SPE 94133
Estimation of Water Content in Sour Gases
A.H. Mohammadi, SPE, Heriot-Watt U.; V. Samieyan, NIOC; and B. Tohidi, SPE, Heriot-Watt U.
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference held in
Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
of the SPE, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part
of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more
than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Estimating the water content of natural gases is necessary in
many chemical and petroleum engineering processes, e.g.,
calculating the amount of water condensed in a pipeline for
designing hydrate inhibition strategy. An empirical method
based on correction of ideal model for estimating the water
content of sweet natural gases in equilibrium with the liquid
water or ice has been developed. This predictive method
estimates the water content of sweet natural gases using the
water/ice vapor pressure, the system pressure and temperature.
In order to extend the capabilities of the new approach to sour
gases, a correction factor is proposed for taking into account the
effect of acid gases on the water content. The new approach
has been developed using the predictions of a comprehensive
thermodynamic model as pseudo experimental data. The data
on water content of methane with different concentrations of
carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide were generated and fed to
a multi-dimension regression program. The predictions of the
developed empirical correlations are in good agreement with
independent experimental data, demonstrating their reliability in
estimating the water content of natural gases. Finally, a
discussion is made on determining the location of water
condensation along a pipeline using a simplified energy balance
equation and the method developed in this work.
Introduction
Accurate knowledge of phase behavior in water sour gas
systems is crucial to the design and operation of natural gas
pipelines and production/ processing facilities as many natural
gases contain acid gases and water. In general, it is desirable to
avoid the formation of condensed-water to reduce the risk of ice
and/or gas hydrate formation, corrosion and two-phase flow
problems. On the other hand, oil and gas producers have been
faced with a growing challenge to reduce atmospheric
emissions of acid gases produced from sour hydrocarbon pools
due to environmental regulations. When these gases are
extracted, one the option for their disposal is disposal by
injection into an underground zone. As acid/sour gases are
normally saturated with water in gas treatment/ gas injection
units, a comprehensive coverage of the many design
considerations requires knowledge of the phase equilibrium in
water sour gas systems.
It is necessary to be able to estimate the equilibrium water
contents of sour gases as a function of system temperature,
pressure and composition. This will enable the engineers to
calculate the amount of water condensed as a result of changes
in the system conditions. Many predictive methods have been
developed for estimating water contents of gases. In general,
these methods can be divided into two categories: 1) Empirical
or semi empirical correlations and charts 2) Thermodynamic
models, which are based on equality of chemical potentials 1, 2.
The main advantage of empirical or semi empirical
correlations and charts is the availability of input data and the
simplicity of the calculations, which can be performed by using
charts or hand-held calculators 1. Although most available
thermodynamic models could be installed on typical laptop
computers, there is still a need for predictive methods for quick
estimation of water content of gases 1.
The available correlations and charts are normally developed
based on experimental data. Indeed, Mohammadi et al. 1,2
conducted a comprehensive study on the majority of water
content data in the literature including acid gases and a
comprehensive review of available correlations/charts in the
literature and concluded that most of the predictive methods
were developed at relatively high temperature conditions and
therefore may not be suitable for low temperature conditions
encountered in offshore and arctic production and transportation
of gases. This study also showed that most of the existing
correlations/charts have been developed for predicting the water
content of sweet natural gases in the liquid water-vapor (Lw-V)
region.
In this communication, after a quick review on the main
predictive methods in the literature, a new empirical correlation
based on correction of the ideal model for estimating the water
content of sweet natural gases in equilibrium with liquid water
and ice is proposed. In order to develop this correlation, the
water content data for methane-water system are generated in
temperature range of 273.15 K to 477.59 K and pressures up to
14.40 MPa using the results of a comprehensive model
(HWHYD model). A new correction factor is then proposed for
correcting the water content of sweet gases due to the presence
of acid gases. The results of the model are again used for
developing this factor. In order to evaluate the performance of
2 SPE 94133
the new tools for predicting the water content of gases, several
comparisons are made between the results of some selected
experimental data in the literature and a previously
