An Improved Method for the

Determination of the Reservoir-Gas

Specific Gravity for Retrograde Gases
D.K. Gold, * SPE, W.D. McCain "r., * * SPE, and ".W. ".nnlngs, SPE, Texas A&M U.

Summary. A method is presented that provides an improved estimate of the reservoir-gas specific gravity for retrograde-gas reservoirs
from field production information. This method offers several improvements over previous methods. First, a new term has been intro-
duced into the gas-gravity equation in order to emulate the exact solution ofthe equation. This term, the additional gas production, Gpa ,
accounts for the gas production from the low-pressure separator and stock tank. Second, a correlation for the vapor equivalent of the
primary-separator liquid, V eq • has been improved. And third, G pa and Veq correlations were developed for both two-stage and three-
stage separation systems.
These correlations were developed with the flash liberation results from 234 laboratory fluid analyses. The models were fit to the data
by nonlinear regression. The estimate of the reservoir-gas specific gravity is significantly improved by incorporating the new Gpa and
improved Veq correlations into the gas-gravity equation. Also, the improved Veq correlation, which accounts for the low-pressure sepa-
rator gas, stock-tank gas, and stock-tank liquid production, can be used to obtain better estimates of reservoir fluid withdrawal.

Introduction
The reservoir-gas specific gravity is used by petroleum engineers
to estimate gas pseudocritical properties, gas-law deviation factors,
and real-gas pseudopressure for bottornhole pressure calculations,
deliverability analysis, and reservoir material-balance calculations.
The reservoir-gas specific gravity for a retrograde-gas reservoir
can be determined by two methods. The first method requires that
fluid samples of the primary-separator liquid and gas be obtained
from the well, that their respective compositions be determined in
the laboratory, and that they then be recombined according to the
producing gas/liquid ratio. The second method uses the field pro-
duction information in the form of a mathematical recombination
expression. The laboratory fluid analysis provides the most accurate
determination of reservoir-gas specific gravity; however, the field
production information can provide a very reliable estimate.
The equation for calculating the reservoir-gas specific gravity
from production information requires knowledge of separator gas
and stock-tank liquid production and the specific gravities of the
respective fluids. For a three-stage separation system (consisting
of primary and secondary separators and a stock tank), the gas spe-
cific gravities and production rates from the primary separator,
secondary separator, and stock tank, and the stock-tank liquid gravi-
ty, must be known. For a two-stage separation system (consisting
of a primary separator and a stock tank), the gas specific gravities
and production rates from the primary separator and stock tank,
and the stock-tank liquid gravity, must be known.
In many cases, only the primary-separator gas production rate
and specific gravity, and the stock-tank liquid production rate and
gravity, are measured. The gas production from low-pressure sepa-
rators (the secondary separator and stock tank for a three-stage sys-
tem, or the stock tank for a two-stage system) is often not measured.
Hence, to calculate the reservoir-gas specific gravity with produc-
tion data, either this production has to be measured or a method
to predict these values has to be used.
The correlations for additional gas production, Gpa ' and the
vapor equivalent of the primary-separator liquid, Veq , account for
the unknown values needed to calculate the reservoir-gas specific
gravity. The Gpa correlation is a new correlation. Previously,l the
terms represented by Gpa have been assumed negligible. The pur-
pose of the Gpa correlation is to predict the gas production after
the primary separator so that this production can be incorporated
in the equation for the reservoir-gas specific gravity.
The Veq correlation presented here is an improvement of an
earlier correlation. 2 Veq accounts for the gas and liquid produc-
tion after the primary separator. The purpose of the Veq correla-
tion is two-fold; in addition to its use in calculating the reservoir-gas
specific gravity, it can be used to calculate the reservoir fluid with-
drawal.
'Now with Arco Oil & Gas Co.
"Now with Cawley. Gillespie & Assocs.
Copyright 1989 Society of Petroleum Engineers
A correlation for Veq was first proposed by Leshikar. 2 This
method is based on Eilerts and Cotton's3 correlation for conden-
sate gravity and molecular weight and on Beal's4 correlation for
gas solubility. The independent parameters in this method are the
primary-separator pressure and API gravity of the stock-tank liq-
uid. Leshikar's correlation underestimates Veq at high primary-
separator pressures and stock-tank liquid gravities because Beal's
correlation was developed with black-oil data and not retrograde-
gas data. Additionally, liquids with high molecular weights in ad-
dition to retrograde gases were used in the development of Eilerts'
correlation. Leshikar's correlation for Veq results in an average ab-
solute error of 16% when compared with the gas samples used in
this study.
A different approach was taken in the development of an improved
Veq correlation. Because Veq is the equivalent volume of gas rep-
resented by the primary-separator liquid, Veq can be defined in
terms of the production after primary separation takes place-that
is, the secondary-separator gas/liquid ratio (for a three-stage sys-
tem), the stock-tank gas/liquid ratio, and the gravity and molecu-
lar weight of the stock-tank liquid. Similarly, Gpa can be defined
in terms of the secondary-separator (for a three-stage system) and
stock-tank gas/liquid ratios and gas specific gravities.
These production values were generated with a flash liberation
algorithm with different conditions of separator pressures and tem-
peratures for 234 retrograde-gas samples collected worldwide. Both
two-stage and three-stage separation systems were simulated. Non-
linear regression was used to fit appropriate models to the data.
The independent parameters in the models are the primary-separator
pressure and temperature, the specific gravity of the prirnary-
separator gas, the gravity of the stock-tank liquid, the secondary-
separator temperature (for a three-stage separation system), and the
stock-tank temperature.
The purpose of this paper is to present the new Gpa and im-
proved Veq correlations for both two-stage and three-stage sepa-
ration systems and to show how to calculate the reservoir-gas
specific gravity and reservoir fluid withdrawal with these corre-
lations.
Theory
The specific gravity of the reservoir gas, 'Yg, for a three-stage flash
liberation process can be calculated with the recombination ex-
pression
R1'Y1 +4,602'Yo +R 2'Y2 +R3'Y3
'Yw= ................. (I)
Rl +(133,316-yo/Mo) +R2 +R3
The recombination expression for a two-stage separation system is
R1'Y1 +4, 602'Yo+ R 3'Y3
. .................... (2)

Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 1989 747

 three-stage separation system), and the specific gravity of the stock-
TABLE 1-RANGE AND MEAN OF THE LABORATORY
FLUID ANALYSES
tank gas, 'Y3' We account for these unknowns with G pa and Veq.
For a three-stage separation system, the additional gas produc-
Range and Mean (mol%) tion, Gpa , accounts for the gas production from the secondary
separator (for a three-stage system) and the stock tank. Gpa is de-
Component Minimum Mean Maximum
fined in terms of the secondary-separator and stock-tank gaslliq-
H2S 0.0000 0.0010 0.0383 uid ratios and gas specific gravities:
CO 2 0.0000 0.0101 0.0355
N2 0.0000 0.0093 0.0226 Gpa =R 2'Y2 +R3'Y3' ................................ (3)
C1 0.5659 0.7184 0.9175
C2 0.0050 0.0935 0.1450 Gpa for a two-stage separation system is
C3 0.0049 0.0486 0.0897 Gpa =R 3'Y3' ...................................... (4)
iC 4 0.0010 0.0106 0.0303
nC 4 0.0013 0.0175 0.0362 The vapor equivalent of the primary-separator liquid, Veq , ac-
iC s 0.0005 0.0076 0.0880 counts for the stock-tank liquid production and the gas production
nC s 0.0003 0.0073 0.0157 from the secondary separator (for a three-stage system) and from
C6 0.0005 0.0101 0.0221 the stock tank. It is defined in terms of the specific gravity and
C7+ 0.0400 0.0662 0.1268
molecular weight of the stock-tank liquid, and the gas/liquid ratios
from the secondary separator and the stock tank:

The coefficients for Eqs. 1 and 2 were derived with standard pres- Veq=(133,316'Y0/Mo)+R2+R3' ..................... (5)
sure and temperature conditions of 14.65 psia and 60°F [101 kPa Veq for a two-stage separation system is
and 16°C].
Often only the primary-separator gas and stock-tank liquid pro- Veq=(133,3l6'Yo/Mo)+R3 . ......................... (6)
duction are measured. Thus, only the primary-separator gas/liq- Eqs. 3 and 5 are combined with Eq. 1 to give an expression for
uid ratio, R 1 , the specific gravity of the primary-separator gas, 'YI, the reservoir-gas specific gravity:
and the specific gravity of the stock-tank liquid, 'YO' are known.
The unknown variables are the secondary-separator gas/liquid ra- R1'YI +4,602'Yo+ Gpa
tio, R2 (for a three-stage system), the stock-tank gas/liquid ratio, 'Yw= .......................... (7)
RI +Veq
R 3 , the specific gravity of the secondary-separator gas, 'Y2 (for a

