natural gas and is removed at processing
plants to enhance gas quality. The majority of this CO2 is released into the atmosphere,
accounting for around 0.4% of total US greenhouse gas emissions (methane leaks from the
natural gas production and distribution chain are estimated to account for approximately 3% of
US emissions).19 A few gas processing plants collect the CO2 extracted from natural gas
during processing and inject it into oil fields to improve oil recovery.
Page 69 of 115
DISCUSSION
Gas processing systems are critical components of the natural gas industry because they purify
the raw natural gas produced from wells. The process of gas sweetening, in particular, is critical
for eliminating acid gases from the gas stream, such as hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and carbon
dioxide (CO2). Because of their caustic and dangerous qualities, these acid gases are
undesirable in the final natural gas product.
The primary goals of gas processing are to generate transportable gas that fulfils certain sales
criteria, such as pipeline-quality dry natural gas, as well as to maximise liquid recovery. The
removal of big particles, oil, condensate, and water from the natural gas is followed by the
removal of sulphur and carbon dioxide. Furthermore, natural gas liquids (NGLs) are separated,
allowing important components such as propane, butane, and ethane to be recovered.
The gas composition study is critical in this context for constructing an efficient gas processing
system. The data on natural gas composition presented exposes the existence of several
components such as methane, ethane, propane, butane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen
sulphide, and water vapour. The major component, methane, has the largest proportion, with
the other components present in trace levels.
An adequate process design is required to successfully extract pollutants from natural gas. This
is usually accomplished by absorption and distillation operations. A appropriate liquid solvent,
such as amine, is utilised in the absorption process to selectively absorb H2S and CO2 from
the gas mixture. In the regeneration unit, the absorbed contaminants are removed from the
solvent.
Following the absorption stage, the gas is distilled to separate the hydrocarbons depending on
their boiling points. This technique separates methane and other useful hydrocarbons while
collecting heavier hydrocarbons (C5+) as waste.
In gas processing systems, safety and environmental concerns are crucial, especially when
handling dangerous and combustible components like H2S. Measures including fugitive
emission monitoring, wastewater treatment, and waste management are critical for
guaranteeing regulatory compliance while minimising environmental effect.
Page 70 of 115
The given well test data, which includes gas flows, pressures, and temperatures over time, is
critical for pipeline design. Understanding the pressure drop along the pipeline route is essential
for evaluating the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the predicted flow rate and pressure
changes.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, natural gas processing is critical for removing pollutants, producing
transportable gas, and maximizing liquid recovery. The sweetening process contributes to
worker safety, environmental protection, corrosion prevention, and the production of high-
quality commercial natural gas. Proper sweetening system selection and optimisation help to
the continued use of natural gas as a clean and important energy source. Pressure drop estimates
throughout the route, as well as gas composition factors, are critical for pipeline design to
guarantee efficient and safe gas delivery.
INDIVIDUA COMPONENT- OMAR MAHMOUD SHEHATA HUSSEIN
Introduction
The removal of pollutants like carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S) from raw
natural gas is a crucial step in the gas industry. These pollutants put people in danger, damage
tools, and lower the gas's market worth. Petrol quality is improved by sweetening, making it
more secure for use, distribution, and transportation. It minimises the effects on the
environment while ensuring the safety of the workforce and the people around it. It lowers
maintenance costs and maintains uninterrupted gas flow by enhancing pipeline integrity.
Depending on the gas composition and project needs, several techniques such amine-based
procedures and physical solvent processes are applied. Since natural gas is a major energy
source used around the world, natural gas sweetening is essential to preserving a sustainable
and effective energy environment.
Page 71 of 115
(AOF) AND (IPR) EXPLANATION
The effective movement of hydrocarbons from reservoirs to the surface is crucial for the
extraction of oil and gas. The Absolute Open Flow (AOF) and the Inflow Performance
Relationship (IPR) are two key ideas that are vital to comprehending and optimising this
process. These ideas serve as the cornerstone of reservoir engineering, guiding engineers and
operators in their decision-making to maximise output and thereby raise the total productivity
of oil and gas wells.
The Absolute Open Flow, or AOF for short, is a hypothetical situation in which a reservoir's
size is supposed to be limitless and it is not
subject to any pressure restrictions. In this ideal
scenario, there are no restrictions imposed on the
well's ability to flow by nearby formations or
wellbore circumstances. The AOF is a vital
benchmark because it gives engineers knowledge
of the reservoir's inherent productivity and acts as a point of comparison for assessing the
well's actual performance under practical restrictions.
Page 72 of 115
A vital tool in reservoir engineering, the Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) describes the
flow of fluids (oil, gas, or both) from the reservoir into the wellbore under actual operating
circumstances. The relationship between the
well's production rate and the flowing
bottomhole pressure (BHP) is fundamentally
depicted by this performance curve. The IPR
is calculated by considering a number of
factors, including fluid properties, well
completion, and reservoir characteristics.
Engineers may learn a lot about the
behaviour of the reservoir at various production rates and pressure differentials by charting
the IPR. This makes it easier to choose the best production tactics and to determine the well's
ideal production rate.
AOF and IPR work in concert since AOF establishes the theoretical maximum productivity
while IPR determines the well's actual performance within the bounds of realistic operating
circumstances. Reservoir engineers and production teams can control reservoir depletion,
optimise well output, and improve total oil and gas recovery from subsurface formations by
comprehending the relationship between these two ideas.
The industry can unleash the full potential of oil and gas reservoirs by understanding the
principles of Absolute Open Flow and Inflow Performance Relationship, assuring a reliable
and efficient energy supply in the future.
Objective
The objective of this assignment is to exemplify a suitable natural gas sweetening system for
acid gases separation based on a given engineering problem.
Page 73 of 115
GIVEN DATA
Page 74 of 115
Page 75 of 115
(AOF) EVALUATION
• For Time one Hour