recommended predictive method (for sweet gases).
Finally, a discussion is made on determining the location and
rate of condensed-water/ice/hydrate formation along a pipeline.
Literature review
In many standards, the Bukacek 3 correlation and the McKetta
Wehe 4 chart are recommended to estimate the water content of
sweet natural gases in equilibrium with liquid water. However,
Bukacek 3 correlation and McKettaWehe 4 chart may not be
accurate in describing phase behavior in water hydrocarbon
systems at low temperature conditions 1. Recent studies
indicated that the Bukacek 3 correlation should be used at
temperatures higher than 288.15 K 1, 5, 6. Also, as mentioned in
the McKettaWehe 4 chart the calculated water content at
temperatures below hydrate forming conditions correspond to
meta-stable LwV equilibrium rather than hydrate-vapor (H-V)
equilibrium 1. Recently, a semi-empirical thermodynamic
approach for estimating the water content of natural gases in
equilibrium with liquid water (and ice) has been developed 1,
which is capable of estimating the water content of gases,
especially at low-temperature conditions. On the other hand,
few mathematical relations/ charts for the H-V region have been
reported in the literature 5,7-13. However, there is not enough
experimental data to validate these correlations, hence using
thermodynamic models is recommended for estimating the
water content of a gas phase in equilibrium with hydrates 1.
Both hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide have higher mutual
solubility with water than hydrocarbon components present in
sweet natural gases and petroleum fluids. The mutual solubility
varies considerably with temperature and pressure. Therefore,
the presence of acid gases in a gas mixture would result in an
increase in the water content at any given temperature and
pressure conditions. There are several methods for estimating
the water content in the presence of acid gases in the gas phase.
These correlations should be applied when the gas mixture
contains more than 5% hydrogen sulfide and/or carbon dioxide,
especially at high-pressure conditions. For example, the
methods suggested by Robinson et al. 14, Maddox et al. 15 and
Wichert Wichert 16 correct the water content of sweet gases
due to the presence of acid gases.
Robinson et al. 14 reported a series of charts to estimate the
water content of sour natural gases. These charts were
calculated using an equation of state based model. They used an
equivalent mol fraction for H2S in their charts, which is
calculated by the following expression 14:
zH2Sequi=zH2S+0.75zCO2 (1)
where z is the mol fraction in the natural gas, the subscripts
CO2 and H2S refer to carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide,
respectively and the superscript equi refers to equivalent H2S
concentration. This method is applicable for zH2Sequi < 0.4 (mol
fraction), 283.15 < T < 450.15 K and 2.07 < P < 69 MPa. In
addition, using these charts is not very straight forward due to
the need for interpolations.
In Maddox et al.s 15 method, the water content of sour gases is
calculated using the following expression:
yw=yw,HCzHC+yw,CO2zCO2+yw,H2SzH2S (2)
where y stands for water content and subscripts w and HC refer
to water and hydrocarbon, respectively. In the above equation,
the water mol fraction in the sweet gas can be calculated using
an appropriate correlation or chart. The contribution of acid
gases can be calculated by using the appropriate charts. The
above correlation is applicable to acid gas concentrations
below 40 mol% and a pressure range of 0.7 < P < 20.7 MPa,
and a temperature range of 300.15 < T < 344.15 K for CO2 and
300.15 < T < 411.15 K for H2S. In general, the user may find
this method easier than the method suggested by Robinson et
al. 14, as there is less need for interpolation.
Wichert and Wichert 16 proposed a new chart based on
temperature, pressure and equivalent H2S content in order to
calculate a correction factor (Fsour). They used definition of
Robinson et al. 14 for the equivalent H2S content. Using this
correction factor, the water content of sour natural gases can be
calculated using the following expression:
yw,sour=Fsouryw,sweet (3)
where subscripts sour and sweet refer to sour and sweet gases,
respectively. Fsour is dimensionless, i.e. the two water content
terms have the same units. The McKetta Wehe 4 chart is
recommended to calculate yw,sweet. This method is applicable for
zH2Sequi < 0.55 (mol fraction), 283.15 < T < 450.15 K and 1.4 <
P < 69 MPa. The user may find this method simpler than the
method suggested by Robinson et al. 14, as there is less need for
interpolation.
The above literature review shows that almost all the existing
tools for estimating the water contents of sour gases are
graphical methods and in most cases an interpolation is
necessary in order to calculate the water content. Therefore, it
was decided to develop an analytical method, without any need
for graphical techniques, for calculating the water content of
sour gases. The developed method could significantly simplify
the calculations procedure and facilititate the use of hand held
calculators.
Empirical correlation
A preliminary study shows that the water vapor pressure has an
important effect on the water content of gases. The ideal model is
the simplest method for estimating the water content of gases at
