Measurement and Prediction
of HydrateĆPhase Equilibria for
Reservoir Fluids
Bahman Tohidi, SPE, Ali Danesh, SPE, A.C. Todd, SPE, and R.W. Burgass, HeriotĆWatt U.
Summary
Problems associated with gas hydrates in the production and trans-
portation of unprocessed wellstreams can be avoided by either pre-
venting hydrate formation or allowing the formation of hydrates,
but preventing their aggregation, and transporting them as slurry.
The first approach, which is the current practice in the industry,
can be made more cost effective by determining the hydrate-phase
boundary more reliably. For the second approach, it is necessary to
determine the amount of hydrates to be transported as slurry.
This paper reviews the effect of electrolyte solutions and heavy
hydrate formers (such as benzene, cyclohexane, and methylcyclo-
pentane) on the hydrate-free zone and discusses new methods and
equipment for measuring the amount and composition of different
phases in hydrate-forming conditions. An in-house numerical mod-
el has been successfully employed for prediction of the hydrate-free
zone and the compositional data.
Introduction
Gas hydrates are solid crystalline compounds stabilized by the in-
clusion of suitably sized gas molecules inside cavities formed by
water molecules through hydrogen bonding. They resemble ice in
appearance, but unlike ice, they may form at temperatures well
above the ice point. Gas hydrates have been recently reviewed by
Sloan.1
One serious concern in the North Sea is that the subsea gathering
networks and pipelines are prone to hydrate formation, giving rise
to pipeline blockage, operational problems, and other safety con-
cerns. These can be avoided by either of the following two ap-
proaches.
1. Preventing the hydrate formation by heating and/or insulating
the pipe or by adding chemical inhibitors to operate, with a safety
margin, outside the hydrate boundary zone.
2. Allowing the formation of hydrates but modifying their growth
to prevent aggregation of hydrate crystals and hence avoiding the
blockage by transporting hydrates as slurry.
The available information on hydrate formation and prevention
have been mostly generated by studies on gaseous systems in pure
water. Although the formation of hydrates in oil and condensate sys-
tems or in the presence of electrolyte solutions is basically the same
as that in gas mixtures and can be described similarly by numerical
models, there are significant differences between the systems that
warrant special considerations for oil-transfer lines. Three areas
pertinent to oil- and/or gas-condensate transportation are investi-
gated in this paper.
1. Oil wellstreams may contain a much higher water cut than gas
systems that can prohibit the economical use of chemical inhibitors
to prevent hydrate formation. On the other hand, the water cut in oil
wellstreams is formation water and the salts dissolved in it may in-
hibit hydrate formation. Efficient modeling of the inhibition effect
of salts on hydrate formation will give the information required for
a more economical use of expensive inhibitors.
2. Oil- and gas-condensate systems contain a significant amount
of intermediate hydrocarbon compounds that are currently being
considered as nonhydrate formers. Recent results2,3 indicate that
some of these compounds are indeed strong hydrate formers. The
Copyright 1996 Society of Petroleum Engineers
Original SPE manuscript received for review Nov. 16, 1994. Revised manuscript received
Nov. 29, 1995. Paper peer approved Jan. 8, 1996. Paper (SPE 28884) first presented at the
1994 SPE European Petroleum Conference, London, Oct. 25–27.
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996
effect of these compounds on the hydrate boundary can play an im-
portant role in determining the hydrate-free zone.
3. For systems where the hydrate prevention approach is econom-
ically nonviable, the transfer of hydrates as slurry in pipelines is an
attractive option. In this case, information on the amount and com-
position of different phases, particularly the amount of hydrates, is
very valuable in the design and operation of transfer lines.
In this paper, after addressing the effect of electrolyte solutions
and heavy hydrate formers on the hydrate boundary, the measure-
ment and prediction of the amount and composition of different
phases in the presence of gas hydrates are discussed.
Effect of Electrolyte Solutions on HydrateĆFree Zone
For efficient and economical pipeline design and operation, phase
equilibria, as well as the boundary of hydrate formation with and
without salts and other chemical inhibitors, must be precisely
known. A recent survey4 among 15 operators in the North Sea
showed that two-thirds of them use a simple empirical correlation