4000

11
(
e
..
"'.
,
"
800

TOO
i
1
Q
! 800
!
.'" "0~
.
:
"'~
~
~o'"
.00
000
IE
.
~
... ;i
'"
;,~ ~
§
•i< 300
.
co

00

30
200
20

100

Fig. 1-G". Model 2 correlation nomograph for a three-stage separation system.

748 Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 1989

 '800 8000

,
,

-
~ ... 00
l ,

.II f '800

I 800 .~
3000

.f
~ 700
R ~
....~ 800 q'"
,f
If

.
~
"-
~
600 ,$ . .-
R ~
q~ ~ t...
400
g 17;'" z
w

F===.
... "
~ ~:;
","

~li
.00 oW
0'"
.
~ II:

f<
1000 >

~~~i
200 000

700

800
550

,00

•:§'
.
~

# ..
~."oI!

",
. ".....:.;....
~~o
..... ...

.. ~.
~~
~#' go""
. <P',oI!t'
~~

Fig. 2-Veq Model 2 correlation nomograph for a three-stage separation system.

The same result is obtained for a two-stage separation system by
combining Eqs. 4 and 6 with Eq. 2.
An estimate of the molecular weight, Mo, for use in Eqs. I and
2 can be obtained from Eq. 8. This correlation was developed by
use of the same 234 fluid samples used for the new Gpa and im-
proved Veq correlations. The specific gravity of the stock-tank liq-
uid used for this correlation ranged from 0.680 to 0.841. The
average absolute error is 4.1 %. This is an improvement over the
Cragoe 5 correlation, which has an average absolute error of 4.9%
with these data. This new correlation is presented in the same form
as the Cragoe correlation:
Mo =5,954/(p -8.811)=42.431' 0/(1.008 -'Yo)' .......... (8)
Development of the Correlations
The G pa and Veq correlations were developed with the laboratory
fluid analysis reports of 234 retrograde-gas samples collected world-
wide. The retrograde-gas samples were defined as those contain-
ing ~4 and < 13 mol% heptanes plus. In every case, the samples
had a dewpoint at reservoir conditions. The amount of total non-
hydrocarbons was limited to less than 5 mol % in the development
ofthe correlations. Table I shows the range of each ofthe compo-
nents for all the gas samples used to develop the correlations. Two
separate data bases were generated with a flash liberation algorithm.
The first data base consisted of a three-stage separation simulation
and the second consisted of a two-stage separation simulation. The
phase behavior for the flash liberation algorithm was based on the
equilibrium ratios established by the Gas Processors Suppliers Assn.
The three-stage flash liberation calculations performed on the fluid
samples used a selected set of separator pressure and temperature
conditions. The stock-tank pressure and the secondary-separator
pressure were held constant and not used as variables in the model
Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 1989
because their impact on G pa and Veq was found to be negligible.
The stock-tank pressure was standard pressure, 14.65 psia [101
kPa]. The secondary-separator pressure was held constant at 70 psia
[483 kPa]. A higher secondary-separator pressure would reduce
the amount of gas produced from the secondary separator, but this
would increase the amount of gas produced from the stock tank.
Thus, the total gas from these two sources would be essentially un-
changed.
The primary-separator pressure ranged from 100 to 1,500 psia
[0.689 to 10.3 MPa] in loo-psi [O.689-MPa] increments. The
primary-separator, secondary-separator, and stock-tank tempera-
tures ranged from 60 to 120°F [16 to 49°C] in 20°F [11°C] incre-
ments. The investigation of elevated separator temperatures permits
the consideration of such surface production facilities as heater/treat-
ers. Separator temperature combinations that are not likely to occur
physically were not included in the data base. The resulting data
base consisted of 137,230 points. Each point represents the fluid
sample run through the three-stage separation algorithm at each of
the separator pressure and temperature conditions.
For the two-stage separation system, the primary-separator pres-