low-pressure conditions 1, 5, 6, which takes into account the effect
of water vapor pressure on the water content. In addition to the
ideal model, few correlations take into account the water vapor
pressure (e.g. ideal model + Poynting correction, Bukacek
correlation 3, Sharma and Campbell 17-19 method) in order to
predict the water content of gases. Considering the ideal model,
SPE 94133
the following expression is suggested to estimate the water
content of gases:
Sat
Pw P a2
yw = ( ) exp{ a1 } (4)
P T
where y, P, and T are in mol fraction, MPa and K, respectively.
The superscript Sat stands for saturation conditions. a1 and a2
are constants. As shown in the above equation, the ideal model
has been modified by introducing an exponential term, which
takes into account the non-ideality of the system due to the
pressure and temperature. To estimate the water vapor pressure,
the relation reported by Daubert and Danner 20 can be used:
PwSat=10-6exp(73.6497258.2/T7.3037ln(T)+4.165310-6T2)
where, T, and PwSat are in K and MPa, respectively.
Figure-1 shows a typical pressure temperature diagram for
water pure (excluding methane) hydrocarbon system 1, 2, 21. As
can be seen, the ice vapor (I-V) equilibrium for sweet natural
gases with very low nitrogen content can be reached at
relatively low-pressure conditions. The maximum pressure at
which the I-V equilibrium can be reached is around 2.563 MPa,
which corresponds to hydrate forming conditions for methane at
around quadruple point 1. The Poynting correlation can be used
for estimating the water content of sweet natural gases with
very low nitrogen content in the I-V region. However, it is of
interest to extend the capability of the new correlation for
predicting the water content of gases in equilibrium with ice.
For this purpose, the ice vapor pressure can be calculated using
the following relation 22:
Sub
log(P w )=-1032.5576407/T+51.0557191log(T)-
0.0977079751T+7.03571131610-5T2-98.5115496
where superscript Sub refers to sublimation conditions. In the
Sub
above equations, T and P w are in K and mmHg, respectively.
In order to develop a new correction factor for taking into
account the effect of acid gases, Robinson et al.s 14 definition
of equivalent H2S mol fraction (Equation-1) is used.
Considering the fact that the water content of an acid/sour gas is
a function of temperature, pressure and acid gas/ equivalent H2S
mol fraction, the following correction factor is suggested for
taking into account the effect of acid gases on the water
content:
T T P P
Fsour=1-zH2Sequi[c1( )+c2( )( )+c3( )] (7)
T0 T0 P0 P0
In the above equation, Fsour is a correction factor due to the
presence of acid gases, P and T are pressure and temperature of
the system, respectively and zH2Sequi is equivalent mol fraction
of acid gases, which is calculated using Equation-1. P0 and T0
are reference pressure (atmospheric pressure) and reference
temperature (273.15 K), respectively and c1-c3 are constants.
3
The water content of sour gases is then calculated by
multiplying the new correction factor and the water content of
the corresponding sweet gas (Equation-3).
Results and Discussion
The values of a1 and a2 in Equation-4 are calculated using a
variety of water content data (in mol fraction) for methane
generated by the model in the temperature range of 273.15 K
and 477.59 K and pressures up to 14.40 MPa, as input for a
multi-dimension regression procedure in order to minimize the
average absolute deviation (AAD) between the calculated data
from the model and calculated data from the correlation. The
optimized values for a1 and a2 are reported in Table-1.
Table-2 shows a comparison between the experimental and
predicted water content data for methane. As can be seen, the
agreements are satisfactory, with typical ADD values between
1.29 % and 7.92 %.
A preliminary investigation shows that constants a1 and a2 can
be used to estimate the water content in the IV region. Table-3
compares the experimental and predicted water content data for
methane. As can be observed, the agreements between the
experimental and estimated data are satisfactory.
In Table-4, the reliability of the correlation developed in this
work is tested with data on some sweet natural gases from the
literature. As it can be observed, for all the references not used
in the tuning of a1 and a2, the predictions of this correlation are
in good agreement with the reported data. It should be noted
that the effect of gas composition (in other word, gas gravity)
has been ignored in these calculations. The good agreement
between the predictions and the experimental data demonstrates
that gas gravity does not have a significant effect on the results,
as long as the gas gravity of the mixture is close to that of
methane and the temperature is not too high. As shown in
Table-4, despite high concentration of nitrogen (10.351 %), the
predictions are in good agreement with the experimental data.
Generally, for lean and sweet natural gases containing over 70
mol% methane and small amounts of heavy hydrocarbons, the
effect of composition can be ignored and the water content can
be assumed as a function of temperature and pressure 1.
Therefore, the constants a1 and a2 for methane water system
can be used with a good approximation for dry and sweet
natural gas water system.
McKetta-Wehe 4 have suggested a correction factor as a
