Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LPG characterization and production quantication for oil and gas reservoirs
Baosheng Liang a, *, Sriram Balasubramanian a, Ben Wang b, Anping Yang b,1, Daniel Kennedy b, Viet Le b,
Joey Legaspi b, Jonathan Southern b
a
b
Chevron Energy Technology Company, 1500 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX 77002, United States
Chevron Global Upstream and Gas Company, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 27 December 2009
Received in revised form
24 July 2010
Accepted 2 August 2010
Liqueed petroleum gas (LPG) refers to the gas extracted and liqueed from the separator gas in a processing plant and mainly consists of propane (C3) and butane (C4). Many offshore projects have
restrictions on aring gases and special scal terms make extracted liquids signicantly more valuable
than oil and condensate in some cases, which in turn impact the economics of many projects.
This paper for the rst time systematically investigates LPG characterization and production quantication coupled together with reservoir simulation. Detailed calculations of LPG yields from both gas cap
and solution gas are given. LPG yield of uid is a function of the initial gaseoil ratio (GOR), gas specic
gravity, and separator condition: LPG yield, which is lower in the gas cap compared to the solution gas of
the same reservoir, has a good correlation with gas specic gravity and is impacted by separator
conditions.
The concept of LPG-produced GOR correlation curve is introduced and applied together with gas
production rate to predict LPG production. Correlation curves depend on reservoir uid properties and
development strategies. Generated from ashing the mixtures of different proportions of oil and gas
samples, LPG-produced GOR correlation curve has a good agreement with the results from reservoir
compositional simulation and can be coupled with various forecasting tools in reservoir engineering.
Lean gas injection has an insignicant impact on LPG recovery but can substantially improve the recovery
of total liquid (oil and condensate). The paper also shows that lumping C3 and C4 as one pseudocomponent is suitable.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
LPG characterization
LPG-produced GOR correlation curve
LPG yield in gas cap and solution gas
LPG in place and production quantication
Reservoir simulation
1. Introduction
Gas processing is a critical step in the natural gas value chain
(Hubbard, 2009). Hartell and Greenwald (2009) nicely summarized and analyzed liquid and gas production and export options,
risks and costs in deepwater. Many offshore projects have
restrictions on aring gases and hence it becomes imperative to
extract liquids to justify additional processing plant costs. There
are special scal terms in some countries that even make the
liquids in the gases signicantly more valuable than oil and
condensate that in turn impact the economics of many projects.
For example, Ogwo et al. (2007) gave a number of scal incentives by the Nigerian government in appendix B and table B1 in
their paper; the Angolan government is taking efforts to end gas
aring (EIA, 2010) and provides a tax incentive to treat LPG and
B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252
Table 1
PVT Properties of Rich Condensate, Volatile Oil and Intermediate Backoil Samples
(Two-Stage Separator: 135 psia and 150 F; 25 psia and 164 F).
Reservoir A
Fluid type
Reservoir temperature, F
Psat, psia
Solution GOR, scf/STB
Condensate yield, bbl/MMscf
Reservoir uid density at Psat, g/cc
API gravity
In-situ saturation density, psi/ft
1st stage separator gas gravity
Bgi, RB/MMscf
Boi, RB/STB
C1 mole fraction
C2 mole fraction
C3 mole fraction
C4 mole fraction
C5 mole fraction
C6 mole fraction
C7 mole fraction
C8e10 mol fraction
C10 mole fraction
C10 molecular weight
Reservoir B
Fluid type
Reservoir temperature, F
Psat, psia
Solution GOR, scf/STB
Reservoir uid density at Psat, g/cc
API gravity
In-situ saturation density, psi/ft
1st stage separator gas gravity
Boi, RB/STB
C1 mole fraction
C2 mole fraction
C3 mole fraction
C4 mole fraction
C5 mole fraction
C6 mole fraction
C7 mole fraction
C8e9 mol fraction
C10 mole fraction
C10 molecular weight
Gas cap
condensate gas
305
6185
9138
109
0.298
49.7
0.135
0.685
0.76
e
0.782
0.0636
0.0339
0.0205
0.0119
0.0072
0.0091
0.0379
0.0339
205
Gas cap sample
Gas
180
2753
174074
e
58.2
e
e
e
0.8717
0.0652
0.0317
0.0132
0.0051
0.0028
0.0014
0.0008
0.0014
203
Oil band
volatile oil
306
5870
1323
e
0.585
34.11
0.253
0.683
e
1.8
0.5841
0.0621
0.0380
0.0260
0.0161
0.0107
0.0162
0.0539
0.1929
274
245
C1, C2
Vapor Fraction
V1 = 0.7212
LNG Plant
LPG Plant
Vapor Fraction
V2 = 0.0572
Oil or
Wet Gas
C5+
1st Stage
Separator
Stock Tank Oil
or Condensate
Wellbore
Fig. 1. Schematic of LPG process for oil band in Reservoir A.
