62-01-03

An App..o~itnate P ..actical Co....elation of tlte

Effect of P ..essu..e on tlte Dew Point T etnpe..atu..e
of Pipeline Natu..al Gases
By G. W. GOVIER* and K. AZIZ**
(13th Annual Technical MeeNng, Calgary, May, 1962)

ABSTRACT
The dew point temperatures of
normal pipeline gases are influenced
not only by the hydrocarbon composition of the gas but also by the
presence of traces of contaminants
such as hydrate depressants and
compressor oil.
For this reason
dew point temperatures calculated
from gas analyses are frequently
lower than observed dew points and
the effect of pressure on dew point
temperature is not the same as for
a pure hydrocarbon gas.
Actual dew point measurements
on 16 gases were compared with calculated dew points and differences
up to 50F were observed. Not
withstanding these serious differ
ences the shape of the actual and
the calculated dew point temperature-pressure curves were similar.
This similarity has permitted the
development of a practical correlation of the effect of pressure on the
dew point temperature of the gases.
The correlation permits the estimation of the dew point temperature at any pressure within the
range of 100 to 800 psi from its
knowledge at anyone pressure
within this range. The accuracy is
about -t-5F for pressures in the
range of 400 to 800 psi. The correlation, along with calculations of the
theoretical dew point, may also be
used to estimate the degree of contamination of pipeline gases.

.. Professor of Ohemical Engineering, Dean of Faculty of Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

** Assistant

Professor of Petroleum
Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

14

INTRODUCTION

The contracts for the pipeline

transportation of natural gas usually limit the higher hydrocarbon
content of the gas by specifying a
maximum hydrocarbon dew point.
In Alberta contracts specify that
the hydrocarbon dew point be limited to 15F. up to the maximum operating pressure of the
pipeline. In order strictly to comply
with this specification the dew point
temperature must be measured
directly at the maximum operating
pressure.
Usually, however, the
gases are available only at pressures
below the maximum pipeline operating pressure and a direct measurement is not practical. Under these
conditions the engineer must either
(a) calculate the dew point at the
desired higher pressure directly from the avaliable gas
analysis, or
(b) estimate the dew point at the
higher pressure from dew
point measurements at somf'
lower pressure.
A companion paper by Aziz and
Govier (1) has presented a semitheoretical correlation which facilitates the calculation, from gas
analysis, of hydrocarbon dew points
of clean pipeline gases. The measured dew point temperatures of
(1) K. Aziz and G. W. Govier, "A
Rapid Approximate Method for
the Estimation of Hydrocarbon
Dew Points of Clean Pipeline
Natural Gases," 13th Annual
Technical Meeting, P. & N.G.
Division, C.I.M., Calgary, May
1962.

normal pipeline gases are influenced

not only by the hydrocarbon composition of the gas but also by the
presence of traces of contaminants
such as hydrate depressants and
compressor oil. For this reason,
dew point temperatures calculated
from gas analyses are frequently
lower than the observed dew points
and the effect of pressure on the
dew point temperature is not the
same as for a natural gas composed
entirely of hydrocarbons.
It seems desirable then to base
the estimation of the actual dew
point at the maximum operating
pressure on measurement at some
lower pressure and the general
shape of the dew point curves.

The work reported in Reference

was extended to check the semitheoretical correlation against the
actual measured dew points of a
number of Alberta pipeline gases,
and to develop a method which
would allow the prediction of actual
clew point temperatures at any
pressure from a measurement at
some other pressure.
(1)

FIELD MEASUREMENTS

A standard Bureau of Mines Dew

Point Tester, equipped with a dead
weight tester for pressure measurements, was used for all dew point
measurements.
Dew point data for all gases were
obtained, over a period of approximately four months during the
summer of 1961, at the Alberta Gas
Trunk Line meter stations. Table 1
is a list of the meter stations where
tests were conducted; their locations
Journal of Canadian Petroleum

PROVOST

...J
...J

<t
t-

CALGARY

(f)

0::

::>

CD

II
10
MEDICINE HAT

FT: MACLEOD

LETHBRIDGE

PINCHER
CREEK ~7

NUMBERS

IDENTIFY

METER

STATIONS.