function of gas gravity and temperature for taking into account
the effect of heavy hydrocarbons. This correction factor is well
represented by the following equation:
T T 2
Fhh=1+b1(-0.554)+b2(-0.554)( )+b3(-0.554)2( )
T0 T0
where Fhh is correction factor to take into account the effect of
heavy hydrocarbons, stands for gas gravity, T and T0
represent temperature of the systems and reference temperature
(273.15 K), respectively and b1- b3 are constants. These
constants are tabulated in Table-5.
4 SPE 94133
Dissolved solids (salts) in the aqueous phase can change water
properties such as reducing the water vapor pressure and
therefore reducing the water content of natural gases 1. To take
into account the presence of salts, the extrapolation of the salinity
correction factor in McKetta-Wehe 4 chart to high salt
concentrations is believed to under-predict the water content of a
gas in equilibrium with brine 1, 28. Instead, the graphical
correlation of Katz 29 for the salinity correction factor is
recommended 1, 28. The graphical correlation, developed from
water vapor pressure depression due to the presence of salt, can
be expressed as 1, 28, 30:
FSalt=14.92010-3wSalt1.767210-4 wSalt2 (9)
where w is the weight percent of salt in brine and subscript Salt
refers to salt.
It is well known that the presence of acid gas has a significant
effect on the water content of natural gases, in particular at
high-pressure conditions 1, 4. Sour natural gases will contain
higher water contents than sweet natural gases. In order to find
constants of the correction factor (Equation-7), a variety of
water content data for sour gases generated by the model for
different concentrations of methane/acid gas and at different
temperatures and pressures are used. These data are then
employed as input for a multi-dimensional regression
procedure. The objective function is defined as the AAD
between the water content determined by the thermodynamic
model and the water content calculated by the tested equation.
The optimized values for constants c1-c3 in Equation-7 along
with the application ranges of this correction factor are reported
in Tables-6 and 7, respectively. Table-8 shows the predictions
of this approach for water content of some sour natural gases.
As it can be seen, the agreement is acceptable, demonstrating
the reliability of the method developed in the present work.
The above predictive methods can be used for estimating the
temperature/ location at which condensed-water/ice could form
for a given water content and pressure. Equation-4 can be re-
arranged as:
a1 P a2
T= (10)
y P
ln( wSat )
Pw
Location of condensed-water/ice/hydrate formation along a
pipeline can be estimated by performing an energy balance
calculation. For engineering purposes, the following equation
(the derivation is detailed in the Appendix) can be used for
calculating the location, x, of the second phase formation versus
the equilibrium temperature, T:
m C
x=- g P ln(
T TE (11)
) This work is supported by the Scottish Higher Education
2 RU TI TE
where m g , R, U, Cp, TE and TI are mass flow-rate of natural
gas, pipe radius, overall-heat transfer coefficient, average heat
capacity of natural gas, environment temperature and
temperature at which x=0. Combination of Equations-10 and
11 can yield the location of condensed-water/ice formation.
Predicting the rate of condensed-water/ice/hydrate formation in
natural gas pipelines is also of interest for optimizing the
operating conditions. In general, it is difficult to predict the rate
of condensed-water/ice/hydrate formation, as the degree of sub-
cooling (system temperature compared to the equilibrium
temperature at the system pressure) is low. However, for design
purposes, the worst-case conditions are normally considered,
i.e., it is assumed that the existing degree of sub-cooling and
the residence time are enough for condensate/ice/hydrate
formation. Considering the worst-case scenario, where
condensate/ice/ hydrate form immediately the rate of
condensate/ice/ hydrate formation can be related to the amount
of water in the system and that of equilibrium conditions:
m = Q (yw,i-yw) M w (12)
22 .4 y w ,i
where m , Q , yw,i , yw and Mw are rate of water converted into
condensed-water/ice/hydrate in kg/hour, volumetric flow rate of
natural gas in m3/hour, initial water content of natural gas in
mol fraction, equilibrium water content of natural gas in mol
fraction, molecular mass of condensed water/ ice/ hydrate .
Conclusions
With the aim of developing a new predictive method for
estimating the water content of sour gases, a review was made
on the main methods of estimating the water content of sweet
and sour gases in the literature. The study showed a need for
developing new tools. Then, an empirical correlation based on
correcting the ideal model was proposed for estimating the
water content of sweet natural gases in temperature range
273.15-477.59 K and pressures up to 14.40 MPa. The results of
a comprehensive thermodynamic model were used for tuning
parameters of the new correlation. The analytical expression
with only two parameters for water content produced
encouraging results.
In order to take into account the presence of acid gases a new
analytical correction factor was developed and the results of the
model were used for tuning parameters of the new appraoch.