C3, C4
LPG
246
B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252
Table 2
LPG Yield Calculation Using a Separator Condition in Reservoir A Oil Band (Two-Stage Separator: 135 psia and 150 F; 25 psia and 164 F).
Component
Molecular
Weight (M)
Mole Fraction
in Vapor (y)
Liquid
Sp. gravity
LPG*
bbl/MMscf
LPG Recovery
Efciency
LPG Recovery
bbl/MMscf
0.507
0.563
0.584
29.49
6.61
12.32
0.90
0.99
0.99
26.55
6.54
12.20
Total 45.3
0.507
0.563
0.584
98.53
29.20
58.31
0.90
0.99
0.99
88.68
28.91
57.73
Total 175.3
conditions in this paper refer to 135 psia and 150 F for the rst stage
and 25 psia and 164 F for the second one, respectively. Al-Ameeri
(1981) assumed 100% LPG plant efciencies and directly converted
all the C3 and C4 from separator gases to LPG products. For more
practicability, the general rule of thumb for plant recovery efciencies is 5e25% for ethane, 80e90% for propane, 95% or more for
butane and 100% for heavier components (McCain, 1990). Based on
our eld operations, recovery efciencies used in this paper for C3
and C4 are 90% and 99%, respectively.
The compositions of the liquid and gas samples are obtained
from PVT analysis and LPG yield is then calculated from each
sample. Detailed in Tables 2 and 3, LPG yields in Reservoir A oil
band (i.e., solution gas) and gas cap (i.e., free gas) are 48 bbl/MMscf
and 36 bbl/MMscf, respectively. Similarly, LPG yield calculations for
oil and gas samples (91 bbl/MMscf and 36 bbl/MMscf) in Reservoir
B are provided in Tables 4 and 5. When the uid from Reservoir A oil
zone is ashed to the separator conditions and LPG is extracted
from the separator gas, LPG yield of the oil zone uid (solution gas
Table 3
LPG Yield Calculation Using a Separator Condition in Reservoir A Gas Cap (Two-Stage Separator: 135 psia and 150 F; 25 psia and 164 F).
Component
Molecular
Weight (M)
Mole Fraction
in Vapor (y)
Liquid
Sp. gravity
LPG*
bbl/MMscf
LPG Recovery
Efciency
LPG Recovery
bbl/MMscf
0.507
0.563
0.584
22.65
5.44
9.94
0.90
0.99
0.99
20.38
5.38
9.84
Total 35.6
0.507
0.563
0.584
74.10
23.73
46.69
0.90
0.99
0.99
66.69
23.50
46.23
Total 136.4
B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252
247
Table 4
LPG Yield Calculation Using a Separator Condition in Reservoir B Oil Band (Two-Stage Separator: 135 psia and 150 F; 25 psia and 164 F).
Component
Molecular
Weight (M)
Mole Fraction
in Vapor (y)
Liquid
Sp. gravity
0.507
0.563
0.584
LPG*
bbl/MMscf
45.70
11.81
27.63
LPG Recovery
Efciency
LPG Recovery
bbl/MMscf
0.90
0.99
0.99
41.13
11.69
27.36
Total 80.2
0.507
0.563
0.584
162.00
41.87
97.95
0.90
0.99
0.99
145.80
41.45
96.97
Total 284.2
from the oil) is higher than that of the gas cap uid from the same
reservoir. This is because more C3 and C4 move from the liquid
phase to the vapor phase at separator conditions and hence LPG
yield of the solution gas is higher than that of the gas cap sample.
The recognition of LPG yield difference is important not only for
reserve evaluation but also for reservoir engineering, reservoir
simulation and history matching.