reported by Hammerschmidt5 in 1939 or engineering experience to
predict or design inhibitor injection rates. Despite using modern
thermodynamic models to predict hydrate formation conditions in
the absence of inhibitors, operators are much less confident about
using them to determine inhibitor injection rates. This might be be-
cause the reliability of thermodynamic models for predicting the ef-
fect of inhibitors, particularly salts, has not been fully demonstrated
for real reservoir fluids.
A reliable electrolyte model estimating the salt-inhibition effect
may eliminate or significantly reduce the use of expensive chemi-
cals. Englezos and Bishnoi6 applied the Pitzer’s activity model to
calculate the activity of water in the water-rich phase and hence the
inhibition effect of single electrolyte solutions. In their model, they
neglected gas solubility in the water-rich phase by assuming that the
change in water activity is only caused by the presence of salts. Aas-
berg-Petersen et al.7 used a combination of equation of state (EOS)
and electrostatic contribution to predict gas solubility in single elec-
trolyte solutions. They successfully modeled the gas solubility of
different gases in two single electrolyte solutions at reservoir tem-
peratures. Englezos8 and Tohidi et al.9 used different EOS in con-
junction with the Aasberg-Petersen et al.7 approach to model the hy-
drate-inhibition effect of single electrolyte solutions.
In a recent communication, Tohidi et al.10 used an approach simi-
lar to Aasberg-Petersen et al.7 and developed a rigorous thermody-
namic model for predicting phase equilibria in electrolyte solutions
and successfully applied it to hydrate calculations. They modeled
the saline water phase with an EOS combined with the modified De-
bye-Hückel11 electrostatic term, using only one adjustable parame-
ter known as the interaction coefficient. The water/salt interaction
coefficients have been determined with vapor pressure depression
data at 373.15 K and freezing point depression of single salt solu-
tions and expressed as functions of temperature and salt concentra-
tions. The gas/salt interaction coefficients have been optimized by
using gas solubility measurements in single electrolyte solutions.12
In extending the model to mixed electrolyte solutions, Patwardhan
and Kumars’13 approach was employed to relate the activity of wa-
ter in a mixed electrolyte solution to those of single electrolyte solu-
tions. Common salts, such as NaCl, KCl, CaCl2, Na2SO4, NaF,
NaBr, MgCl2, SrCl2, BaCl2, and their mixtures, have been
modeled.10 Although the model was primarily developed to predict
the hydrate-inhibition effect of salt solutions, it could be employed
to predict other thermodynamic properties such as water vapor pres-
69
sure and freezing point depressions caused by the presence of electro- TABLE 1—COMPOSITION (MOLE%) OF GAS MIXTURE, GAS
lyte solutions and gas solubility in saline water.10,12 CONDENSATE, AND BLACK OIL
Gas mixture{ Gas condensate¥ Black oil§
Heavy Hydrate Formers and HydrateĆFree Zone
C1 85.932 73.95 23.08
Until recently, in the oil and gas industry n-butane has been regarded
as the heaviest hydrate-forming compound, and anything heavier C2 6.754 7.51 4.09
than it was thought to be a nonhydrate former. Although this ap- C3 3.126 4.08 6.09
proach could be adequate for gaseous mixtures, it is not so for all oil- i-C4 0.708 0.61 2.18
and gas-condensate systems that contain significant amounts of hy- n-C4 0.882 1.58 4.51
drocarbon compounds heavier than n-butane. Some of these com- i-C5 – 0.50 2.33
pounds have an effective van der Waals’ diameter that theoretically
should allow them to enter the large cavities of structure-II gas hy- n-C5 0.571 0.74 3.31
drates. Furthermore, Ripmeester et al.2,3 have suggested the pres- C6 s – 0.89 4.30
ence of a third structure, called H, with cavities larger than those of C7 + – 7.19 50.11
structures I and II. This would allow the formation of hydrates by CO2 1.306 2.38 –
even larger molecules in the presence of a help gas. N2 0.721 0.58 –
While available models can accurately predict the hydrate equi-
{ Gravimetrically prepared in this laboratory.
libria for synthetic and simple mixtures, they are generally optimis- ¥ Bottomhole sample with a dew point of 42.62 MPa at 377.15 K.
tic—i.e., under predicting the hydrate zone—for oil and rich-gas § Black oil with a bubble point of 9.411 MPa at 373.15 K.
condensate. 14 This could be attributed to the presence of heavy hy-
drate-forming compounds in the above fluids. TABLE 2—COMPOSITION OF SYNTHETIC AND
The first equilibrium data on structure-H gas hydrates was re- FORTIES FORMATION WATER
ported for methane/adamantane by Lederhos et al.15 Mehta and
Sloan16,17 have reported structure-H hydrate data for some other Synthetic Forties