Time, hrs q, MMscf/D (pwf), Psia
1 8.221 2602.12
1 19.922 1855.65
1 10.435 2482.71
1 15.811 2154.51
1 16.681 1516.17
Page 76 of 115
3 8.220 2451.09
3 19.921 1033.23
3 10.433 2263.95
3 15.810 1694.83
3 16.680 1579.85
Page 77 of 115
5 8.219 2441.72
5 19.919 892.58
5 10.431 2246.51
5 15.808 1641.27
5 16.680 1516.17
Page 78 of 115
IPR CURVE
• For %me = 1 hr
Page 79 of 115
• For %me = 3 hr
Page 80 of 115
• For %me = 5 hr
Page 81 of 115
DISCUSSION
Summary of the report, that time = 3hr and =5hr the calculations that I made for them to get
the c, n and AOF are the same as getting them and plotting them using the prosper software.
But on the other side one anomaly appeared which is time = 1hr data are almost exact but my
calculations are a little bit far from prosper, and this may happen due to approximating
numbers
Appropriate gas process
Systems for treating and processing natural gas and other hydrocarbon gases to eliminate
contaminants and extract valuable components are known as gas processing systems.
Methane, ethane, propane, butane, and other trace components are among the impurities and
hydrocarbons that are present in natural gas when it is extracted from the ground.
Gas processing systems' main objectives are:
Removal of impurities: Water vapour, sulphur compounds, carbon dioxide, and other trace
components are some of the most common pollutants found in natural gas. To adhere to
quality standards and prevent equipment corrosion or inefficiencies, these contaminants must
be eliminated.
Natural gas includes rich hydrocarbon components including ethane, propane, and butane that
may be processed further and separated for use in a variety of applications, such as
petrochemical feedstock and the creation of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).
Temperature and pressure control: High pressures and low temperatures are frequently used
in the production of natural gas. To ensure safe and effective gas distribution and
transportation, gas processing systems may modify temperature and pressure.
A typical gas processing system might have the following parts:
Page 82 of 115
• Inlet separators: To take out heavy debris and liquids that aren't in the way of the gas
flow.
• Compression units: To raise the gas pressure so that it may be transported via pipes more
easily.
• Dehydration units: To eliminate water vapour, avoiding corrosion and the development of
hydrates.
• Sweetening Units: To get rid of poisonous and corrosive sulphur compounds like
hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and others.
• Natural gas liquids including butane, ethane, and propane may be extracted using NGL
(Natural Gas Liquids) Recovery Units.
• Fractionation Units: To divide up NGL constituent parts into distinct products according
to their boiling points.
• Tail Gas Treatment Units: To handle the waste products and make sure environmental
requirements are followed.
Sulphur Recovery Units: These units are used to transform processed sulphur compounds into
elemental sulphur, which has a marketable value.
The make-up of the raw natural gas and the expected products determine the structure and
complexity of a gas processing system. Gas processing systems are essential for maximising
the recovery of important components for diverse industrial uses while ensuring that natural
gas is safe for consumption and transportation.
Gas Composition Analysis:
Identify the components of the gas by analysing its composition. These components may
include methane, ethane, propane, butane, and other pollutants including CO2, H2S, and
water vapour. The creation of suitable separation and purification techniques is aided by this
study.
Removal of Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S): Gas sweetening procedure It is necessary to get rid of
the hazardous and corrosive gas known as hydrogen sulphide. In a gas sweetening unit, the
gas is frequently sweetened using amine-based solutions or other chemical absorbents.
Page 83 of 115
Removal of Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Process: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Gas Dehydration
Typically, dioxide is eliminated with the use of a gas dehydration unit that makes use of
molecular sieves or Glycol is used to remove CO2 and water vapour.
Removal of Water Vapour (H2O) Gas dehydration process A gas dehydration unit uses
molecular sieves, glycol, or membrane technologies to remove water vapour from the gas
stream. NGLs, or natural gas liquids Separation: Method: Fractionation and distillation To
separate the NGLs, which include ethane, propane, i-butane, butane, i-pentane, hexanes, and
heptane's plus, the gas can be fractionated or distillate. These advantageous elements can be
used as feedstock in several different petrochemical processes.
Acid gas removal process
A crucial and essential step in the processing of natural gas and hydrocarbon gas is the acid
gas removal procedure. Although plentiful and profitable, natural gas frequently contains
unfavourable acid gases such carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen sulphide (H2S), which
provide serious operational, environmental, and safety risks. These acid gases make the gas
corrosive, poisonous, and less calorific, which makes it less useful for commercial purposes.
By removing certain acid gases from the gas stream, the sweetening procedure—also known
as the acid gas removal procedure—is created with the intention of resolving these
difficulties. In addition to improving the safety of gas transportation, distribution, and
utilisation, the elimination of these corrosive and toxic components also assures compliance
with environmental laws and requirements for product quality.
For effective acid gas removal, a wide range of cutting-edge techniques and technologies
have been created over the years, each one specifically designed to meet the unique
requirements of the gas stream and the intended product characteristics. The removal of
acidic gases has progressed from chemical absorption using specialised solvents to physical
adsorption and membrane technologies, becoming a flexible and scalable solution for the gas
sector.
This introduction will go into further detail on the numerous techniques and technologies
used in the acid gas removal process, the importance of each technique, and the factors to be
considered when choosing the best strategy based on the particular gas compositions and
operational needs. We may better comprehend its function in ensuring the secure, effective,
Page 84 of 115
and ecologically responsible use of natural gas resources by delving into the details of this
key gas processing phase.
ADVANTAGES
• Safety Improvement: The handling, transportation, and use of natural gas are all made
much safer by the elimination of acid gases, particularly hydrogen sulphide (H2S). H2S
must be eliminated in order to safeguard employees and the general public because it is
extremely hazardous and can cause serious health hazards for people.
• Preventing corrosion: Acid gases like H2S and CO2 can lead to corrosion in equipment,
storage facilities, and pipelines, resulting in costly infrastructure damage and repairs. By
minimising corrosion problems, acid gas removal increases equipment longevity and
lowers maintenance costs.
• Environmental Compliance: Since the discharge of acid gases into the atmosphere can
result in air pollution and have a negative influence on the environment, their removal is
crucial for adhering to environmental standards. Gas processing plants can adhere to
emission limits and lessen their environmental impact by eliminating these gases.
Page 85 of 115
• Increased Calorific Value: The energy content of natural gas is decreased by the presence
of acid gases, which results in a reduced calorific value. The calorific value of the gas is
improved by eliminating acid gases, making it more effective for use in power generation
and other purposes.
• Product Quality Improvement: The elimination of acid gas guarantees that the finished
natural gas product satisfies quality requirements and industry standards. For a variety of
commercial and residential uses, high-purity natural gas is preferred, and acid gas
removal can help with this.
• Resource Utilisation: By removing acid gases, it is possible to recover and use valuable
gas stream constituents like sulphur. The elemental sulphur produced by sulphur recovery
machines can be sold or utilised in other businesses.
DISADVANTAGES
• Energy Use: Certain acid gas removal procedures call for energy-consuming processes
like compression and heating, which may raise the total energy use in gas processing
plants.
• Cost: Especially for large-scale gas processing plants, installing acid gas removal systems
can result in considerable capital and operating expenses. The process's cost-effectiveness
is influenced by variables such the gas composition, level of operation, and local laws.
• Use and regeneration of solvents and adsorbents are necessary for several acid gas
removal techniques, such as chemical absorption using specialised solvents or physical
adsorption using adsorbents. These materials can also require frequent regeneration or
replacement, raising the cost of operation.
Page 86 of 115
• Complexity and Upkeep: Acid gas removal devices are complex systems that need trained
staff to operate and maintain. To guarantee optimum performance and dependability,
routine monitoring, troubleshooting, and maintenance are required.
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Regeneration or disposal of old solvents or adsorbents for