sure ranged from 100 to 700 psia [0.689 to 4.83 MPa] in loo-psi
[0.689-MPa] increments. The stock-tank pressure was held con-
stant at 14.65 psia [101 kPa]. The primary-separator and stock-
tank temperatures ranged from 60 to 120°F [16 to 49°C] in 20°F
[11 0c] increments. The resulting data base consisted of 15,581
points.
Nonlinear regression was used to fit appropriate models to the
data of the two data bases. Two types of independent variables are
used in the models. The first type is based on the pressure and tem-
perature conditions of the separators. These independent variables
are the primary-separator pressure, PsI, the primary-separator tem-
perature, TsI , the secondary-separator temperature, Ts2 , and the
749
 ADDITIONAL GAS PRODUCTION (Gpo), (ocl I STB) gro.fly

Fig. 3-G pa Model 2 correlation nomograph for a two-stage separation system.

stock-tank temperature, Ts3' The second type of independent vari- where {31 =2.9922, {32 =0.97050,
able is related to the fluid composition. These independent varia- {33 =6.8049, {34 = 1.0792,
bles are the primary-separator gas/liquid ratio, R I, the specific {35 = -1.1960, {36 =0.55367.
gravity of the primary-separator gas, 'Y I, and the API gravity of
Veq={30+{31Psli32'Y1i33pi34Tsli35Ts2i36, ............... (12)
the stock-tank liquid, p. All these variables significantly contribut-
ed to the prediction of Gpa and Veq except for R I' As a result, R I where {30=535.92, {31 =2.6231,
was not included in the models. Because the stock-tank tempera- {32 =0.79318, {33 =4.6612,
ture is likely to be unknown, models were developed both with and {34 = 1.2094, {35 = -0.84911,
without this variable. Modell refers to the model that has Ts3 as {36=0.26987.
a parameter, and Model 2 refers to the model that does not.
Eqs. 11 and 12 are graphically illustrated as nomographs in Figs.
The correlations for the additional gas production and vapor 1 and 2 for the additional gas production and the vapor equivalent,
equivalent for a three-stage separation system are given by Eqs. respectively.
9 and 10 (Modell).
Eqs. 13 and 14 are the correlations for Gpa and Veq for a two-stage
Gpa ={31 (Psi -14.65) i32 'Y1 i33 pi3 4 Tsl i35 T s2 i36 T s3 i37, ....... (9) separation system with Ts3 included as a parameter (Model 1).
where {31=1.0347, {32=0.97703, Gpa={31(Psl-14.65)i32'Y1i33pi34Ts1i35Ts3i36, ........... (13)
{33 =6.5230, {34 = 1.3045, where {3 1=0,15763, {32 = 1.3365,
{35 = -1.1860, {36 =0.42499, {33=7.0393, {34=1.3891,
{37 =0.11524. {35=-1.4370, {36=0.77907.
Veq={30+{3IPSli32'Y1i33pi34Ts1i35Ts2i36Ts3i37, .......... (10) Veq={30+{3IPsli32'Yli33pi34Ts1i35Ts3i36, ............... (14)
where {30=536.56, {31 =1.4309, where {30=651.55, {3\ =0.091752,
{32 =0.79225, {33 =4.6352, {32 = 1.0928, {33 =5.2244,
{34 = 1.2639, {35 = -0.84710, {34 = 1.7350, {35 = -1.0843,
{36 =0.17103, {37 =0.18980. {36 =0.41384.
Eqs. 11 and 12 do not include Ts3 as a parameter (Model 2). Eqs. 15 and 16 do not include Ts3 as a parameter (Model 2).
Gpa ={31 (Psi -14.65) i32 'Y1 i33 p i3 4Ts1i35Ts2i36, ........... (11) Gpa ={31(Psl -14.65)i32'Yli33pi34Tsli35, ............... (15)

750 Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 1989

 700

.
~
800
Q
",'

.,g 500

:J
Qo
~
400
Qo
,,0

...~ t=:=~
.,~ : ~'
....,or
300
... :
l
~
~
~/
~
200 .,'"
tt
8~Q

,,'~'""
I o~
&
.,,,0 b~~
~... <P
100 ~
~~
Qo-

~~
o·
,,0 l~
o·~" $~
...'..."'
~o
o·
" ~...
~=
~,~ '----- co ~=
"O~t-" ~=
o· 0<1:- '" :=
......
...<1:-
., ",q

~ ...11-"'
q 11-'

._1.1.1
1000 2000 3000 4000

VAPOR eQUIVALEN T (VeQ>' 8cf/STB

Fig. 4-V eq Model 2 correlation nomograph for a two-stage separation system.

TABLE 2-ANALYSIS OF THE CORRELATIONS

Coefficient of Determination, R2 Average Absolute Error (fraction)

Three-Stage Two-Stage Three-Stage Two-Stage
Model Separation Separation Separation Separation
Gpa Model 1 0.9080 0.9377 0.134 0.135
Gpa Model 2 0.9004 0.8882 0.105 0.149