Good agreement between the predictions of this approach and
independent data demonstrated the capability of the new
predictive method for estimating the water content of sour
gases. Finally, a discussion was made on determining the
location of condensate/ice/hydrate formation along a pipeline
and the rate of condensate/ice/hydrate formation in natural gas
production, transportation and processing.
Acknowledgement
Funding Council (SHEFC) Research Development Grant, which
is gratefully acknowledged.
SPE 94133
References
1. Mohammadi, A. H., Chapoy, A., Tohidi, B., and Richon,
D., A Semi-Empirical Approach for Estimating the Water
Content of Natural Gases, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 43(22) (2004),
7137-7147.
2. Mohammadi, A. H., Chapoy, A., Richon, D., and Tohidi,
B., Experimental measurement and thermodynamic modeling
of water content in methane and ethane systems, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 43(22) (2004), 7148-7162.
3. Bukacek, R. F., Equilibrium Moisture Content of Natural
Gases, Institute of Gas Technology, Research Bulletin 8 (1955)
(Quoted in ref. 5 and 6).
4. GPSA Engineering Data Book; 11th ed. Tulsa, OK, (1998).
5. Carroll, J. J., Natural Gas Hydrates: A Guide for
Engineers, Gulf Professional Publishing (2003).
6. Carroll, J. J., The Water Content of Acid Gas and Sour
Gas from 100 to 220 F and Pressures to 10000 psia, Presented
at the 81st Annual GPA Convention, Dallas, Texas (11-13
March 2002).
7. Kobayashi, R., Song, K. Y., and Sloan, E. D., Petroleum
Engineering Handbook, Chapter 25: Phase Behavior of
Water/Hydrocarbon Systems, Society of Petroleum Engineers,
Richardson, Texas (1987).
8. Mohammadi, A. H., and Tohidi, B., Personal
communication (2005).
9. Sloan, E. D. Jr., Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases,
Second Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, (1998).
10. Sloan, E. D., Khoury, F. M., and Kobayashi, R., Water
Content of Methane Gas in Equilibrium with Hydrates, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Fundam. 15(4) (1976), 318- 323.
11. Song, K. Y., and Kobayashi, R., Measurement and
Interpretation of the Water Content of a Methane-Propane
Mixture in the Gaseous State in Equilibrium with Hydrate, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Fundam. 21(4) (1982), 391-395.
12. Aoyagi, K., Song, K. Y., Kobayashi, R., Sloan, E. D., and
Dharmawardhana P. B., (I). The Water Content and Correlation
of the Water Content of Methane in Equilibrium with Hydrates
(II). The Water Content of a High Carbon Dioxide Simulated
Prudhoe Bay Gas in Equilibrium with Hydrates, GPA Research
Report 45, Tulsa, OK, December (1980).
13. Aoyagi, K., Song, K. Y., Sloan, E. D., Dharmawardhana, P.
B., and Kobayashi, R., Improved Measurements and
Correlation of the Water Content of Methane Gas in Equilibrium
with Hydrate, 58th Annual GPA Convention, Denver, CO
(1979).
14. Robinson, J. N., Moore, R. G., Heidemann, R. A., and
Wichert, E., Estimation of the Water Content of Sour Natural
Gas, Laurance Reid Gas Conditioning Conference, Norman,
5
OK (1980) (Also: Robinson, J. N., Wichert, E., Moore, R. G.,
and Heidemann, R. A., Charts help estimate H2O content of
sour gases, Oil & Gas J. (6 February 1978), 76-78. Also:
Robinson, J. N., Moore, R. G., Heideman, R. A., and Wichert,
E., Estimation of the Water Content of Sour Natural Gases,
SPE J. (August 1977), 281-286).
15. Maddox, R. N., Lilly, L. L., Moshfeghian, M., and
Elizondo, E., Estimating Water Content of Sour Natural Gas
Mixtures, Laurance Reid Gas Conditioning Conference,
Norman, OK (8 March 1988).
16. Wichert, G. C., and Wichert, E., Chart estimates water
content of sour natural gas, Oil & Gas J. (29 March 1993) 61-
64.
17. Sharma, S., Equilibrium Water Content of Gaseous
Mixtures, PhD Thesis, University of Oklahoma (1969).
18. Sharma, S., and Campbell, J. M., Predict natural-gas water
content with total gas usage, Oil & Gas J. (4 Aug 1969), 136-
137.
19. Campbell, J. M., Gas Conditioning and Processing,
Volume 1: The Basic Principles, Campbell Petroleum Series,
Oklahoma (1994).
20. Daubert, T. E., and Danner, R. P., DIPPR Data
Compilation Tables of Properties of Pure Compounds, AIChE,
New York (1985) (Quoted in ref. 28).
21. Althaus, K. Fortschritt - Berichte VDI 1999, Reihe 3, 350.
(in German), Oellrich, L. R., and Althaus, K., GERG Water
Correlation (GERG Technical Monograph TM14) Relationship
Between Water Content and Water Dew Point Keeping in
Consideration the Gas Composition in the Field of Natural Gas,
Fortschritt - Berichte VDI, Reihe 3- Nr. 679 (2000) (in English).
22. Tohidi-Kalorazi, B., Gas Hydrate Equilibria in the
Presence of Electrolyte Solutions, Ph.D. Thesis, Heriot-Watt
University (1995).
23. Rigby, M., and Prausnitz, J. M., Solubility of Water in
Compressed Nitrogen, Argon, and Methane, J. Phys. Chem.
72(1) (January 1968), 330-334.
24. Yokoyama, C., Wakana, S., Kaminishi, G. I., and
Takahashi, S., Vapor - Liquid Equilibria in the Methane -
Diethylene Glycol - Water System at 298.15 and 323.15 K., J.
Chem. Eng. Data, 33 (1988), 274 276.
25. Gillespie, P. C., and Wilson, G. M., VaporLiquid and
LiquidLiquid Equilibria: WaterMethane, WaterCarbon
Dioxide, WaterHydrogen Sulfide, WaternPentane, Water
MethanenPentane, GPA Research Report 48, Tulsa (1982).
26. Kosyakov, N. E. et al. Vopr Khim. Tekhnol., 47 (1982) 33
(in Russian, Data from Dortmund Data Base).
6 SPE 94133