acid gas removal procedures may occasionally result in greenhouse gas emissions,
increasing the carbon footprint of the gas processing facility.
• Selectivity and Gas Composition: Depending on the particular gas composition, the
efficiency of acid gas removal methods may vary. The existence of additional impurities
or pollutants may have an impact on the process efficiency, and certain procedures may
be more selective for particular acid gases.
In conclusion, despite certain drawbacks, the acid gas removal process' benefits—such as
increased safety, higher product quality, and adherence to environmental standards—make it
an essential stage in the processing of natural gas. To maximise the advantages while
controlling costs and environmental factors, it is essential to choose the right acid gas
removal technology based on the gas composition and operating needs.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Depending on several variables, including the precise technique employed, the effectiveness
of the procedure, and the management of waste and byproducts, the acid gas removal process
can have both favourable and unfavourable effects on the environment. The following are
some ways that the removal of acid gas may have an impact on the environment:
o Positive effects on the environment
• Air Quality Improvement: When natural gas is burnt for energy, the removal of acid gases
like hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2) helps minimise hazardous
Page 87 of 115
emissions. As acid gases can result in the creation of acid rain and air pollution, this helps
to enhance air quality.
• Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions: When natural gas is utilised as a lower-carbon

energy source in comparison to coal or oil, the acid gas removal process can assist reduce
total greenhouse gas emissions by eliminating CO2, a greenhouse gas, from the gas
stream.
• Sulphur Recovery: When sulphur is present in acid gases, the sulphur recovery process
converts the eliminated sulphur compounds into elemental sulphur.
o Negative Environmental Effects:

• Chemical Solvent employ: To collect acid gases, certain acid gas removal techniques
employ chemical solvents or physical adsorbents. There may be linked environmental
effects from the manufacture, delivery, and disposal of these substances, such as the
production of trash and carbon emissions.
• Energy Consumption: Some acid gas removal techniques, such amine-based absorption,
can be energy-intensive since they also need energy for solvent regeneration,
compression, and heating. If more energy is consumed and comes from fossil fuels, this
can increase greenhouse gas emissions.
• Waste Production: To avoid contaminating the environment, waste products from the
regeneration of chemical solvents or the disposal of used adsorbents may be produced.
• Potential Emissions During Regeneration: Regeneration of chemical solvents has the

potential to emit trace quantities of volatile chemicals and acid gases into the
environment, causing air pollution.
Page 88 of 115
• Water Use and Disposal: Some acid gas removal techniques may use water to recover
solvents or even as part of the actual procedure. To prevent water pollution, the discharge
of wastewater or polluted water needs to be properly treated and disposed away.
• Accidents involving the environment: In a small number of instances, accidents or

inappropriate functioning of acid gas removal units may result in the discharge of acid
gases into the environment, having an influence on the surrounding environment and
posing threats to human health and safety.
Gas processing facilities utilise a variety of techniques, such as process energy efficiency
optimisation, the use of low-emission solvents or adsorbents, responsible waste management,
and adherence to stringent environmental standards, to lessen the negative environmental
effects of acid gas removal. Additionally, technological and scientific developments keep
enhancing acid gas removal procedures' environmental performance. In order to detect and
solve any environmental problems throughout the gas processing processes, accurate
environmental impact assessments and monitoring are essential.
SAFETY
When properly built, operated, and maintained, the acid gas removal procedure is usually
regarded as safe. Several safety procedures are put in place at gas processing plants to
safeguard the environment, the employees, and the general public. To ensure a safe working
environment, possible hazards must be handled, just as with any industrial operation. The
following are some safety precautions and procedures related to the removal of acid gas:
• Acid gases, particularly hydrogen sulphide (H2S), are extremely poisonous and
provide serious health concerns to people. High H2S concentrations can cause
breathing problems, unconsciousness, and even death. To safeguard employees from
possible exposure, gas processing plants must adhere to tight regulations for gas
monitoring, ventilation, and personal protective equipment (PPE).
Page 89 of 115
• Management of Corrosion: The presence of acid gases can cause equipment and pipes
to corrode. To reduce the risk of equipment failure and leaks, proper material
selection, corrosion monitoring, and preventative maintenance are necessary.
• Fire and Explosion Risks: Some acid gas removal techniques call for the use of
combustible materials such flammable solvents. To avoid possible fire or explosion
threats, adequate fire protection measures are essential, such as spark detection
systems and fire suppression equipment.
• Process Upsets: The efficiency and safety of the acid gas removal process can be
impacted by process upheavals, such as abrupt changes in gas composition or flow
rates. To properly handle process upsets, automatic shutdown mechanisms, pressure
relief equipment, and emergency response procedures are put into place.
• Chemical handling and storage: To avoid spills, leaks, and exposure to dangerous
chemicals while employing chemical solvents to remove acid gas, adequate handling,
storage, and containment procedures are crucial.
• Management of Pressure and Temperature: The removal of acid gas may require high
pressures and temperatures. To prevent possible risks, pressure vessels, relief systems,
and temperature controls must be designed and operated properly.
• Emergency Response Plans: To address possible incidents and safeguard staff, nearby
communities, and the environment, gas processing plants must have well-developed
emergency response plans in place.
• Safety Training and Procedures: To make sure that workers, including process
operators, maintenance staff, and other staff, are aware of the hazards and safety
Page 90 of 115
precautions related to the acid gas removal process, comprehensive training
programmes are essential.
• Compliance with Regulations: Keeping a safe working environment requires adhering

to government and industry standards for health, safety, and environmental protection.
Gas processing facilities may make sure that the process for removing acid gases operates in
a safe and dependable manner by following stringent safety regulations, conducting frequent
risk assessments, and putting in place the necessary safety precautions. To reduce hazards and
improve the process' overall safety, continuous monitoring, regular inspections, and a strong
safety culture are essential.
CONCLUSION
For reservoir engineers and production teams, using Prosper software to calculate the
Absolute Open Flow (AOF) in oil and gas wells is a strong and essential tool. Advanced
reservoir simulation capabilities provided by Prosper software allow for precise estimates of
well performance under varied operating circumstances.
Engineers may model the movement of hydrocarbons from the reservoir to the surface by
entering pertinent reservoir data and well parameters into Prosper and accounting for
elements like wellbore design, reservoir pressure, and fluid characteristics. The programme
then simulates the behaviour of the well to provide information about the AOF, which is the
theoretical maximum flow rate possible from an unlimited reservoir with no constraints.
For numerous reasons, being able to compute the AOF is essential. First, it acts as a
benchmark for evaluating a well's present production performance and identifying areas for
improvement. Second, it assists in successfully regulating reservoir depletion while
optimising well design and production tactics to maximise output.
Engineers may improve well productivity, devise effective reservoir management plans, and
ultimately optimise hydrocarbon recovery by utilising Prosper's powerful simulation
capabilities. Prosper's intuitive interface and potent analytical tools make it a valuable asset
Page 91 of 115
for the oil and gas sector and considerably aid in the effective and sustainable extraction of
essential energy resources.
INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT- MADOL MADOL ATAK

