TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CRETE

SCHOOL OF MINERAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING

PVT & CORE ANALYSIS LABORATORY

MSc Petroleum Engineering

Special topics in Petroleum Engineering

Instructor: Professor Nikos Varotsis

Student: Pavlos Poutachidis

Chania, 2019
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................................i

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables..................................................................................................................................................... iii

Simulate the PVT behavior of a reservoir condensate using the WinProp CMG PVT Equation of State based
model ................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Produce the phase envelope (p vs T) for the reservoir fluid by using the program’s default physical properties
values to characterize the pseudo components .................................................................................................... 3

2. Based on the provided PVT lab measurements, develop the best possible tuned C12+ Equation-of-State PVT
model which will be subsequently used to support the reservoir and production engineering calculations related
to this oil reservoir. ............................................................................................................................................. 5

3. Use the so developed reservoir fluid EoS model to optimize the Surface Separation facilities. More
specifically, determine the optimum separator pressure (2-stage separation, the second stage at standard
conditions) given that the effluent is produced from the wellhead at 110oF. .................................................... 14

4. Compare the quality of the tuning and of the predictions between the C7+ and the C12+ EOS model ....... 15

i
 List of Figures

Figure 1. P-T diagram without regression .................................................................................. 4

Figure 2. P-T diagram after regression ....................................................................................... 8
Figure 3. CVD plot of Gas compressibility factor over Pressure ............................................... 9
Figure 4. CVD plot of Liquid volume and Produced gas over Pressure ................................. 10
Figure 5. Relative volume over Pressure .................................................................................. 11
Figure 6. Liquid volume, % cell vol. over pressure ................................................................. 12
Figure 7. Gas Z factor over Pressure ........................................................................................ 13
Figure 8. Volume factor over separator pressure ..................................................................... 14
Figure 9. P-T diagram after component lumping and regression ............................................. 15
Figure 10. Relative volume over pressure ................................................................................ 16
Figure 11. Gas Z factor over Pressure ...................................................................................... 17
Figure 12. CVD plot of Liquid volume and Produced gas over Pressure ............................... 18
Figure 13. Gas Compressibility factor over Pressure. ............................................................. 19

ii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Constant Volume Depletion Data ........................................................................................3

Table 2. Constant Composition Expansion Data ...............................................................................3
Table 3. Composition data..................................................................................................................4
Table 4 – Change in tuning variables ................................................................................................5
Table 5. Percentage of change of initial parameters ..................................................................... 8
Table 6 – Matching of Gas compressibility factor ....................................................................... 9
Table 7 – Matching of Liquid volume, % original vol. ................................................................ 10
Table 8 – Matching of Produced gas ........................................................................................... 10
Table 9. Relative volume matching .............................................................................................. 11
Table 10. Liquid volume, % cell vol. matching ........................................................................... 12
Table 11. Gas Z factor matching .................................................................................................. 13
Table 12. Parameters generated after lumping to introduce in component selection ................... 15
Table 13. Relative volume percentage difference ........................................................................ 16
Table 14. Gas Z factor percentage difference............................................................................... 17
Table 15 – Matching of Produced gas ......................................................................................... 18
Table 16. Matching Gas Compressibility factor .......................................................................... 19
Table 17. Gas Compressibility comparison ......................................................................................20
Table 18 – Comparison of Produced gas ....................................................................................... 20
Table 19 – Relative volume comparison ...................................................................................... 20
Table 20. Gas Z factor comparison .............................................................................................. 21

iii
 Simulate the PVT behavior of a reservoir condensate using the WinProp CMG
PVT Equation of State based model

The main part of a PVT GC-study-2 report performed in the laboratory on a reservoir fluid is
given.
Using the WinProp CMG software you are asked to:
1) Produce the phase envelope (p vs T) for the reservoir fluid by using the program’s default
physical properties values to characterize the pseudo components
2) Based on the provided PVT lab measurements, develop the best possible tuned C12+
Equation-of-State PVT model which will be subsequently used to support the reservoir and production
engineering calculations related to this oil reservoir
3) Use the so developed reservoir fluid EoS model to optimize the Surface Separation
facilities. More specifically, determine the optimum separator pressure (2-stage separation, the second
stage at standard conditions) given that the effluent is produced from the wellhead at 110oF.
4) Compare the quality of the tuning and of the predictions between the C7+ and the C12+
EOS model
5) Write a report to clearly present the study and your calculations and discuss the
conclusions that you have drawn from this project

2
 1. Produce the phase envelope (p vs T) for the reservoir fluid by using the
program’s default physical properties values to characterize the pseudo components

By introducing the following data (tables 1-3), initial reservoir temperature at 176 F and
saturation pressure 1990 psi into the CMG WinProp suite the P-T diagram was generated (fig. 1).