27. Olds, R. H., Sage, B. H., and Lacey, W. N., Phase elevation terms to be negligible 33, the following equation can
Equilibria in Hydrocarbon Systems. Composition of the Dew- be achieved:
Point Gas of the Methane-Water System, Ind. Eng. Chem.
34(10) (October 1942), 1223 1227. dh/dx dq/dx =0 (A.2)

28. Danesh, A., PVT and Phase Behaviour of Petroleum The following equation can be used to estimate the heat loss from
Reservoir Fluids, Elsevier Science B.V. (1998). the pipe to the environment 34:

29. Katz, D. L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F. H.,

Vary, J. A., Elenbaas J. R., and Weinaug C. F., Handbook of
Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Company
(1959).
30. McCain, W. D. Jr., The Properties of Petroleum Fluids,
second edition, Pennwell Publishing Company, Tulsa, OK
(1990).
31. Lukacs, J., and Robinson, D. B., Water Content of Sour
Hydrocarbon Systems, SPE J. (December 1963), 293 297.
dq/dx = [2RU (TE T)] / m g (A.3)
where m g is mass flow-rate of natural gas, R is the pipe radius,
U is the overall-heat transfer coefficient, and TE is the
environment (i.e., surrounding ambient) temperature.
In the above equation the enthalpy gradient can be calculated
by ignoring the Joule-Thompson expansion effects for long gas
pipeline with moderate to small pressure drop:

32. Ng, H.-J., Chen, C.-J., and Schroeder, H., Water Content dh/dx=CpdT/dx (A.4)
of Natural Gas Systems Containing Acid Gas, GPA Research
Report 174, Tulsa, OK (January 2001). where Cp is the heat capacity at constant pressure.

33. Buthod, A. P., Castillo, G., and Thompson, R. E., How To By combining Equoations A.2 through A.4, the following
Use Computers To Calculate Heat, Pressure in Buried differential equation is obtained for the prediction of temperature
Pipelines, Oil & Gas J. 69(10) (1971), 57-59. profile along a pipeline:

34. Kumar, S., Gas Production Engineering, Gulf
Professional Publishing, Houston, TX (1987). CpdT/dx-2RU(TET)/ m g =0 (A.5)

35. Neher, J. H., The Temperature Rise of Buried Cables and Equation A.5 can be solved analytically, assuming an average
Pipes, Trans. AIEE 68 (1949), 9. value for Cp of natural gas along the pipeline and using an
appropriate initial condition T=TI at x = 0:

Appendix T = (TI -TE) exp (-A.x) + TE (A.6)

Calculation of Temperature Profile Along a Pipeline where

The energy balance for the gas flow in a pipeline can be
calculated using the following equation 33, assuming the work A= 2 RU (A.7)
term is ignorable along the pipeline:
mg CP
dh/dx dq/dx + V (d V /dx) + g (dz/dx) =0 (A.1)
Equation A.6 can be re-arranged in order to find the following
equation:
where h, q, V , g, z and x are molar enthalpy of natural gas,

x=- m g C P ln( T T E )
heat transfer flux, velocity of natural gas, gravitational
(A.8)
acceleration, pipeline elevation, and distance along the pipe, 2 RU TI TE
respectively. The above energy balance can be summarized in
order to develop a more simple equation, using appropriate
assumptions. Assuming the velocity-change and pipeline
 SPE 94133 7

Table 1: Constants a1 and a2 in Equation-4.

Constant Value
a1 11.81479
a2 0.92951

Table 2: Experimental and predicted water content of methane in the LW V region.

Number of
Reference Tmin /K Tmax /K Pmin /MPa Pmax/MPa AAD%
Points

Althaus 21 273.15 293.15 0.5 10 17 1.29

Rigby and Prausnitz 23 298.15 373.15 2.35 9.35 12 2.87
Yokoyama et al.24 298.15 323.15 3 8 6 3.06
Gillespie and Wilson 25 323.15 477.59 1.379 13.79 12 3.75
Kosyakov et al.26 273.16 283.16 1.01 6.08 5 5.13
Olds et al. 27 310.93 377.59 2.67 14.40 12 7.92

Table 3: Experimental and predicted water content of methane in the IV region (Values are in mol fraction).
Experimental Water Predicted Water
Reference T /K P /MPa Content Content, AD%
This Work

253.15 0.5 2.13E-04 2.12E-04 0.47

258.15 1.5 1.11E-04 1.18E-04 6.31
258.15 0.5 3.07E-04 3.39E-04 10.42
Althaus 21 263.15 1.5 1.86E-04 1.85E-04 0.54
263.15 0.5 5.24E-04 5.32E-04 1.53
268.15 1.5 2.80E-04 2.86E-04 2.14
268.15 0.5 8.29E-04 8.22E-04 0.84

263.15 1.01325 2.75E-04 2.69E-04 2.18

Kosyakov et al. 26 253.15 1.01325 1.07E-04 1.07E-04 0.00
243.15 1.01325 4.20E-05 3.90E-05 7.14
 8 SPE 94133

Table 4a: Comparison between the predictions of the correlation developed in this work and Bukacek 3 correlation
for water content of different natural gases (NG) (Values are in mol fraction and the effect of gas gravity is ignored).

Number of AAD%, This AAD%,

Natural gas Tmin /K Tmax /K Pmin /MPa Pmax/MPa SGg
Points Work Bukacek 3

NG1 21 273.15 288.15 0.5 10 0.5654 9 3.33 10.35

NG2 21 273.15 293.15 0.5 10 0.598 8 3.75 11.48
NG3 21 273.15 288.15 0.5 1.5 0.628 4 4.55 7.03
NG4 21 273.15 293.15 0.5 8 0.6326 8 3.84 10.48
NG5 21 273.15 288.15 0.5 1.5 0.6672 4 5.15 7.60
NG6 21 273.15 288.15 0.5 6 0.6395 6 2.61 7.54
NG7 21 278.15 278.15 0.5 0.5 0.8107 1 1.14 3.41
Mixture1 278.15 288.15 1.5 10 0.569 5 0.99 12.58
Mixture2 288.15 313.14 6 17.56 0.602 7 7.01 9.38

Synthetic mixture containing 96.94 mol % of methane and 3.06 mol % of ethane 21

Synthetic mixture containing 94 mol % of methane, 4 mol % of ethane and 2 mol% of n-butane 1

Table 4b: Composition (mol%) of different natural gases 21.