INTRODUCTION
Inflow Performance
The Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) refers to the reservoir's ability to produce gas or
oil to the wellbore. It was essential for forecasting future production and making decisions
related to tubular sizes and water production. The IPR curve was created using data obtained
from production rates measured under various drawdown pressures. The curve's shape on the
IPR graph was influenced by the behaviour and composition of fluids within the well under
flowing conditions. Determining the IPR curve helped understand gas production against zero
backpressure, known as the Absolute Open Flow (AOF) potential of the well. Deliverability
tests, such as flow-after-flow, isochronal, and modified isochronal tests, were used to measure
production rates and assess the well's capacity under specific conditions, including reservoir
pressure and bottom hole flowing pressure.
Figure 31.Inflow performance relationship curv
Page 92 of 115
Flow – After – Flow Test.
In Gas Engineering, the flow-after-flow method, also known as the deliverability test, was
employed to generate the gas well curve. That test, sometimes referred to as four-point or back
pressure test, involved producing the well at various stabilized flow rates and measuring the
stabilized BHFP (Bottom Hole Flowing Pressure) at the sand face. Each test was conducted at
a different flow rate, either with or without a short intermediate shut-in period. The main
purpose of this test is to overcome the limitation of long testing times required to reach
stabilization at each rate. Throughout the test, the stabilized rate and pressure were recorded as
the well's flow rate was changed, and the pressure was observed to stabilize again at each new
rate. This process was repeated multiple times, typically three to four or more, with pressure
recorded at each instance.
Figure 32.Flow - after - flow testing
Isochronal Test
That was a gas engineering procedure involving a series of single-point tests. The goal was to
predict the stabilized deliverability properties of a well at various production rates. The test
Page 93 of 115
involved alternating between producing the well and shutting it in to allow for pressure build-
up before moving to the next production phase. Pressure measurements were taken at different
time increments during each flow period. The test aimed to achieve stabilized flow at each flow
rate, with shorter time intervals used to reach initial pressure after a short flow phase. For the
isochronal test, the final stabilized flow point was typically obtained at the end of the testing
process, mainly conducted in low permeability formations.
Figure 33.Isochronal test
Modified Isochronal test.

In gas engineering, the modified isochronal test was similar to the regular isochronal test,
except for the shut-in flow periods, that were equal to or longer than the flow periods. That test
was specifically conducted for low-permeability wells. In situations where achieving a stable
shut-in pressure for a prolonged period was impractical, the modified isochronal test was
employed. The objective was to obtain the same data as the isochronal test without the need
for lengthy shut-in periods to stabilize pressure before conducting the flow test. Unlike the
isochronal test, the modified version was not modelled. It was widely used in the oil and gas
Page 94 of 115
industry due to its time-saving nature and cost-effectiveness, while providing more accurate
and reliable test results compared to the tradi3onal isochronal test. The ﬁgure below
illustrated the modiﬁed isochronal test, showing pressure against 3me.
Figure 34.Modified Isochronal test.
Page 95 of 115
Calculation Part for IPR Curve.
In that section, the IPR curve would be generated by using Prosper software and excel was
used manually, therefore the curve would be compared to the best IPR curve gotten. The
following information was used to get the IPR curve, and that table was extracted from the
assignment question paper in APPENDIX A. However, they were four laboratory tests been
tested in that case.
Table 3.Well test data
The above well test data would be reorganized, and adjustments would be applied. The initial
reservoir pressure was given in Psig, so it needed to be converted to Psia by adding 14.7,
resulting in 2953.27 Psig = 2967.97 Psia. Also, the unit for MMscf/D would be replaced with
Mscf/D in the table.
Page 96 of 115
T, hours q, MMscf/D (pwf), psia DP2 = (PR2 – Pwf2) Log(DP2 )
1 8221 2602.12 2037817.43 6.309
3 8220 2451.09 2801003.73 6.447
5 8219 2441.72 2846849.36 6.454
1 19922 1855.65 5365408.10 6.730
3 19921 1033.23 7741281.69 6.889
5 19919 892.58 8012146.87 6.904
1 10435 2482.71 2644996.98 6.422
3 10433 2263.95 3683376.32 6.566
5 10431 2246.51 3762038.74 6.575
1 15811 2154.51 4166932.59 6.620
3 15810 1694.83 5936397.19 6.774
5 15808 1641.27 6115078.71 6.786
1 16681 2095.38 4418228.58 6.645
3 16680 1579.85 6312919.90 6.800
5 16680 1516.17 6510074.45 6.814
Page 97 of 115
Extended Flow Point
72 18974 790.43 8184066.34 6.913
Table 4.Modified well test data.
After the graph was found, thus an absolute open flow (AOF) was calculated however the value
for deliverability exponent (n) and flow coefficient (c) was gotten first.
The equation indicated below was used to calculate for n:
n = log (qsc )1 – log(qsc)5