Figure 1
Technology, Spring, 1962, Calgary

15

TABLE

1.

THE ALBERTA GAS TRUNK LINE

METER

COMPANY LIMITED METER STATIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Provost North
Provost South
Sedalia North
Sedalia South
Oyen
Sibbald
Bindloss North # 2
Bindloss North #1
Bindloss South
Medicine Hat South
Medicine Hat North
Atlee Buffalo
Princess Denhart
Princess Iddesleigh
Princess
Enchant
Pincher Creek
Cessford Wardlow
Cessford East
Cessford West
Cessford Carolside
Cessford Burfield
Countess Duchess
Hussar Makepeace
Hussar Chancellor
Wayne North
Three Hills Creek
Innisfail
Prevo
Gilby
Rimbey
Nevis South
Nevis North
Chigwell
Wood River
Carstairs
Burstall

are shown in Figure 1. The names

and numbers of the meter stations
are those used by the Alberta Gas
Trunk Line Company Limited. For
field measurements of dew points a
section of the pipeline containing
the orifice meter (meter-run) was
isolated in each case by two valves.
Gas samples were taken from this
isolated meter-run in carefully
purged sample containers. Figure
2 shows a typical field installation
for dew point determination.
Dew point data were obtained for
the gas in the meter-run at approximately 100 psi intervals, from line
pressure down to about 100 psig.
To do this, the gas was vented to
the atmosphere thereby dropping
the pressure in the isolated meterrun at the required intervals. This
procedure for determining hydrocarbon dew points was found to be
very satisfactory. Sufficient quantities of gas were available to obtain
reliable results which could be
duplicated whenever necessary. For
some of the gases, data checks were
also made in the University of Alberta laboratory.
All gases were analyzed either at
the University or by the Alberta
Gas Trunk Line Laboratory in Cal16

UPSTREAM
ISOLATING
VALVE

VENT
__ DEW POINT
APPARATUS
DOWNSTREAM
ISOLATING
VALVE

DEAD WEIGHT
PRESSURE GAUGE-/

Figure 2

gary. In some cases a gas sample

was analyzed by both laboratories.
In the first stage of the field
measurements gases from sixteen
different meter stations (Numbers
14, 22, 36, 33, 18, 24, 1, 23, 15, 31,
20, 6, 7, 8, 17 and 10) were investigated. For some of these gases
several analyses were obtained and
used for calculation of the dew
points. The total number of analyses considered from the sixteen
gases were twenty-eight.
The second stage of the experimental work included gases from
eleven meter stations (Numbers 26,
27, 29, 30, 27, 31, 13, 10, 19, 25 and
21). Two of the gases investigated,
Numbers 10 and 31, were also investigated in the first stage of the
operation. One analysis for each
gas was obtained. No dew point
calculations were performed for
these gases.
RESULTS OF DEW POINT
MEASUREMENTS

Reference (1) contains thirteen

analyses of the ten gases considered.
The measured and calculated dew
point data for each gas are presented in full detail in tabular and
graphical form in a report submitted to the Alberta Gas Trunk Line
Company (2).
No dew points were observed for
gases from meter stations 17 and
21 down to a temperature of -30F.
This is to be expected of gases of
this type which contain about 95%
methane
For gases from meter stations 6,
7, 8 and 10 the dew points should
also be below -30F as these gases
contain about 95% methane. Dew
points were observed, however, for
(2) K. Aziz and G. W. Govier,
"Report on the Effect of Pressure on the Hydrocarbon Dew
Point Temperature of Alberta
Pipeline Gases," Report to Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company
Limited, September 1961.

these gases but they were probably

the glycol-hydrocarbon type of dew
points. In these cases the calculated dew points were as much as
140F lower than the measured
results.
These gases were considered to be seriously contaminated
by extraneous materials such as
gycol or compressor oil which are
not determined in the gas analysis.
Because of the high degree of contamination these four gases were
not used in the development of the
final correlation.
The measued dew point temperatures for the remaining twenty-one
gases are presented in Figure 3.
The data points have been omitted
in the interest of clarity. At 800
psia the range of dew points for
these gases is -13F to +26F.
CALCULATED DEW POINTS