Table 1. Constant Volume Depletion Data

Pressure (psia) Cum. Gas Prod. (%) Liq. Sat. (%) Gas Z Factor
1990 0 0 0
1980 1.86 0 0.867
1910 5.63 0.003 0.873
1757 13.61 0.012 0.883
1597 22.18 0.026 0.887
1432 31.06 0.044 0.902
1256 40.23 0.064 0.911
1080 49.35 0.072 0.922
892 58.89 0.074 0.942
693 68.56 0.07 0.947
494 78.07 0.063 0.968

Table 2. Constant Composition Expansion Data

Pressure (psia) Exp. ROV Liq. Vol. (%) Gas Z Factor
5000 0.4508 0.98
4700 0.4683 0.957
4400 0.4892 0.936
4000 0.5232 0.91
3600 0.5673 0.888
3200 0.626 0.871
2800 0.7065 0.86
2400 0.8219 0.857
1990 1 0.857
1960 1.0143
1924 1.0349 0.001
1855 1.0764 0.006
1697 1.1849 0.017
1503 1.3533 0.044
1299 1.5918 0.07
1153 1.816 0.082
940 2.2609 0.086

3
Table 3. Composition data
Component Mole percent
N2 0.28
CO2 4.02
H2S 0.02
CH4 83.46
C2H6 5.57
C3H8 3.12
IC4 0.77
NC4 1.05
IC5 0.47
NC5 0.34
FC6 0.34
FC7 0.25
FC8 0.14
FC9 0.08
FC10 0.04
FC11 0.02
C12+ 0.03
Sum 100

Figure 1. P-T diagram without regression

4
 2. Based on the provided PVT lab measurements, develop the best possible
tuned C12+ Equation-of-State PVT model which will be subsequently used to
support the reservoir and production engineering calculations related to this oil
reservoir.

Model Tuning
By using the Regression Parameters option in WinProp the following tuned EoS model was
generated.

Table 4 – Change in tuning variables

Variable Lower Bound Upper Bound Initial Value Final Value % Change
PC C12+ 12.42 19.14 15.52 18.56 19.6
TC C12+ 541.14 811.72 676.44 690.46 2.07
AF C12+ 0.60 0.90 0.75 0.79 4.36
PVC3 1 0.00 1.80 1.20 1.80 50

PC C12+ 12.42 19.14 18.56 19.14 3.14

PC FC7 30.09 31.68 30.97 30.09 -2.84
TC C12+ 541.14 811.72 690.46 676.73 -1.99
AF C12+ 0.50 0.86 0.79 0.86 10

PC C12+ 15.31 22.97 19.14 22.92 19.74

PC FC9 26.02 27.97 26.94 27.97 3.83
PC FC7 29.63 31.21 30.09 29.63 -1.54
PC FC8 28.08 29.58 29.12 28.08 -3.57
TC C12+ 541.14 811.72 676.73 667.44 -1.37
TC FC7 526.20 556.13 543.20 556.13 2.38
AF FC9 0.37 0.42 0.39 0.42 6.42
AF C12+ 0.68 1.04 0.86 0.90 3.98
AF FC7 0.29 0.33 0.31 0.33 6.61

PC C12+ 1.53E+01 2.30E+01 2.29E+01 2.28E+01 -0.72

PC FC11 2.31E+01 2.40E+01 2.32E+01 2.31E+01 -0.51
PC FC10 2.41E+01 2.64E+01 2.50E+01 2.41E+01 -3.51
PC FC9 2.66E+01 2.80E+01 2.80E+01 2.66E+01 -5.04
PC FC8 2.80E+01 2.88E+01 2.81E+01 2.80E+01 -0.19
PC FC7 2.89E+01 3.10E+01 2.96E+01 2.89E+01 -2.49
TC C12+ 541.14 811.72 667.44 658.53 -1.33
AF C12+ 0.68 1.04 0.90 0.95 6.18