log(DP2)1 – log(DP2)5
n at 1hr.
n1 = log (8221) – log (16681)
(6.309) – (6.645)
n1 = 0.91
n at 3hrs, n3 = log (8220) – log (16680)
(6.447) – (6.800)
n3 = 0.87
Page 98 of 115
n at 5hrs, n5 = log (8219) – log (16680)
(6.454 – 6.814)
n5 = 0.85
Average, n = n1+ n3+ n5
Total number of tests
= 0.91+ 0.87+ 0.85
Average, n = 0.53
When the value of n was found, therefore the value of c was then found by use of the formula
shown below.
C = qsc
(DP2) n
C = 18974
(2967.97 2 - 790.432)0.53
= 0.016MMscf/d
Page 99 of 115
Deliverability equation
Qsc (AOF) – C (Pr2 – Pwf2)n
When pwf = 0
Qsc (AOF) = 0.016(2967.97 2 - 02)0.88
Qsc (AOF) = 20684.676Mscf/d
Qsc (AOF) = 20.684676 MMscf
(Pwf), psia Qsc(mscf/d)
2967.97 0
2800 6117.3
2600 9098
2400 11231.4
2200 12916.2
2000 14299.6
1800 15456
1600 16429.2
1400 17247.2
1200 17929.3
1000 18489
800 18936
600 19277.2
400 19517.7
200 19660.8
0 19708.3
Table 5.A Pwf, (psia) Vs Qsc (Mscf/d)
Page 100 of 115

Figure 35. A Scatter graph representing a IPR Curve for the above data.
Prosper Software:
Prosper Software is a leading technology company that specializes in providing advanced

software solutions tailored to the gas engineering industry. With a focus on optimizing well
performance and production, our cutting-edge software includes essential features such as the
Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) curve analysis.
In gas engineering, the IPR curve was a critical tool used to assess the well's flow performance
and productivity potential. Understanding the relationship between reservoir pressure and
production rate was crucial for efficient reservoir management and decision-making. Prosper
Software's innovative approach to IPR curve analysis empowered engineers and industry
professionals to gain valuable insights into well behaviour, predict reservoir performance, and
optimize production strategies.
Page 101 of 115

Our software not only offered a user-friendly interface for generating IPR curves but also
incorporates sophisticated algorithms and modelling techniques to ensure accuracy and
reliability. By integrating reservoir data and fluid properties, our solutions provide
comprehensive analyses that aid in well performance evaluation and production optimization.
At Prosper Software, we recognized the importance of intellectual property rights in the gas
engineering domain. Our commitment to IPR protection ensures that our software solutions are
built on original concepts and innovations, adhering to relevant patents and copyrights. We
invest significant efforts in research and development to stay at the forefront of technological
advancements and continuously improve our software's capabilities.
By leveraging the power of IPR curve analysis through Prosper Software, gas engineering
professionals could make informed decisions, maximize reservoir potential, and enhance
overall production efficiency. As the industry continues to evolve, we remain dedicated to
upholding IPR principles, fostering innovation, and contributing to the progress of gas
engineering practices worldwide.
The lack of values resulted in certain assumptions being added to the software. The PVT value
was entered, and the formulae were used to determine c and n.
Page 102 of 115

Figure 36. System Summary
In the system summary, on the fluid description, fluid was only changed to dry and wet gas but
the of the data remained same as seen from the above.
Figure 37.PVT Data
Page 103 of 115

In the PVT data analysis, Well characteristics, sampling conditions and bottom gas composition
were all placed such that to obtain accurate values for the different AOFs, C and N for the well
test data as shown from the above.
Figure 38.PVT. Input Data
For time = 1hr
Figure 39.Reservoir model data for t1
When the data was put in the reservoir model data with extended flow for the time 1, we then
proceeded to get the AOF, C and N on the IPR flow graph.
Page 104 of 115

Figure 40. AOF Calculation Result for time, t1hr
For time = 1hr
Figure 41. IPR Curve for time 1 included extended flow.
The AOF, C and N that is 25.856 (MMscf/day), 0.20534MSCF/day/psi2) and 0.73433

respectively was obtained from the IPR curve.
Page 105 of 115

Figure 42.IPR calculation results for time, t1hr.
IPR Curve for time = 3hr
Figure 43.IPR Curve for time, t3 with extended flow
Page 106 of 115

Figure 44. AOF Calculation Result for time, t3hr
Figure 45. IPR calculations for time, t3hr
Page 107 of 115

IPR Curve for time = 5hr
Figure 46. IPR Curve for time, t5hr with extended flow.
Figure 47.AOF Calculation for time, t5hr with extended flow
Page 108 of 115

Figure 48.IPR Calculations Result for Time, t5hr.
DISCUSSION.
Some of the assignment data had to be input into flourish before we could see our findings.
Setting up the system overview was the first step in collecting our findings. The mixture of a
dry and wet gas has been separated using the equation of state approach. The reservoir statistics
and composition, with a temperature of 60F, were included after the system overview. Next
was the equipment, that included the downhole apparatus, the geothermal gradient, and the
deviation survey. Each figure display was all entered values. My average heat capacity was set
to default.
With a reservoir pressure of 2953.27 psig and a reservoir temperature of 60F, I had built the
IPR Curves using the AOF, c and n approach for different times that is t1(AOF) was
25.856(MMscf/day), t3(AOF) was 20.329 (MMscf/day) and t5(AOF) was 21.600(MMscf/day)
GAS SEPARATION SYSTEM.