Formation Water Formation Water
heavy compounds with methane. In a recent communication,18 they
presented a thermodynamic model for structure-H hydrates and de- Salt wt% wt%
termined the Kihara parameters for four structure-H hydrate for- NaCl 8.460 6.993
mers. CaCl2 3.043 0.735
Danesh et al.19,20 and Tohidi et al.21 showed that benzene, me-
MgCl2 0.865 0.186
thylcyclopentane, and cyclohexane can form gas hydrates in the
presence of a help gas, such as methane. They also determined the KCl – 0.066
Kihara parameters for benzene and cyclohexane that can be used to SrCl2 – 0.099
predict their effect on hydrate-phase equilibria. In addition to meth- BaCl2 – 0.036
ane, they used nitrogen as a help gas in their experiments.
By taking into account the effect of heavy hydrate formers, which
are commonly regarded as nonhydrate formers (inhibiting hydrate Experiment
formation), improvement in hydrate calculations is expected, which
is particularly important for oil- and gas-condensate fluids. Set-Up. Two separate hydrate rigs (identified as Rig 1 and Rig 2)
with different designs were used in the experiments. A detailed de-
scription of the experimental set-up and test procedure is given else-
Amount of Hydrates
where.23 Central to both rigs is a high-pressure equilibrium cell.
As mentioned earlier, the transfer of hydrates as slurry in pipelines Test fluids are confined in the cell where its temperature is con-
using chemicals, or operating at conditions, that modify the growth trolled within "0.05 K. The pressure of the cell is monitored by
of crystals and prevent their aggregation is an attractive option for strain-gauge pressure transducers calibrated against a dead-weight
high water-cut systems (where water salinity is not enough for hy- tester with an estimated accuracy of "7 KPa.
drate inhibition). As a result, most investigators are involved in the
development/testing of growth-modifying chemicals22 or the study Test Fluids.
of the texture and transportability of the hydrates at flowing condi- 1. Methane from Air Products U.K. Ltd., instrument grade.
tions. However, developing/testing of a thermodynamic model for 2. Ethane, 99.9% pure.
predicting the amount of hydrates to be transferred as slurry is 3. Propane from Air Products, instrument grade.
equally important. 4. Iso butane, BOC Ltd. instrument grade 100%.
Although very little information on the growth modifiers has 5. Normal butane, BOC Ltd. instrument grade 100%.
been released to the public, the general view is that these chemicals 6. Normal pentane, Sigma-Aldrich 99)% high-pressure liquid
do not significantly affect the phase behavior of hydrate-fluid sys- chromatography (HPLC) grade.
tems. As the hydrates are finely dispersed in fluid phases, the as- 7. Carbon dioxide, research grade 99.9% pure.
sumption of equilibrium at pipeline conditions is, therefore, justi- 8. Nitrogen, BOC Ltd., 99.998 %.
fied. Lithium chloride is supplied by Fisons, specified laboratory reagent
There is, however, very little data available on the amount and (SLR) grade 98% minimum assay. Other salts are all AnalaR grade
composition of the phases in systems with hydrates, reflecting the and the solutions were made by weighing the salt and distilled water
difficulty of isolating and sampling different phases. The objective on a balance to the nearest 0.01 g. An oscillating “U” tube densitom-
of this study was to develop and evaluate a numerical model as an eter was used to check the solutions.
engineering tool to determine the amount of hydrates formed at
equilibrium conditions for transportation of unprocessed well- Methods.
streams in subsea pipelines. Determination of Hydrate Dissociation Points. The equilibrium
The experimental work initially investigated the formation of hy- cell was thoroughly cleaned and evacuated before being filled with
drates in a number of binary mixtures. Xenon was chosen as one of the sample. The hydrocarbon fluid to be tested was introduced to the
the components of the binary mixtures used in the compositional cell and at the same time the cell volume was increased until the de-
work for both practical and theoretical reasons.23 Later, the method sired pressure and volume was attained. An HPLC pump was then
was successfully adapted to a North Sea gas condensate in the pres- used to inject water into the base of the cell. With the cell contents be-
ence of pure water and methanol, as well as a multicomponent gas ing mixed, the temperature was then lowered to form hydrates. The
mixture in the presence of pure water and formation water. Tables formation of hydrates caused a rapid decline in the pressure and their
1 and 2 show the compositions of the fluids and the formation water. presence was confirmed visually where possible. The temperature