5
PC C12+ 15.31 22.97 22.92 22.97 0.22
PC FC11 23.05 24.04 23.17 23.05 -0.51
PC FC10 24.13 26.41 25.01 25.12 0.42
PC FC9 26.56 28.02 27.97 26.63 -4.8
TC C12+ 541.14 811.72 667.44 666.74 -0.1
TC FC11 633.36 654.89 643.60 654.89 1.75
TC FC10 610.86 632.28 622.10 610.86 -1.81
TC FC9 585.16 609.67 598.50 609.67 1.87
AF FC11 0.46 0.68 0.48 0.46 -3.36
AF FC10 0.43 0.46 0.44 0.46 2.6
AF FC9 0.39 0.43 0.42 0.43 3.18

PC C12+ 18.38 27.57 22.97 26.35 14.71

PC FC10 24.13 26.41 25.12 26.41 5.17
TC C12+ 541.14 811.72 666.74 662.36 -0.66
TC FC10 610.29 631.71 610.86 610.29 -0.09
AF FC11 0.46 0.67 0.46 0.67 44.87
AF FC10 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.97

PC C12+ 20.00 27.00 26.35 27.00 2.47

PC FC10 24.00 27.00 26.41 27.00 2.22
TC C12+ 541.14 811.72 662.36 662.07 -0.04
TC FC10 609.99 631.41 610.29 609.99 -0.05
AF FC11 0.57 0.78 0.67 0.64 -3.81
AF FC10 0.45 0.56 0.46 0.56 21.5

PC C12+ 20.00 27.00 26.35 27.00 2.47

PC FC11 23.00 24.00 23.05 23.00 -0.22
TC C12+ 541.14 811.72 662.36 662.25 -0.02
TC FC10 609.99 631.41 610.29 609.99 -0.005
AF FC11 0.57 0.78 0.67 0.64 -4.20
AF FC10 0.45 0.56 0.46 0.56 2.15

PC C12+ 26.82 27.51 27.00 27.51 1.9

PC FC11 18.40 27.60 23.00 18.40 -20
PC FC9 26.53 26.80 26.63 26.53 -0.39
PC FC7 28.89 30.97 29.63 28.89 -2.49
PC FC8 27.57 28.81 28.08 27.57 -1.83
PC FC10 24.79 26.51 26.41 24.79 -6.16
TC FC10 609.83 631.25 609.99 609.83 -0.03
TC FC11 633.50 658.37 654.89 658.37 0.53
TC C12+ 529.80 794.70 662.25 637.40 -3.75
TC FC7 532.97 562.93 556.13 562.93 1.22
6
TC FC9 591.01 609.82 609.67 591.01 -3.06
TC FC8 563.65 589.05 570.50 589.05 3.25
AF FC7 0.30 0.34 0.33 0.34 3.26
AF FC8 0.34 0.39 0.35 0.34 -3.07
AF FC10 0.50 0.60 0.56 0.50 -11.04
AF FC11 0.60 0.76 0.64 0.64 0.5
AF C12+ 0.72 1.08 0.90 1.08 20
AF FC9 0.39 0.49 0.43 0.49 14.3

PC C12+ 27.04 27.54 27.51 27.54 0.09

PC FC11 14.72 22.08 18.40 14.72 -20.01
PC FC9 25.70 26.99 26.53 26.99 1.76
PC FC7 28.26 30.58 28.89 30.58 5.85
PC FC8 27.57 28.81 27.57 28.81 4.52
PC FC10 21.75 25.61 24.79 25.61 3.32
TC FC10 600.86 622.88 609.83 600.86 -1.47
TC FC11 526.69 790.04 658.37 694.38 5.47
TC C12+ 529.80 794.70 637.40 612.77 -3.86
TC FC7 536.53 575.30 562.93 575.30 2.2
TC FC9 590.07 599.92 591.01 590.07 -0.16
TC FC8 576.61 589.97 589.05 589.97 0.16
AF FC7 0.31 0.34 0.34 0.31 -9.03
AF FC11 0.60 0.76 0.64 0.60 -6.55
AF C12+ 0.86 1.29 1.08 1.29 20
AF FC9 0.42 0.49 0.49 0.42 -14.55

PC FC7 28.26 30.58 30.58 28.26 -7.59

TC FC11 526.69 790.04 694.38 694.13 -0.04
TC C12+ 529.80 794.70 612.77 613.83 0.17
TC FC8 576.61 589.97 589.97 576.61 -2.26
AF FC7 0.31 0.34 0.31 0.34 10.1