A Gas Separation System in gas engineering is a process that aimed to separate different
components present in a gas mixture. It became crucial in some industrial processes, such as
the treatment of steam from coal-fired power plants, especially in the removal of carbon dioxide
to reduce the greenhouse effect. There was also growing interest in other applications for
Page 109 of 115

example the separation and purification of commercially important gases that is H2, CH4 and
O2 from natural gas. It utilized various techniques to achieve that separation, such as:
1. Absorption: A technique where certain gas components were absorbed into a liquid solvent
while leaving the rest of the gas mixture unaffected.
2. Adsorption: This method involved the adherence of specific gas components to a solid
surface, while other gases pass through.
3. Distillation: A process that relied on the differences in boiling points of the gas components
to separate them through vaporization and condensation.
4. Membrane Separation: Used semipermeable membranes to selectively allow certain gas

components to pass through while retaining others.
5. Cryogenic Separation: A technique that involved cooling the gas mixture to extremely low
temperatures to condense and separate different components based on their boiling points.
6. Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA): Involved altering the pressure to adsorb certain gas
components on an adsorbent material, then releasing the pressure to desorb and separate them.
Gas Separation Systems were crucial in various industries, such as natural gas processing,
petrochemicals, air separation for industrial gases, and biogas purification, among others.
Those systems play a vital role in obtaining high-purity gases and meeting specific product
specifications and environmental regulations.
Page 110 of 115

Additionally, Gas and liquid were separated in the tank or vessel during this operation. That
process primarily helped in separating gas from liquid, gas from entrained liquid, gas from
liquid mist, and gas from separated liquid vessel. That separation could be carried out in three
different methods, such as using vertical, spherical, and horizontal (single tube/double tube)
separators. Operating pressure, temperature, and fluid composition were elements that have an
impact on the separation processing system. The amount of gas and liquid leaving the separator
could be influenced by any of those variables.
The input separator is the first piece of machinery that the gas travels through. It might be
standalone or on smaller pieces attached to the bottom of the contactor. Before a gas reached a
contactor, an inlet separates any condensed liquid from the gas. If the gas does not include
condensate (liquid hydrocarbons), the tank or vessel was thought of as a two-phase separator.
However, if the gas was rich and minimal condensate with liquid water was present at the intake
conditions of pressure and temperature, then a three-phase separator was used.
Liquid, water, and condensate must all enter or flow through the absorber. Water dump valves
assist in releasing water from the vessel to maintain water-interface height when the gas and
liquid in the separator heat up. In the event of a liquid overflow in the vessel, oil dump vales
aid in the release of oil. Gas rose above the separator and passes through a mist extractor to
remove any vapour before entering a back pressure control valve. The vessel pressure was
maintained as a result.
Figure 49. Different types of separators.
Page 111 of 115

When the gas volume is minimal, the ideal separation method to apply in that situation was
vertical separation. Additionally, vertical separators were more efficient than horizontal
separators. Compared to horizontal separators, they were simpler to clean. Compared to
horizontal separators, the likelihood of removing the particles inside the vessel was higher.
GAS SWEETENING.
Gas sweetening was a crucial process in gas engineering that involved removing impurities,
especially acidic gases like hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and carbon dioxide (CO2), from natural
gas streams. The presence of these acidic gases could be harmful, corrosive, and reduce the
heating value of the gas. There were several ways to carry out that procedure, but its efficiency,
size, and operational costs should always come first. The gas sweetening process typically
followed those steps such as absorption, stripping, recycling, tail gas treatment and the purified
natural gas. The gas sweetening process played a vital role in ensuring the quality and safety
of natural gas for widespread use.
MEMBRANE SEPARATION.
Membrane separations are used to separate biological macromolecules, colloids, ions, solvents,
and gases. These advanced filtering techniques, also known as membrane processes, make use
of the separability of thin polymeric or inorganic films in a range of industrial processes.
The membrane separation of carbon dioxide from natural gas depends on the permeability and
selectivity of the membrane. the amount of carbon dioxide in the feed stream, any special
separation needs, and the location of the facility.
Figure 50.Membrane Separation.
Page 112 of 115