70 SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996

was then raised stepwise, allowing at least 3 hours for equilibrium to be
reached at each temperature. The temperature, T, and pressure, P, were
logged continuously and the equilibrium data was plotted on a scatter-
gram. The point at which the slope of P vs. T plot sharply changed was
considered as the hydrate dissociation point. This was also confirmed
by visual observation.
Compositional Tests. For these tests, the cell was loaded in the
same manner as described earlier. An accurately weighed amount
of sample was introduced to the cell in each test. The water injected
was also accurately weighed. Oil- and gas-condensate fluids were
loaded above their saturation values.
The following method was adapted to form a significant quantity
of “slushy” hydrates and to avoid water being trapped among hy-
drate crystals. The method employed was that after forming hy-
drates in the cell, the temperature was then raised to a point close to
dissociation where only a few hydrate crystals were present. The
temperature was then lowered slowly and cycled alternately until
the desired point was reached.
With Rig 1, the cell contents were removed through the top valve
with the cell stationary and in the vertical position at a constant pres-
sure by simultaneously introducing mercury. The vapor phase was
collected, after passing through a separator, in a gas meter that had
previously been flushed with helium. When the first drop of water
reached the separator, a second gas meter was attached before col-
lecting the water phase. The released gas from the water phase, as
its pressure was reduced to atmospheric pressure, was collected in
the second gas meter. A sufficient quantity of water containing no
hydrates was removed for atomic absorption (AA) analysis. At this
point, the cell pressure was released and its temperature raised to
dissociate all hydrates present. The remaining water was then re-
moved for checking the final material balance.
When using Rig 2, the main difference from the previous proce-
dure was that the phases were passed through a gas chromatograph
(GC) sampling loop at pressure. The cell pressure was maintained
by the use of a backpressure regulator.
The gas composition of the vapor phase and the gas released from
the hydrates and water were determined by a GC calibrated using
gas standards gravimetrically prepared with compositions close to
the tested mixtures.
Hydrates formed in real reservoir fluids were floating at the sur-
face of the water phase. Thus, we relied on the hydrates not passing
through the small opening of the top valve when sampling the water
phase. This was noticed to be the case for the condensate tests, as no
Fig. 1—Hydrate dissociation conditions for a gas mixture.
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996
large quantities of gas were released from the free-water phase (col-
lected for AA analysis).
Water Content of the Hydrate Phase. The water introduced into
the cell contained a very low concentration (approximately 2 ppm)
of lithium chloride so it would not affect hydrate dissociation condi-
tions. As hydrates exclude salts, lithium chloride was used as a trac-
er for determining the quantity of water converted into hydrates by
monitoring the change in lithium concentration in free water. The
water was analyzed with a Varian Spectra AA-10 atomic absorption
spectrometer. Potassium chloride with a concentration of 2,000 ppm
was used as an ionization suppressant for satisfactory results. For
each analysis, a set of standards was used to calibrate the AA and
the original water introduced into the cell was also analyzed as a
control.
For electrolyte solutions, it was not possible to employ AA to find
the amount of hydrates formed. Using the same principle regarding
the exclusion of salts from hydrate structure, the change in density
was measured to determine the amount of water bonded.
Thermodynamic Description of the Phases
The Valderrama24 modification of Patel and Teja (VPT) EOS with
the nondensity dependent (NDD)25 mixing rules as well as Peng-
Robinson26 EOS can be used for the calculation of fugacity of each
component in the vapor, V, liquid hydrocarbon, L2, and water rich,
L1, phases. The hydrate, H, phases were modeled with the ideal solid
solution theory,27 with the Kihara potential parameters. A detailed
thermodynamic description of different phases is described else-
where.10 Three- (L1-H-V) and four- (L1-L2-H-V) phase hydrate
point and flash calculations were used to predict experimental data.
Results and Discussion
Fig. 1 shows experimental and predicted dissociation conditions for
the gas mixture in the presence of pure water and Forties formation
water. The maximum error in predicting potential hydrate formation
temperature is less than 0.5 K.
Experimental and predicted hydrate-dissociation conditions for
the North Sea black oil sample with pure water, Forties formation
water, synthetic formation water, and Forties formation water plus
8.67 wt% methanol are depicted in Fig. 2. The heavy end of the
black oil has been characterized as normal tetradecane by matching
the predicted and measured bubble points. In all cases, four phases
of hydrates, water, oil, and vapor are present, and despite the com-
71
 Fig. 2—Hydrate dissociation conditions for a black oil.