Fig. 2 shows the plot of LPG yield from both solution gas and
gas cap from 12 reservoirs in two large geographic areas. Fluids in
Area I are typically blackoil (initial GOR with the range from
100 ft3/STB to 800 ft3/STB) whereas uids in Area II are volatile oil
and condensate gas (initial GOR is larger than 900 ft3/STB). Table 6
is a property summary of PVT data in those 12 reservoirs. In the
table, the rst reservoir has dry gas in the gas cap with a signicantly high GOR value. The rst 6 reservoirs belong to Area I while
the rest reservoirs are located in Area II. Rocks in those two areas
are mainly sandstone mixed with carbonate. Only LPG yield from
gas is shown in the last reservoir since it is a gas condensate
reservoir. Fig. 2 also demonstrates that LPG yield from solution gas
is higher than that from gas cap because the richer nature in
heavier components of the oil in the oil band compared to the
leaner uid in the gas cap. The rst two elds with high LPG yields
from solution gas located in Area I in Fig. 2 are heavier oils (API
less than 31 and initial GOR less than 200 ft3/STB). Fig. 2 illustrates
that heavier oils tend to have a larger difference in LPG yields
between solution gas and gas cap than those from volatile oil and
gas condensate reservoirs.
2.2. LPG yield and initial GOR
Initial GOR has been widely used in reservoir engineering to
characterize reservoir uid type. Fig. 3 shows LPG yields from
different oil samples in 11 reservoirs with the corresponding initial
GOR values. The gure clearly illustrates that LPG yield decreases
as initial solution GOR increases. The LPG yield was correlated with
initial GOR. However, LPG yield may vary with formation type,
Table 5
LPG Yield Calculation Using a Separator Condition in Reservoir B Gas Cap (Two-Stage Separator: 135 psia and 150 F; 25 psia and 164 F).
Component
Molecular
Weight (M)
Mole Fraction
in Vapor (y)
Liquid
Sp. gravity
LPG*
bbl/MMscf
LPG Recovery
Efciency
LPG Recovery
bbl/MMscf
0.507
0.563
0.584
24.48
4.46
8.93
0.90
0.99
0.99
22.03
4.41
8.84
Total 35.3
0.507
0.563
0.584
85.55
20.20
43.33
0.90
0.99
0.99
76.99
20.00
42.89
Total 139.9
248
B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252
Fig. 2. LPG yields from solution gas and gas cap in 12 reservoirs. The last reservoir is gas condensate with no oil ring.
Table 6
Property Summary from PVT Data in 12 Reservoirs.
Reservoir name
1
2
3(B)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11(A)
12
API
GOR
(scf/STB)
LPG Yield
(bbl/MMscf)
API
GOR (scf/STB)
Condensate Yield
(bbl/MMscf)
LPG Yield
(bbl/MMscf)
30.7
30.6
35.9
32.4
33.0
34.0
40.4
38.1
38.3
42.3
34.1
e
167
152
645
710
726
800
1159
1645
1590
2174
1323
e
205
176
91
81
79
45
106
81
76
72
48
e
e
61
54.2
89.0
53.2
49.4
50.5
49.5
51.6
46.0
49.7
50.1
10,000,000
250,000
90,909
500,000
84,196
43,478
25,374
5813
10,548
10,417
9138
7111
0.1
4
11
2
12
23
39
172
95
96
109
141
50
26
36
47
30
28
65
50
54
56
36
42
B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252
250
249
200
150
100
R = 0.69
50
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
where, RFteLPG is the total LPG recovery factor; NPLPG is the cumulative LPG production which has the unit of barrel and will be
introduced in the next section.
250
B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252
50
45
40
35
30
25
Primary depletion
20
Gas injection
15
10
5
0
0
80
20
LPG rate
LPG yield
60
15
GOR
40
10
20
GOR, Mscf/STB
100
Fig. 8. Comparison of LPG yield versus GOR for primary depletion and lean gas
injection in Reservoir A.
0
0
1000
2000
3000
Time, Days
4000
5000
Fig. 7. Produced gas rate, LPG rate, LPG yield and GOR in Reservoir An under primary
depletion. LPG yield is obtained from its correlation with GOR in Fig. 6.
Fig. 9. Comparison of cumulative LPG recoveries from primary depletion and lean gas
injection in Reservoir A.
B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252
251
Fig. 10. C3 to C3 C4 versus pressure calculated from the CVD experiment in Reservoir A gas cap.
252
B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252