Veq Model 1 0.9332 0.9158 0.0608 0.0638
Veq Model 2 0.9255 0.8973 0.0580 0.0630
'Yw Model 1 0.9951 0.9980 0.00784 0.00493
'Yw Model 2 0.9968 0.9973 0.00637 0.00583

where {31 =1.4599, {32 = 1.3394, Analysis of the Correlations

{33=7.0943, {34 = 1.1436, A variety of statistical analyses was performed on the G pa and Veq
{35 = -0.93446. correlations and the subsequent calculation of the reservoir-gas spe-
Veq ={3o + {31Psl {32'Yl {33p{34 Tsl {3s, .................... (16) cific gravity for each of the models described above. The purpose
of the statistical information is to provide the correlation user with
where {3o =635.53, {31 =0.36182, an idea of the range over which the true result can vary in relation
{32 = 1.0544, {33 =5.0831, to the estimate from the correlation.
{34 = 1.5812, /35 = -0.79130. Table 2 shows the coefficient of determination, R2, for Models
1 and 2 for the Gpa and Veq correlations and their corresponding
Eqs. 15 and 16 are graphically illustrated as nomographs in Figs. estimates of the reservoir-gas specific gravity for both the three-
3 and 4 for Gpa and Veq , respectively. stage and two-stage separation cases. The coefficient of determi-

Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 1989 751

nation, R2, indicates how well G pa and Veq are explained by the PsI = primary-separator pressure, psia [MPa]
parameters used in the model. Therefore, for example, 90.80% of qR = reservoir fluid withdrawal rate at reservoir conditions,
the variation of Gpa Modell for a three-stage separation system res ft 3 1D [res m 3 /d]
is accounted for by the variables inthe model-namely, the primary- qsc = reservoir fluid withdrawal rate at standard conditions,
separator pressure, temperature, and gas specific gravity; secondary- scflD [std m 3 /d]
separator temperature; and stock-tank temperature and liquid gravi- qsl = gas flow rate from primary separator, scf/D [std
ty. Table 2 also shows the average absolute error for each model. m 3 /d]
The effect of total nonhydrocarbons on the reservoir-gas specif- RI = primary-separator gas/liquid ratio, scf/STB
ic gravity calculation and the Veq correlation was studied with 52 [std m 3 1stock -tank m3 ]
additional fluid samples. Total nonhydrocarbons ranged from 5 to R2 = secondary-separator gas/liquid ratio, scf/STB
42.66 mol %. The H 2S content ranged from 0.00 to 28.16 mol %, [std m 3/stock-tank m 3]
CO 2 ranged from 0.05 to 20.20 mol %, and N2 ranged from 0.11 R3 = stock-tank gas/liquid ratio, scf/STB
to 37.22 mol %. For samples with a total nonhydrocarbon content [std m 3/stock-tank m 3]
between 5 and 20 mol %, the average absolute error of the calcula- TR = reservoir temperature, OR [K]
tion of gas specific gravity is 0.95 % and the maximum error is
Tsc = temperature at standard conditions, OR [K]
8.1 %. Nonhydrocarbon content of up to 20 mol % increased the
Tsl = primary-separator temperature, OF rOC]
average absolute error of the Veq correlation from 6 to 21 %.
Ts2 = secondary-separator temperature, OF [0C]
Therefore, reliable estimates of the reservoir-gas specific gravity
can be obtained for gases that have a total nonhydrocarbon content Ts3 = stock-tank temperature, OF [0C]
of up to 20 mol % by use of the Gpa and Veq correlations. Yet cau- Veq = vapor equivalent of primary-separator liquid, scf/STB
tion should be exercised when the Veq correlation is used for gases [std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
that contain a significant amount of total nonhydrocarbons. z = gas-law deviation factor, dimensionless
(30' . ·(37 = parameters in Gpa and Veq correlations
Application of the Correlations 'Yw = wellstream specific gravity of reservoir gas (air = 1)
There are two applications of the Gpa and Veq correlations. First, 'Yo = specific gravity of stock-tank liquid (water = 1)