Fig. 3—Hydrate dissociation conditions for produced dry gas.

plexity of the system, the model predictions are in good agreement
with the experimental data.
Notz et al.28 have reported experimental hydrate data on a pro-
duced gas, a gas condensate, and a black oil sample in different pro-
duction scenarios. They have also examined the reliability of four
commercially available models. The models used empirical formu-
las for predicting the inhibition effect of methanol or NaCl and none
had the option of predicting the inhibition effect of reservoir brine
or reservoir brine plus methanol.28 The thermodynamic model de-
scribed in this paper was evaluated against the previous data and
compared with the results predicted by other models.29
Fig. 3 presents the experimental and predicted hydrate conditions
for the produced gas with distilled water and 20 wt% NaCl solution.
All the predicted results (except one high-pressure point at 20 wt%
NaCl) are in good agreement with the experimental data.
Experimental and predicted hydrate dissociation conditions for
the gas-condensate sample in the presence of 8 wt% methanol solu-
tion is presented in Fig. 4. For the phase behavior model, the heavy
end of gas condensate was characterized as normal tridecane to
match the measured molecular weight of C7+. A good agreement
is demonstrated.
In relation to the effect of heavy hydrate formers, Fig. 5 shows the
experimental and predicted dissociation conditions for methane,
methane/benzene, and methane/cyclohexane gas hydrates. The pre-
dictions are in good agreement with the experimental data. Note the
significant shift of the dissociation pressures to lower values caused
by the presence of benzene or cyclohexane.

72 SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996

 Fig. 4—Hydrate dissociation conditions for the gas condensate in the presence of methanol.

Fig. 5—Effect of benzene and cyclohexane (both previously ignored) on the hydrate-phase boundary of methane.

Fig. 6 presents the hydrate-phase boundary of nitrogen, nitrogen/
methylcyclopentane, and nitrogen/cyclohexane. As shown in the
figure, the hydrate-free zone of nitrogen is reduced significantly be-
cause of the presence of methylcyclopentane or cyclohexane.
These observations agree with our previous results where the
contribution of heavy hydrate formers were neglected, resulting in
an over prediction of dissociation pressure of a live oil.14 Indeed,
if benzene, cyclohexane, and methylcyclopentane were not hydrate
formers, they would have been expected to expand the hydrate-free-
zones.
Table 3 presents the results of the compositional tests on the gas
mixture in the presence of pure water in the L1-H-V three-phase re-
gion. The predicted amount and composition of the vapor phase are
in good agreement with the experimental values. The experimental
and predicted compositions of the gas in hydrates are in acceptable
agreement, with the exception of C2 and CO2. The reason for this
discrepancy is not yet clear, though it could be caused by exper-
imental error or an error in calculating the C2 solubility in the free
water or the Kihara potential parameters used for C2. Comparison
between the composition of the vapor phase and the gas in hydrates

SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996 73

 Fig. 6—Effect of methylcyclopentane and cyclohexane (both previously ignored) on the hydrate-phase boundary of nitrogen.