Calculated dew point temperatures for a few of the gases were

determined both by manual calculation and with the aid of an LGP-30
computer. Typical results appear
in Figure 4. Full details are given
in the report to the Alberta Gas
Trunk Line Company (2). The convergence pressures for the gases
considered were calculated to be
between 2,000 and 3,000 psi. The
dew point calculations were performed for some of these gases for
these two convergence pressures
and also for a convergence pressure
of 5,000 psi. The results for the
convergence pressure of 5,000 psi
were usually closer to the measured
data than the other calculated results. This does not mean, however,
that the effective convergence pressure of these gases was 5,000 psi.
It might rather be a compensating
factor for the errors in gas analyses.
The calculated dew points from
the LGP-30 were not always the
same as the results manually calculated. This was due to the slightly different Kdata in the computer
program and to the method of
Journal of Canadian Petroleum

900
800
700
600
500

q
en 400
ci

.. 300

0::

::)
(J)

/
/

~ 200

0::
Cl.

CD INDICATES

GAS

N2 I

/
/

100
-40

-30

-20

-10

10

DEW POINT TEMPERATURE,

20

30

OF

Figure 3
900
800
700

72 8 2 24 3

jj ;"

500

r \

i .\

31 1

./

[\

the same gas resulted in differences

in calculated dew points of up to
43F. The combination of differEnces in analyses and calculation
procedure produced deviations in
calculations of up to 50F. This
shows the unreliability of dew point
calculations for normal pipeline
gases based on commercial gas analyses and conventional K-charts.

18 2

I.

/?/JVI/
i/ /
j .. .

400

// /

300

200

18 1 24 2

il I i
iii .I.i 1.1 I
11/

600

.g

7j 8 1

IJ/ / j /

COMPARISONS OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND CALCULATED

~ loo~!lf!
~~-!
-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

DEW POINT TEMPERA TURE. OF

Figure 4
handling the C n + component. For
the computer calculations the properties of the next higher hydrocarbon, C n + 1, were usp.d for the
Cn + component. The manual calculations were performed using the
properties of Cn for C n + component.
The maximum difference in calcuTechnology, Spring, 1962, Calgary

lated results by different methods

was 24F brought about mainly
because of the manner in which
C n -c component was handled and to
a lesser degree because of the effect
of different convergence pressures.
The difference in the analyses
obtained from different sources for

DEW POINTS

Comparison of the calculated with

the measured dew points revealed
deviations ranging from -50F to
+27F for the twenty-one gases
considered.
Deviations from the
measured values are believed to be
due largely to the presence of contaminants such as glycol and com
pressor oil, Some quick method of
detecting and determining the ex
tent of these contaminants, and
finding the true hydrocarbon dew
points in the presence of these contaminants, would be very desirable.
No special methods were used in
this investigation to detect the
effect of the contaminants.
17

0:::

9
7
6
5
4

I-

w
~
<t:

PRESSURE,

p.s.i.a.

0:::

en
en
w
z

1.0
0.8

0.6
I- 0.5
W
3= 0.4

LEGEND
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
PRE?SURE
SYMBOL
(p.S.I,O,)

100 -

0.3

200
300
500
600
800

>

l- 0.2
t)

W
1.L
1.L

0.1

W* = W AT 600 p.s.i.a. a ACTUAL DEW

POINT TEMPERATURE.

"-

-
- ,
- ....
- ..
- ..

...

'---J..._--'--_..l.....-----'-_---'-_.....L.---JC----l....._-'--_"'------'-_--'--_..L.-------l_-.J

-60 -50 -40 -30 -20

-10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

of

DEW POINT TEMPERATURE,

Figure 5

The general similarity of the

curves of Figures 3 and 4 suggested
the possibility of a practical correlation of the effect of pressure on the
actual dew point temperature of the
pipeline gases notwithstanding
their contamination. In the companion paper (1) theoretical dew
point temperature-pressure curves
were developed for various values
of a "wetness parameter," W, de
fined by

for the theoretical correlation as a

guide, a family of straight lines was
drawn through the field data points,
one line for each pressure. Serious
scattering of the data occurs at pres.
sures of 100 and 200 psia but the
data are well represented by the

EFFECTIVE WETNESS

800
700

lines at the higher pressures.