PC C12+ 27.28 28.14 27.54 28.14 2.19

PC FC11 11.78 19.88 14.72 14.05 -4.55
TC FC11 526.69 790.04 694.38 699.83 0.78
TC C12+ 529.80 794.70 612.77 614.10 0.22

PC C12+ 27.59 28.46 28.14 28.46 1.13

PC FC11 11.78 19.88 14.05 14.19 1.02
TC FC11 526.69 790.04 699.83 700.28 0.07
TC C12+ 529.80 794.70 614.10 614.20 0.02

PC C12+ 27.08 27.94 27.16 27.94 2.89

7
 PC FC11 11.78 19.88 13.02 13.05 0.23
PC FC10 19.61 26.26 25.61 26.26 2.55
AF C12+ 0.98 1.55 1.29 1.30 0.11

PC C12+ 27.49 28.35 27.94 28.35 1.48

PC FC11 11.78 19.88 13.05 13.27 1.69
PC FC10 19.97 26.61 26.26 26.61 1.31
AF C12+ 0.98 1.55 1.30 1.30 0.05

The tuned saturation pressure is 1965.463 psi.

After tuning the model, the initial parameters where compared with the tuned ones (table 5)
to see if the changes are not exceeding physical values.

Table 5. Percentage of change of initial parameters

Pc Tc AF
FC7 -1.27% 5.58% 0.15%
FC8 -1.07% 3.30% -3.17%
FC9 0.19% -1.43% 6.75%
FC10 4.77% -3.53% 10.70%
FC11 -27.58% 8.03% 24.65%
C12+ 44.49% -10.42% 42.52%

After tuning the model, the following diagrams were generated.

Figure 2. P-T diagram after regression

8
Figure 3. CVD plot of Gas compressibility factor over Pressure

Table 6 – Matching of Gas compressibility factor

Pressure (psia) Final Gas Z Factor Exp. Gas Z Factor Percentage difference
1980 0.833134 0.867 -4.06%
1910 0.83464 0.873 -4.60%
1757 0.839813 0.883 -5.14%
1597 0.846913 0.887 -4.73%
1432 0.856088 0.902 -5.36%
1256 0.867775 0.911 -4.98%
1080 0.881343 0.922 -4.61%
892 0.897809 0.942 -4.92%
693 0.917309 0.947 -3.24%
494 0.938777 0.968 -3.11%

9
Figure 4. CVD plot of Liquid volume and Produced gas over Pressure

Table 7 – Matching of Liquid volume, % original vol.

Pressure (psia) Final Liq. Vol. Exp. Liq. Vol. Percentage difference
1910 0.002982 0.003 -0.60%
1757 0.011605 0.012 -3.40%
1597 0.025271 0.026 -2.89%
1432 0.045523 0.044 3.34%
1256 0.06239 0.064 -2.58%
1080 0.073005 0.072 1.38%
892 0.077911 0.074 5.02%
693 0.076517 0.07 8.52%
494 0.069243 0.063 9.02%

Table 8 – Matching of Produced gas

Pressure (psia) Final Prod. Gas Exp. Prod. Gas Percentage difference
1980 0 1.86 100.00%
1910 2.99578 5.63 -87.93%
1757 11.311 13.61 -20.33%
1597 20.0543 22.18 -10.60%
1432 29.068 31.06 -6.85%
1256 38.607 40.23 -4.20%
1080 48.0055 49.35 -2.80%
892 57.8268 58.89 -1.84%
693 67.9155 68.56 -0.95%
494 77.6373 78.07 -0.56%

10
Figure 5. Relative volume over Pressure

Table 9. Relative volume matching

Pressure (psia) ROV Exp. ROV Percentage difference
5000 0.444323 0.4508 -1.46%
4700 0.462776 0.4683 -1.19%
4400 0.48427 0.4892 -1.02%
4000 0.519085 0.5232 -0.79%
3600 0.56354 0.5673 -0.67%
3200 0.621982 0.626 -0.65%
2800 0.701488 0.7065 -0.71%
2400 0.814133 0.8219 -0.95%
1990 0.986987 1 -1.32%
1965.46 1 - -
1960 1.00295 1.0143 -1.13%
1924 1.0229 1.0349 -1.17%
1855 1.06358 1.0764 -1.21%
1697 1.17078 1.1849 -1.21%
1503 1.33685 1.3533 -1.23%
1299 1.56974 1.5918 -1.41%
1153 1.79024 1.816 -1.44%
940 2.24051 2.2609 -0.91%