TABLE 3—RESULTS OF COMPOSITIONAL TESTS ON MULTICOMPONENT GAS MIXTURE IN THE PRESENCE

OF PURE WATER AND FORTIES FORMATION WATER
Test with Pure Water Test with Forties formation water
T=284.8 K, P=3.591 MPa T=284.5 K, P=5.366 MPa
Water=5.029 moles/mole gas mixture Water=4.987 moles/mole gas mixture
Composition of vapor phase and gas released from hydrates on a nitrogen and water-free basis
Vapor, Hydrate, Hydrate, Vapor Vapor, Hydrate, Hydrate,
Component Vapor Exp. Pred. Exp. Pred. Exp. Pred. Exp. Pred.
CO2 1.68 1.24 0.37 0.65 1.28 1.23 – 0.63
C1 88.57 89.22 67.89 63.52 87.43 88.47 69.90 65.00
C2 6.47 6.20 8.63 12.34 6.47 6.42 8.54 11.31
C3 1.67 1.60 17.29 17.35 3.04 1.99 16.69 17.35
i-C4 0.29 0.32 4.54 4.29 0.40 0.42 3.73 4.24
n-C4 0.80 0.79 1.28 1.85 0.85 0.84 1.14 1.47
n-C5 0.52 0.64 0.14 Nil 0.53 0.63 0 0
Experimental and predicted mole % of equilibrium phases
Phase Experimental Predicted Experimental Predicted
Vapor 14.85 14.88 15.06 15.35
Hydrate 11.63* 12.28 9.96 9.29
Water 73.52 72.84 74.98 75.36
Moles of gas 0.022 0.022 0.019 0.016
in hydrates
*Calculated by assuming 100% cage occupancy and using measured volume of gas in hydrates. Measurement for water bonded into hydrates failed due to the contamination in the
free water sample.

shows that, although the concentrations of light compounds are low-
er in the hydrate gas, the concentrations of the intermediates are sig-
nificantly higher than those in the vapor phase.
The predicted and measured results of the compositional tests on
the gas condensate in the presence of water and methanol are pres-
ented in Table 4. Calculated vapor compositions, mole% vapor, and
the amount of water converted to hydrates are in good agreement
with the experimental data.
Conclusions
1. The significance of electrolyte solutions and heavy hydrate-
forming compounds on hydrate formation has been demonstrated.
The results suggest that the inhibition effect of electrolyte solutions
and the contribution of intermediate/heavy components of reservoir
fluids on hydrate formation should be considered for accurate pre-
diction of hydrate-free zone. However, for the latter, the extent of
the effect on real reservoir fluids needs further investigation.
2. New equipment and test procedures have been developed that
not only allow reliable measurement of hydrate-free zone bound-
aries, but also the amount of hydrates formed to be transferred as
slurry in pipelines.
3. Novel experimental data on the amount and composition of hy-
drates on synthetic and real reservoir fluids have been reported.
4. A numerical model has been developed and successfully eva-
luated against hydrate data for different fluids, including North Sea
gas condensate and black oil samples at subsea transfer conditions.
In the comparison with four commercial packages, the model was

74 SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996

 TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CALCULATED EQUILIBRIUM VAPOR PHASE COMPOSITIONS (MOLE%)
AND MOLES WATER CONVERTED TO HYDRATE FOR GAS-CONDENSATE
Pure Water Water/Methanol (30 Wt%)
T=283.25 K, P=2.848 MPa T=270.22 K, P=4.027 MPa
Moles water/moles gas-condensate=13.354 Moles water/moles gas-condensate=3.632
Component Experimental Predicted Experimental Predicted
N2 0.65 0.74 0.96 0.72
CO2 1.76 2.08 1.99 2.30
C1 86.46 86.76 86.88 86.76
C2 7.29 7.17 6.92 7.12
C3 2.03 1.92 1.94 2.17
i-C4 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21
n-C4 0.69 0.72 0.41 0.48
i-C5 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.07
n-C5 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.08
C6 + 0.63 0.07 0.44 0.03
MeOH – – 0.13 0.04
H2 O – 0.05 – 0.01
Mole% vapor 5.30 5.26 13.68 14.57
Moles of water converted 0.042 0.046 0.048 0.046
to hydrates ("0.007) (" 0.005)