the Gpa and Veq correlations are used conjunctively in Eq. 7 to cal- 'YI = specific gravity of primary-separator gas (air= 1)
culate the reservoir-gas specific gravity. Second, the Veq correla- 'Y2 = specific gravity of secondary-separator gas (air= 1)
tion can be used to calculate the reservoir fluid withdrawal when 'Y3 = specific gravity of stock-tank gas (air= 1)
only the primary-separator gas and the stock-tank liquid produc- p = density of stock-tank liquid, ° API [g/cm 3 ]
tion are known. Because Veq accounts for the low-pressure sepa-
rator gas in addition to the stock-tank liquid production, Eq. 17 Acknowledgments
can be used to estimate the reservoir fluid withdrawal: We express our appreciation to Core Laboratories Inc., and espe-
cially to Phillip L. Moses, for providing the data. We wish to thank
qsc =qsl (1 + VeqlR I)' .............................. (17) the Texas A&M U. Petroleum Engineering Dept. and the Crisman
Inst. for Petroleum Reservoir Management for providing financial
Eq. 18 can be used to convert the reservoir fluid withdrawal from support for this project. Special thanks go to Bobby D. Poe Ir. for
standard conditions to reservoir conditions: preparing the nomographs and to Timothy R. Nearing for his ideas
and input.

The reservoir-gas specific gravity obtained from Eq. 7 is used to References

estimate the z factor at the reservoir pressure and temperature. I. Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas Wells, third edition, Alberta
Energy Resources Conservation Board, Calgary (1975).
Conclusions 2. Leshikar, A.G.: "How to Estimate Equivalent Gas Volume of Stock
Tank Condensate," World Oil (1961) 152, No.1, 108-09.
1. An accurate estimate of the reservoir-gas specific gravity is 3. Eilerts, C.K. and Cotton, F.G.: "Compressibility Factors of Natural
obtained with the new additional gas production and improved Gas and Gas-Condensate Fluids Computed from Specific Gravity," U.S.
vapor-equivalent correlations. Bureau of Mines, Monograph 10, New York City (1959) II, 708.
2. The improved Veq correlation is significantly more accurate 4. Beal, C.: "The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas, Crude Oil, and
than the previous correlation. Its Associated Gases at Oil Field Temperatures and Pressures," Trans.,
3. The improved method for estimating the reservoir-gas specif- AIME (1946) 165,94-106.
ic gravity can be used to obtain reliable results for retrograde gases 5. Cragoe, C.S.: "Thermodynamic Properties of Petroleum Products,"
with a total nonhydrocarbon composition of up to 20 mol % . Bureau of Standards, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Publication No. 97
(1929) 22.
4. The Veq correlation can be used to obtain the reservoir fluid
withdrawal when only the primary-separator gas and stock-tank liq- SI Metric Conversion Factors
uid production are known.
°API 141.5/(131.5 + °API) g/cm 3
OF (OF-32)/1.8 °C
Nomenclature
psi x 6.894 757 E+OO kPa
= additional gas production, (scf/STB)-gravity [(std scf/bbl x 1.801 175 E-Ol std m 3 /m 3
m 3 /stock-tank m 3 )·gravity]
= molecular weight of stock-tank liquid, IbmlIbm mol JPT
[kg/kmol] Original SPE manuscript received for review March 10, 1988. Paper accepted for publica·
tion July 11,1988. Revised manuscript received Feb. 13. 1989. Paper (SPE 17310) first
fiR = average reservoir pressure, psia [MPa] presented at the 1968 SPE Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference held in Mid·
Psc = pressure at standard conditions, psia [MPa] land. March 10-11.

752 Journal of PetroleuJIl Technology, July 1989


Gold et al. (July 19891PT. Pages 747-52)
address a problem that must often be dealt
with in the engineering of gas-condensate
reservoirs but that has received little treat-
ment in the petroleum literature. The prob-
lem is that all the data required to calculate
the well-stream "equivalent" gas volume
and well-stream specific gravity of a gas-