11
Figure 6. Liquid volume, % cell vol. over pressure

Table 10. Liquid volume, % cell vol. matching

Pressure (psia) Exp. Liq. Vol. Exp. Liq. Vol. Percentage difference
1924 0.002226 0.001 55.08%
1855 0.006002 0.006 0.04%
1697 0.01621 0.017 -4.87%
1503 0.041058 0.044 -7.16%
1299 0.069869 0.07 -0.19%
1153 0.085847 0.082 4.48%
940 0.100499 0.086 14.43%

12
Figure 7. Gas Z factor over Pressure

Table 11. Gas Z factor matching

Pressure (psia) Final Gas Z Factor Exp. Gas Z Factor Percentage difference
5000 0.941713 0.98 -4.07%
4700 0.921975 0.957 -3.80%
4400 0.903213 0.936 -3.63%
4000 0.880134 0.91 -3.39%
3600 0.859959 0.888 -3.26%
3200 0.84368 0.871 -3.24%
2800 0.832585 0.86 -3.29%
2400 0.828241 0.857 -3.47%
1990 0.832558 0.857 -2.94%

13
 3. Use the so developed reservoir fluid EoS model to optimize the Surface
Separation facilities. More specifically, determine the optimum separator
pressure (2-stage separation, the second stage at standard conditions) given that
the effluent is produced from the wellhead at 110oF.

By choosing different separator pressures at a constant temperature 110 F the following

diagram was generated to find the optimum separator pressure, at minimum volume factor. Which is
at 100 psi with a volume factor 1.032. Since it is larger than 1.023 it is an acceptable value.

2.5

2
Volume Factor

1.5

0.5

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Pressure, PSI

Figure 8. Volume factor over separator pressure

14
 4. Compare the quality of the tuning and of the predictions between the
C7+ and the C12+ EOS model

Table 12. Parameters generated after lumping to introduce in component selection

Identifier C7-C12
Sg 0.74557
Tb, deg F 254.689
Pc, atm 28.9789
vc, m3/kmol 0.44049
Tc, deg K 590.75
Zc 0.263321
Acentric Factor 0.41028
Molecular Weight 112.011

By using component lumping and regressing the C7-C12+ parameters the following results
are generated.

Figure 9. P-T diagram after component lumping and regression

The EoS model recognizes the fluid as a dry gas after using component lumping and regression.

15
 Figure 10. Relative volume over pressure

Table 13. Relative volume percentage difference

Pressure (psia) ROV Exp. ROV Percentage difference
5000 0.448381 0.4508 -0.54%
4700 0.467217 0.4683 -0.23%
4400 0.489154 0.4892 -0.01%
4000 0.524678 0.5232 0.28%
3600 0.570014 0.5673 0.48%
3200 0.629557 0.626 0.57%
2800 0.71045 0.7065 0.56%
2400 0.824846 0.8219 0.36%
1990 1 1 0.00%
1960 1.01615 1.0143 0.18%
1924 1.03629 1.0349 0.13%
1855 1.07737 1.0764 0.09%
1697 1.18556 1.1849 0.06%
1503 1.35297 1.3533 -0.02%
1299 1.5877 1.5918 -0.26%
1153 1.81003 1.816 -0.33%
940 2.26417 2.2609 0.14%

By comparing the percentage difference from tables 9 and 13 it is shown that the quality of
tuning improves by using component lumping and regression.

16
 Figure 11. Gas Z factor over Pressure

Table 14. Gas Z factor percentage difference

Pressure (psia) Exp. Gas Z Factor Gas Z Factor Percentage difference
5000 0.98 0.943068 -3.92%
4700 0.957 0.923724 -3.60%
4400 0.936 0.905365 -3.38%
4000 0.91 0.882834 -3.08%
3600 0.888 0.863204 -2.87%
3200 0.871 0.847443 -2.78%
2800 0.86 0.836791 -2.77%
2400 0.857 0.832741 -2.91%
1990 0.857 0.832741 -2.91%

By comparing the percentage difference from tables 11 and 14 it is shown that the quality of
tuning improves slightly by using component lumping and regression.