found as reliable with the extra benefit of thermodynamic consisten-
cy. The model showed its capability in calculating the hydrate-free
zone for complex systems where methanol plus formation water
were present. None of the commercial models are reported to be able
to predict the hydrate-free zone in the presence of mixed-electrolyte
solutions, or the combined effect of methanol and formation wa-
ter.29
5. The composition and amount of hydrates formed at equilibri-
um conditions can be predicted with an acceptable accuracy by the
developed model.
Nomenclature
H+ hydrate phase
L1+ water-rich phase
L2+ liquid hydrocarbon phase
P+ pressure
T+ temperature
V+ vapor phase
Acknowledgments
Different parts of this work were supported by the Engineering and
Physical Sciences Research Council (ESPRC) through its agency
the Marine Technology Directorate (MTD) Ltd., BP Research and
Exploration, Chevron Petroleum U.K. Ltd., Health and Safety
Executive, Esso E&P U.K. Ltd., Amerada Hess Ltd., Deminex U.K.
Oil and Gas Ltd., Marathon Oil U.K. Ltd., and Shell U.K. E&P,
which is gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Sloan, E.D.: Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases, Marcel Dekker Inc.,
New York City (1990).
2. Ripmeester, J.A. et al.: “A New Clathrate Hydrate Structure,” Nature
(1987) 325, 135.
3. Ripmeester, J.A., Ratcliffe, C.I., and McLaurin, G.E.: “The Role of
Heavier Hydrocarbons in Hydrate Formation,” AIChE Spring Meeting,
Session 44, Hydrates in the Gas Industry, April 1991.
4. Report prepared by Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) Technology for
the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), “A Critical Review of Hydrate
Formation Phenomena,” OTH 93 413, HSE Books, Crown copyright,
(1994).
5. Hammerschmidt, E.G.: “Gas Hydrate Formations,” Gas (1939) 15, No.
5, 30.
6. Englezos, P. and Bishnoi, P.R.: “Prediction of Gas Hydrate Formation
Conditions in Aqueous Electrolyte Solutions,” AIChE J. (1988) 34,
1718–1721.
7. Aasberg-Petersen, K., Stenby, E., and Fredenslund, A.: “Prediction of
High-Pressure Gas Solubilities in Aqueous Mixtures of Electrolytes,”
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. (1991) 30, No. 9, 2180–2185.
8. Englezos, P.: “Computation of the Incipient Equilibrium Carbon Diox-
ide Hydrate Formation Conditions in Aqueous Electrolyte Solutions,”
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. (1992) 31, No. 9, 2232–2237.
9. Tohidi, B. et al.: “Gas Hydrates Modeling, Effect of Gas Solubility in
Saline Water,” presented at 1993 Intl. Nonrenewable Energy Sources
Congress, Tehran, Iran, Dec. 26–30.
10. Tohidi, B., Danesh, A., and Todd, A.C.: “Modeling Single and Mixed
Electrolyte Solutions and Its Applications to Gas Hydrates,” Chem.
Eng. Res. and Des. (May 1995) 73(A), 464–472.
11. Debye, P. and Hückel, E.: “Theory of Electrolytes: Freezing Point Low-
ering and Related Phenomena,” Physik Z. (1923) 24, No. 9, 185–206.
12. Tohidi, B. et al.: “Gas Solubility in Saline Water and Its Effect on Hy-
drate Equilibria,” presented at the 1995 Intl. Offshore and Polar Engi-
neering Conference (ISOPE-95), the Hague, the Netherlands, June
11–16.
13. Patwardhan, V.S. and Kumar, A.: “A Unified Approach for Prediction
of Thermodynamic Properties of Aqueous Mixed-Electrolyte Solu-
tions. I. Vapor Pressure and Heat of Vaporization,” AIChE J. (1986) 32,
No. 9, 1419.
14. Avlonitis, D.A. et al.: “The Formation of Hydrate in Oil-Water Sys-
tems,” Proc., 4th Intl. Conference on Multiphase Flow, Nice (1989) 15.
15. Lederhos, J.P. et al.: “Structure H Clathrate Hydrate Equilibria of Meth-
ane and Adamantane,” AIChE J. (1992) 38, No. 7, 1045–1048.
16. Mehta, A.P. and Sloan, E.D.: “ Structure H Hydrate Phase Equilibria of
Methane + Liquid Hydrocarbon Mixtures,” J. Chem. Eng. Data (1993)
38, No. 4, 580–582.
17. Mehta, A.J. and Sloan, E.D.: “Structure H Hydrate Phase Equilibria of
Paraffins, Naphthenes, and Olefins with Methane,” J. Chem. Eng. Data
(1994) 39, 887–890.
18. Mehta, A.J. and Sloan, E.D.: “A Thermodynamic Model for Structure-H
Hydrates,” AIChE J. (1994) 40, No. 2, 312–320.
19. Danesh, A. et al.: “Benzene Can Form Gas Hydrates,” Chem. Eng. Res.
and Des. (July 1993), 71(A), 457–459.
20. Danesh, A. et al.: “Hydrate Equilibrium Data of Methyl Cyclo-Pentane
with Methane or Nitrogen,” Chem. Eng. Res. and Des. (March 1994)
72(A), 197–200.
21. Tohidi, B. et al.: “Equilibrium Data and Thermodynamic Modeling of
Cyclohexane Gas Hydrates,” Chem. Eng. Sci. (1996) 51, No. 1,
159–163.
22. Behar, E. et al.: “Plugging Control of North Sea Production Facilities by
Hydrates,” Annals of the New York Acad. of Sci. (1994) 715, 94–105.
23. Tohidi, B. et al.: “Hydrates Formed in Unprocessed Wellstreams,” paper
SPE 28478 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, Sept. 25–28.
24. Valderrama, J. O.: “A Generalized Patel-Teja Equation Of State for Po-
lar and Nonpolar Fluids and Their Mixtures,” J. Chem. Eng. Japan
(1990) 23, No. 1, 87–91.

SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996 75

25. Avlonitis, D., Danesh, A., and Todd, A.C.: “Prediction of VL and VLL
Equilibria of Mixtures Containing Petroleum Reservoir Fluids and
Methanol with a Cubic EoS,” Fluid Phase Equilibria (1994) 94,
181–216.
26. Robinson, D.B. and Peng, D-Y.: “The Characterization of the Heptane
and Heavier Fractions for the GPA Peng-Robinson Programme,” GPA
Research Report 28 (1978).
27. van der Waals, J. H. and Platteeuw, J. C.: “Clathrate Solutions,” Adv.
Chem. Phys. (1959) 2, No. 1, 1–57.
28. Notz, P.K., Burke, N.E., and Hawker, P.C.: “Measurement and Predic-
tion of Hydrate Formation Conditions for Dry Gas, Gas Condensate, and
Black Oil Reservoirs,” paper OTC 6745 presented at the 1991 Annual
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, May 6–9.
29. Tohidi, B. et al.: “Phase Equilibria in the Presence of Saline Water Sys-
tems and Its Application to the Hydrate Inhibition Effect of Produced
Water,” paper SPE 28884 presented at the 1994 European Petroleum
Conference, London, Oct. 25–27.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
°F (°F)459.67)/1.8 +K
psi 6.894 757 E)00 +kPa
Bahman Tohidi is a senior research associate in the Dept. of PeĆ
troleum Engineering at Heriot-Watt U., supervising the research
related to reservoir fluids and gas hydrates. Previously, he was
76
with National Iranian Oil Co. He holds a BS degree in chemical
engineering from Abadan Inst. of Technology, and a PhD deĆ
gree in petroleum engineering from Heriot-Watt U. Ali Danesh
is a professor in the Dept. of Petroleum Engineering at HeriotĆ
Watt U. in Edinburgh. He holds a BS degree in petroleum engiĆ
neering from Abadan Inst. of Technology and a PhD degree in
chemical engineering from Manchester U. His research interests
include reservoir fluids and flow in porous media, and he
teaches courses in PVT phase behavior and multiphase flow in
pipes. Adrian C. Todd is a professor and head of the Dept. of PeĆ
troleum Engineering at HeriotĆWatt U. He is involved in research
of oilfield scale, phase behavior of reservoir fluids, water injecĆ
tion, and stressĆrelated rock characterization. He holds BS and
PhD degrees in chemical engineering from Loughborough U. of
Technology. Rhoderick W. Burgass is a research associate in the
Dept. of Petroleum Engineering at Heriot-Watt U. working in the
PVT group. His main research work has been in gas hydrates. He
holds an MPhil degree in petroleum engineering from Heriot-
Watt U.
Tohidi Danesh Todd Burgass
SPE Production & Facilities, May 1996