DEHYDRATION
It was the process used to remove or remove water vapor from natural gas. For gas-producing
seams, steam accounts for most of the oil-producing seams. Natural gas dehydration was done
because liquid water and natural gas could turn into solid hydrates, just like ice can form and
potentially clog pipes and equipment. contain liquids that are more corrosive and could led to
corrosion or blockage of pipes, impeding gas transport. Glycol and solid desiccant was one of
the most widely used natural gas dehydration processes. Glycol was one of the methods used
to remove fine mist (water) from natural gas. That process helped prevent pipe corrosion due
to water being removed from the natural gas. Solid desiccant was also another commonly used
method and it helped to adsorb water from natural gas. Common adsorbents were silica gel,
silica beads, activated alumina, molecular sieve, etc. The specifications for these adsorbents
are the same except that the molecular sieve is different because it requires a higher
regeneration temperature. The process involves two containers or vessels filled with granular
desiccant filler material for the drying of the gas. Solid desiccant would be used as the
appropriate method due to its efficiency ratio compared to other methods.
Figure 51. Dehydration.
Page 113 of 115

CRYOGENIC EXPANSION PROCESS
That was another process used to separate natural gas from hydrocarbons such as H2O and
CO2. That process has many advantages, such as eliminating the need to refill certain acidic
gases, limiting the generation of unwanted sulphur and reducing greenhouse gas emissions into
the environment.
Figure 52.Cryogenic Expansion Process
Page 114 of 115

REFERENCES
www.ametekpi.com. (n.d.). Natural gas sweetening. [online] Available at:

https://www.ametekpi.com/industries/natural-gas/sweetening [Accessed 27 Jul. 2023].
Fluid Handling Pro. (n.d.). Gas Processing Archives. [online] Available at:
https://fluidhandlingpro.com/gas-processing/.
www.horiba.com. (n.d.). Oil Refinery |Improving Efficiency and Process Management -

HORIBA. [online] Available at: https://www.horiba.com/bra/process-and-
environmental/industries/oil-refinery/.
Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines NATURAL GAS PROCESSING

Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Natural Gas Processing. (2007). Available
at: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/zh/798641487225722929/pdf/112798-WP-
ENGLISH-Natural-Gas-Processing-PUBLIC.pdf [Accessed 27 Jul. 2023].
Rudy, K. (n.d.). Why Continuous Improvement is Crucial for the Oil and Gas Sector. [online]
blog.minitab.com. Available at: https://blog.minitab.com/en/continuous-improvement-oil-gas.
Page 115 of 115

Group Assignment G.E

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group Assignment G.E

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASIA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY

OF TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION

1. ARIECH AYOK AGOTH-TP057726

2. MADOL MADOL ATAK-TP056450

3. MOHAMED BAKRI OSMAN ABDEMAGED-TP058786

Figure 1:Best IPR Curve from Excel. .................................................................................................... 6

CHOSEN IPR CURVE FROM EXCEL.

Qsc (AOF) = 0.016(2967.972 – 02) = 20684.676 Mscf/day

Qsc (AOF) = 20.684676 MMscf/day.

Figure 2: Best IPR Curve from the Prosper software.

Figure 3: The best chosen 3-phase gas separator.

Figure 4: Desiccant dehydration process.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR THE GAS PROCESS SYSTEM.

Fixed gas detector monitoring system.

• The environment is continuously observed 24 hours a day.

Portable gas detectors.

INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT-ARIECH AYOK AGOTH

(b). Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR).

• Modified isochronal test.

IPR Curve Determination.

The following formulas can be used to determine the IPR curve.

qsc (AOF) = c (P2r – Pwf2)n

Q = Gas flow rate, MMscfd

Pwf = Bottom-hole flowing pressure, psia

C = Stabilized Performance coefficient, constant

n = numerical exponent, constant

Figure 10: The given assignment data.

t, hr Q, Mscf/D Pwf (psia) 𝞓p2 = PR2 – Pwf2 Log (𝞓P)

8221 2602.12 2,037,817.427 6.3092

19922 1855.65 5,365,408.998 6.7296

15811 2154.51 4,166,932.581 6.6198

16681 2095.38 4,418,228.577 6.6452

8220 2451.09 2,801,003.733 6.4473

19921 1033.23 7,741,281.688 6.8888

15811 1694.83 5,936,397.192 6.7735

16800 1579.85 6,312,919.898 6.8002

8219 2441.72 2,846,849.363 6.4544

19919 892.58 8,012,146.865 6.9037

15808 1641.27 6,115,078.708 6.7864

16800 1516.17 6,510,074.452 6.8136

72 hr 18972 790.43 8,184,066.336 6.9129

Table 1: Calculated values for 𝞓p2

From the above table, we can find the numerical exponent n.

;.<= > ;.?? >;.?@

Calculating the stabilized Performance Coefficient, C

qsc (AOF) = c (P2R – Pwf2)n

QSC = 0.0157 (2967.972 – 02)0.883 = 21,294.289 Mscf/d

Table 2: IPR Curve.

Figure 11: System data for the IPR curve.

Figure 12: PVT Data.

Figure 14: AOF Data.

Figure 16: Calculation Results for the IPR curve.

Figure 17: System Data for the IPR curve.

Figure 18: PVT Data for the Reservoir Model.

The AOF Value for the 3 hr.

Figure 20: AOF Data.

Figure 22: Calculation results for 3 hrs.

Figure 23: PVT Data.

Figure 25: AOF Data for 5hrs.

Figure 26: IPR Curve for 5hrs.

The Separation Process.

Below are the four types of three-phase separators: -

• Horizontal with Overflow Weir