17
 Figure 12. CVD plot of Liquid volume and Produced gas over Pressure

Table 15 – Matching of Produced gas

Pressure (psia) Final Prod. Gas Exp. Prod. Gas Percentage difference
1990 0 0 0
1980 0.529511 1.86 -251.27%
1910 4.24743 5.63 -32.55%
1757 12.4292 13.61 -9.50%
1597 21.0313 22.18 -5.46%
1432 29.902 31.06 -3.87%
1256 39.3038 40.23 -2.36%
1080 48.5815 49.35 -1.58%
892 58.2887 58.89 -1.03%
693 68.2693 68.56 -0.43%
494 77.8909 78.07 -0.23%

By comparing the percentage difference from tables 8 and 15 it is shown that the quality of
tuning improves slightly by using component lumping and regression, except from the point at 1980
which worsens significantly.
In addition, the EoS model doesn’t generate any liquid volume.
After tuning the EoS model the optimum separator pressure must be chosen at a temperature of 110
F, but since the EoS model doesn’t generate any liquid it is impossible to run any tests at the given
temperature.
18
Figure 13. Gas Compressibility factor over Pressure.

Table 16. Matching Gas Compressibility factor

Pressure (psia) Gas Z Factor Exp. Gas Z Factor Percentage difference
1980 0.83733 0.867 -3.54%
1910 0.83909 0.873 -4.04%
1757 0.843991 0.883 -4.62%
1597 0.850699 0.887 -4.27%
1432 0.859336 0.902 -4.96%
1256 0.870471 0.911 -4.66%
1080 0.883548 0.922 -4.35%
892 0.899574 0.942 -4.72%
693 0.918712 0.947 -3.08%
494 0.939898 0.968 -2.99%

By comparing the percentage difference from tables 6 and 16 it is shown that the quality of
tuning improves by using component lumping and regression.

19
 4. Compare the quality of the tuning and of the predictions between the C7+ and the C12+ EOS
model.

Table 17. Gas Compressibility comparison

Pressure (psia) Exp. Gas Z Factor C12+ C7-C12+
1980 0.867 -4.06% -3.54%
1910 0.873 -4.60% -4.04%
1757 0.883 -5.14% -4.62%
1597 0.887 -4.73% -4.27%
1432 0.902 -5.36% -4.96%
1256 0.911 -4.98% -4.66%
1080 0.922 -4.61% -4.35%
892 0.942 -4.92% -4.72%
693 0.947 -3.24% -3.08%
494 0.968 -3.11% -2.99%

Table 18 – Comparison of Produced gas

Pressure (psia) Exp. Prod. Gas C12+ C7-C12+
1990 0 0 0
1980 1.86 100.00% -251.27%
1910 5.63 -87.93% -32.55%
1757 13.61 -20.33% -9.50%
1597 22.18 -10.60% -5.46%
1432 31.06 -6.85% -3.87%
1256 40.23 -4.20% -2.36%
1080 49.35 -2.80% -1.58%
892 58.89 -1.84% -1.03%
693 68.56 -0.95% -0.43%
494 78.07 -0.56% -0.23%

Table 19 – Relative volume comparison

Pressure (psia) Exp. ROV C12+ C7-C12+
5000 0.4508 -1.46% -0.54%
4700 0.4683 -1.19% -0.23%
4400 0.4892 -1.02% -0.01%
4000 0.5232 -0.79% 0.28%
3600 0.5673 -0.67% 0.48%
3200 0.626 -0.65% 0.57%
2800 0.7065 -0.71% 0.56%
2400 0.8219 -0.95% 0.36%
1990 1 -1.32% 0.00%
1965.46 - - -

20
 1960 1.0143 -1.13% 0.18%
1924 1.0349 -1.17% 0.13%
1855 1.0764 -1.21% 0.09%
1697 1.1849 -1.21% 0.06%
1503 1.3533 -1.23% -0.02%
1299 1.5918 -1.41% -0.26%
1153 1.816 -1.44% -0.33%
940 2.2609 -0.91% 0.14%

Table 20. Gas Z factor comparison

Pressure (psia) Exp. Gas Z Factor C12+ C7-C12+
5000 0.98 -4.07% -3.92%
4700 0.957 -3.80% -3.60%
4400 0.936 -3.63% -3.38%
4000 0.91 -3.39% -3.08%
3600 0.888 -3.26% -2.87%
3200 0.871 -3.24% -2.78%
2800 0.86 -3.29% -2.77%
2400 0.857 -3.47% -2.91%
1990 0.857 -2.94% -2.91%

The EoS model recognizes the fluid as a dry gas after using component lumping and
regression. By comparing the percentage difference of the initially tuned C12+ EoS and the C7-C12+
EoS model with the experimental data, can be concluded that the component lumping improves the
matching (Gas Compressibility, produced gas, Relative volume, Gas Z factor) but on the current study
of GC-2 fails to generate any liquid so there cannot be any comparison for the total quality of the
model.

21