condensate fluid are often not available and
must be estimated. The data required, as-
suming a three-stage separator, include sepa-
rator GOR's, R I , R 2 , and R 3; separator gas
gravities, 'Y I, 'Yz, and 'Y3; and stock-tank
oil gravity and molecular weight, 'Yo and
Mo' In practice, we often have only R I , 'YI'
and 'Yo reported, together with first-stage-
separator conditions Psi and Ts1 '
It appears to me that the authors have
chosen a very indirect approach to the prob-
lem and that the resulting correlations are
both misleading and unnecessarily compli-
cated. An alternative approach, originally
suggested by Leshikar, I is presented here
in a modified form. My experience is that
this approach is simpler and more accurate.
A correlation can be used to estimate M0
from 'Y 0' as mentioned by Gold et at. If the
Watson characterization factor, Kw, is
known for a field (perhaps from one meas-
urement of M 0 and 'Yo), then the
correlation z
Mo =4.568 x 10 -5 K~5885'Y 5. 5721
................ (D-l)
should provide a more accurate estimate of
M 0 than correlations based only on 'Yo
(Kw= 12 gives about the same accuracy as
the other correlations). Kw is approximately
constant for a given field throughout
depletion.
The term R z +R3 in Gold et al.'s Eq. 5
is simply the solution GOR of the first-stage-
separator oil (R s1 =R z +R3)' Practically,
this value is insensitive to the number and
conditions of separators after the primary
separator. We can readily' estimate Rsl
from a bubblepoint-pressure correlation.
U sing Standing's correlation, 3 we have
1216-----------------------------------------------------------------------------November 1989-JPT
Discussion of An Improved
Method for the Determination of
the Reservoir-Gas Specific
Gravity for Retrograde Gases
Curtis H. Whitson, SPE, Norwegian Inst. of Technology
and al = conditions used as independent variables.
r(~
18.2
+ 1.4)IO(O.OI25P -O.OOO91Ts1 )
............... (D-2b)
l1.20~
J
where 'Y ga = average gas gravity of the solu-
tion gas released from the separator oil. The
Katz correlation 4 can be used to estimate
'Y ga' where a best-fit representation of his
graphical correlation is
'Yga=aZ+a3Rsl, ............ (D-3a)
az =0.25 +0.02p, ........... (D-3b)
and a3=-3.57xlO- 6 p, ....... (D-3c)
where P='Y API' Solving Eqs. D-2 and D-3
for R sI , we get
Rsl =alazl(l-ala3)' ......... (D-4)
Although the Katz correlation is only ap-
proximate, the impact of an error of a few
percent in 'Y ga is not of practical conse-
quence to the calculation of 'Yw or Veq be-
cause Rsl is usually much less than R I .
Finally, Gpa. as defined by Gold et at. •
is simply
Gpa =R.d 'Y ga ................ (D-5)
with units ofscf/STB [not (scf/STB)xgra-
vity]. In fact, Gpa represents the mass of
solution gas in the first -stage-separator oil,
where (28.97/379)G pa has units of
Ibm/STB.
It would seem that the authors could have
made a more significant contribution by de-
veloping improved correlations for Mo.
R sI' and 'Y ga as functions of Psi' Ts Jo and
'Y 0 (with equations similar to those present-
ed above). They do give a best-fit equation
for Mo based on their data base, but it is not
used in the calculation of Veq. Instead, they
present three sets of correlations with what
seems to be a random choice of correlation
parameters.
The original paper (SPE 17310, present-
ed at the 1988 SPE Oil and Gas Recovery
Conference) gives one correlation for Veq
and one for Gpa' both expressed in terms
of Psi' p, Ts I' and Tsz . These correlations
are not presented in the final 1PT publica-
tion. Instead, Gold et at. present three new
sets of correlations (six equations) for Veq
and Gpa , each with different properties and
Why are three sets of correlations presented,
and which ones should the engineer use?
Also, how did Gold et al. choose the cor-
relation parameters? For example, the origi-