Gas Gravity 0.5654 0.598 0.628 0.6326 0.6672 0.6395 0.8107
Component (NG1) (NG2) (NG3) (NG4) (NG5) (NG6) (NG7)
0.004 0.043
Helium 0.015 0.028 - 0.152 0.800 10.351 0.038
Nitrogen 0.840 1.938 0.912 4.863 1.732 1.291 1.499
Carbon Dioxide 0.109 0.851 - 0.167 84.339 83.847 25.124
Methane 98.197 93.216 88.205 86.345 8.724 3.460 70.144
Ethane 0.564 2.915 8.360 6.193 3.286 0.657 2.52
Propane 0.189 0.715 1.763 1.550 0.311 0.093 0.394
i-Butane 0.029 0.093 0.293 0.214 0.584 0.126 0.067
n-Butane 0.038 0.135 0.441 0.314 0.163 0.067 0.074
C5 0.014 0.058 0.027 0.13 0.054
C6+ 0.007 0.049 - 0.064 0.118
0.049 0.069

Table 5: Constants b1-b3 in Equation-8.

Constant Value
b1 0.17006
b2 -0.15241
b3 -0.04515

Table 6: Constants of Equation-7.

Constant Value

c1 0.03185
c2 0.01538
c3 -0.02772
 SPE 94133 9

Table 7: Application ranges of Equation-7.

Maximum concentration
Acid gas T/ K P/ MPa
of acid gas/ mol%

H2S 310-420 0.5-40 30

CO2 310-420 0.5-40 50
CO2 + H2S 310-420 0.5-35 15% H2S and 35% CO2

Table 8: Comparison between experimental water content data of different sour gases and predictions of the
correlation developed in this work (Values are in mol fraction).
Gas Composition (mol fraction)
T /K P/ MPa Experimental Predictions, This Work AD%
Methane CO2 H2S
GPA Engineering Databook 4

311.15 13.8 0.89 0.11 - 8.08E-04 8.26E-04 2.23

311.15 13.8 0.8 0.2 - 8.08E-04 8.94E-04 10.64
327.15 10.3 0.92 - 0.08 2.21E-03 2.15E-03 2.71
344.15 6.9 0.89 0.11 - 5.67E-03 6.05E-03 6.70
344.15 6.9 0.8 0.2 - 5.59E-03 6.26E-03 11.99
344.15 6.9 0.83 - 0.17 5.79E-03 6.32E-03 9.15
344.15 9.43 0.725 - 0.275 4.90E-03 5.47E-03 11.63

Lukacs and Robinson 31

344.26 2.468 0.79 - 0.21 1.50E-02 1.48E-02 1.33
344.26 4.212 0.81 - 0.19 9.30E-03 9.37E-03 0.75
344.26 6.376 0.71 - 0.29 6.90E-03 7.09E-03 2.75
344.26 6.962 0.83 - 0.17 6.16E-03 6.31E-03 2.44
344.26 9.595 0.725 - 0.275 5.20E-03 5.44E-03 4.62
344.26 9.616 0.84 - 0.16 4.75E-03 5.05E-03 6.32
Ng et al. 32
322.04 1.379 0.75+ 0.0625 0.1875 9.367E-03 9.10E-03 2.85
322.04 1.379 0.75+ 0.1875 0.0625 8.74E-03 9.08E-03 3.89
322.04 10.339 0.75+ 0.1875 0.0625 1.871E-03 1.86E-03 0.59
322.04 10.339 0.75+ 0.0625 0.1875 1.814E-03 1.90E-03 4.74
366.48 1.379 0.75* 0.1875 0.0625 5.93E-02 6.09E-02 2.70
366.48 1.379 0.75* 0.0625 0.1875 5.9674E-02 6.10E-02 2.22
366.48 4.136 0.75+ 0.1875 0.0625 2.9922E-02 2.28E-02 23.80
366.48 10.339 0.75* 0.1875 0.0625 1.1179E-02 1.16E-02 3.77
366.48 10.339 0.75* 0.0625 0.1875 1.0448E-02 1.18E-02 12.94
366.48 10.339 0.75+ 0.1875 0.0625 1.0053E-02 1.16E-02 15.39

*
This mixture consists of methane and propane with a molar ratio equal to 95:5
+
Composition of this mixture is 90 % methane, 6 % ethane, 2.5 % propane, 0.6 % i-butane and 0.9 % n-butane
 10 SPE 94133

Ice Line

L W -H-L HC
H - LHC
H - LHC
log (P)
HC Vapor Pressure
Q2
L W -H-V
H-V
H-V LW - V

Q1
I-H-V Water Vapor Pressure
I-V
T

Figure 1: Typical pressure temperature diagram for a water (limiting reactant) single (pure) hydrocarbon system 1,
2, 21
(Q1 and Q2: Quadruple points, H: Hydrate, LHC: Liquid hydrocarbon, V: Vapor, I: Ice, LW: Liquid water).