The final practical correlation, a
cross plot of Figure 5, is presented
as Figure 6. Here, practical dew
point pressure-temperature curves
are given for each of several values

PARAMETER, W

O
O'E

0.25 0.30 0.40

0.50
,

w'

1.00

;(

rID

600

500 ...... ",

",

'

!J

where y=mole fraction hydrocarbon

A = K value for the hydrocarbon at 600 psia, OaF

The effective wetness parameter,

W*, for each of the 11 gases considered in the first stage of the field
measurements was determined at
600 psia and at the measured dew
point temperature from Figure 1
of Reference 1. The actual dew
point temperatures, at each of several pressures, were then plotted
versus W* as in Figure 5. Using
the corresponding figure developed

c::

18

vi
c:i.

400

.1

f
., I

300

:::> 200

(f)
(f)

c::
a..

'.,

I ,.',.',

"',

j,,"" "

'.'

"""

,,'

I. '.

Vt~
r
]

fl

"I

.'

.,,1

".j

,"

re,}

1<

"','

"

J
'I",

., ..

if-

100
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10

10

20

'_.'

30

40

50

DEW POINT TEMPERATURE

60

70

80

OF

Figure 6
Journal of Canadian Petroleum

of the effective wetness parameter.

The correlation may be used to estimate the hydrocarbon dew point
temperature of a pipeline gas at one
pressure from its known value at
another pressure. The procedure
merely involves entering Figure 6
at the known dew point pressure
and temperature and following the
effective wetness parameter lines to
the desired pressure.
The reliability of Figure 6 was
tested by comparing the dew point
temperature estimated at 800 psia
from measured values at lower pressures, with the measured dew point
temperature at 800 psia for each of
the 21 gases (the 11 on which the
correlation was based and 10
others). The results of the check
appear in Figures 7, 8 and 9. Figure
7 relates the 800 psia dew point
calculated from a 200 psia measure-

40

0
0

30

:&

<Xl

CONCLUSION

The research reported here was

undertaken at the request of and
under the financial support of Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company
Limited.

A practical correlation, based

upon actual field dew point measurements of 11 pipeline gases, has been
developed for estimating the effect
of pressure on the hydrocarbon dew
point. For normal pipeline gases
the effect of pressure on the actual
dew point temperature is very
small in the range of 600 - 800 psia.
Below 600 psia the effect varies
from less than 5 to nearly 20 aF
per 100 psi change in pressure.
The correlation has been tested
with the original 11 and 10 other

~:
r

Ii

'"l'!

pipeline gases and is found to be

reliable to within about 5F for
pressures changes up to 300 psi and
to within about 10F for pressure
changes up to 500 psi.

20
,0

"

-10

'---:-2:"-O--~IO'---~O--'~O-2~O-~30--4~O-5~O--'~
MEASURED DEW POINT TEMPERATURE AT 800 p.,.i.a. OF

Figure 7

Technology, Spring, 1962, Calgary

The authors wish to acknowledge

the enthusiastic co-operation of Mr.
E. V. Hunt, Mr. C. T. McCall and
Mr. J. Bulley, all of the Alberta Gas
Trunk Line Company.

(3) Katz, D. L. and Associates,

"Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering," McGraw-Hill, 1959.

fYl/
~~

~ r~

-10

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

j1i"

i"

.9

ment with the actual 800 psia measurement. A scattering of some

lOaF is observed. Figures 8 and 9,
showing the reliability of 800 psia
dew point estimates based upon 500
and 600 psia measurements indicate
scattering of 4 to 6F.

/0
-20

"
/
,
fi3 -10
//10

10

20

30

40

50

E;

//

-20

-10

10

20

30

40

50

~ MEASURED DEW POINT TEMPERATURE AT 800 psio.. OF W MEASURED DEW POINT TEMPERATURE AT BOOps;o. OF

Figure 8

Figure 9

19