nal correlations did not use 'Y I' All the new
correlations include 'Y 1 raised to a power of
five or greater. It is not obvious why the
equilibrium gas gravity of the separator oil,
'Y I , should be such an important parameter
because the correlations basically give an in-
direct estimation of separator-oil solution
GOR and gas gravity. Because of the large
exponent, a small error in 'Y I gives a rela-
tively large error in calculated properties
Veq and G pa . Also, including 'Yl as a pa-
rameter in the correlation for Veq precludes
use of the correlation when only R I, Psi'
TsI ' and 'Yo are known, which is a typical
situation.
Gold et al. also present four large nomo-
graphs, two more than appear in the original
SPE paper. Because very few engineers still
use nomographs (with the availability of
programmable calculators and PC's), the
authors could have omitted these figures.
Nomenclature
Kw = Watson characterization factor
estimated from Eq. D-I;
Kw:;;;;;,T~hl'Yo. where Tb=normal
boiling point, oR [K]
Rsl = solution GOR of first-stage-
separator oil, scf/STB
[std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
'Y ga = average specific gravity of gas
released from first -stage-
separator oil (air = 1)
References
I. Leshikar, A.G.: "How To Estimate Equivalent
Gas Volume of Stock Tank Condensate,"
World Oil (1961) 152, No. I, 108-09.
2. Whitson, C.H.: "Characterizing Hydrocarbon
Plus Fractions," SPEJ (Aug. 1983) 683-94;
Trans .• AIME, 275.
3. Standing, M.B.: Volumetric and Phase Be-
havior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems,
Textbook Series, SPE, Richardson, TX (197'l').
4. Katz, D.L.: "Prediction of the Shrinkage of
Crude Oils," Drill. & Prod. Prac. , API, Dal-
las (1942) 137.
(SPE 20006) JPT
 Authors' Reply to Discussion of
An Improved Method for the
Determination of the Reservoir-
Gas Specific Gravity for
Retrograde Gases
David K. Gold, SPE, Areo Oil & Gas Co., William D. McCain Jr.,
SPE, Cawley Gillespie & Assoes., and James W. Jennings, SPE,
Texas A&M U.

The method of calculating the specific gravi- References

TABLE R-1-COMPARISON
ty of a reservoir gas proposed by Whitson OF THE METHODS
is an interesting combination of existing
black-oil correlations. 1,2 It is a modifica-
tion of a procedure 3 that uses Leshikar's4 Average
correlation for Veq. Whitson's discussion Absolute Error
(%)
implies that ·Veq can be calculated as
Method Veq 'Yw
Veq=(133,316'YjMo)+Rsl' .... (R-l)
Leshikar 16.1 N/A
The three methods were compared with the Whitson 13.0 1.02
data base of 234 retrograde-gas samples 5 Gold et at. 5.S 0.64
processed through three-stage separation. (Model 2)
We are concerned with the situation of a
field engineer with no laboratory data, so
a value of 12 was used for Kw in the Whit- cific gravity, the results in estimating Veq
son method (as he suggested). The results are unacceptable. Eqs. 17 and 18 of our
are given in Table R-1.
paper indicate the usefulness of Veq apart
While the method proposed by Whitson from calculating reservoir-gas specific
is acceptable in estimating reservoir-gas spe- gravity.
1. Standing, M.B.: Volumetric and Phase Be-
havior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems,
eighth edition, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977).
2. Katz, D.L.: "Prediction of the Shrinkage of
Crude Oils, " Drill. & Prod. Prac., API (1942)
137.
3. Theory and Practice of the Testing of Gas
Wells, third edition, Alberta Energy Resources
Conservation Board, Calgary (1975).
4. Leshikar, A.G.: "How to Estimate Equivalent
Gas Volume of Stock Tank Condensate,"
World Oil (1961) 152, No. I, 108-09.
5. Gold, O.K., McCain, W.O. Jr., and Jennings,
J. W.: "An Improved Method for the Deter-
mination of the Reservoir-Gas Specific Gravity
for Retrograde Gases," JPT (July 1989)
747-52.
(SPE 20010) JPT

JPT • November 1989 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1217