EFFECT OF SOUR GAS ON WATER VAPOUR

SOLUBILITY IN NATURAL GAS

TPG4140: Natural Gas Project
By
Andalu Frida William
Syikilili Adela Musa
Mwita Ghati

Faculty of Science and Technology

Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics




NOVEMBER 2012
ii

Acknowledgement
In accomplishment of this semester mini-project we had a lot of support in advice and in
materials which helped us to produce this piece of work successfully.
Our sincere gratitude should go to our Natural Gas lecturer Prof. Jon Steinar Gudmundsson of
NTNU, Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics for his valuable
advice and materials which surely were fundamental in our project.
Also we appreciate the support from Mayembe Joao Bartolomeu a Phd Student at NTNU for
his help in using Hysys program in this project.
.



iii

Abstract
This project focused on the effect of sour gases on water vapor solubility in natural gas. Sour
gas compositions from Germany were studied and water content for the gas reservoirs were
calculated by using the empirical formulas developed by Mohammadi et al. (2005). It was
found that, sour gases have effect on water vapor solubility; it increases the soluble water in
natural gas .Cappeln has 0.18mol-% of sour gas equivalent and 40.08 % of water content.
Bentheim has 0.02mol-% of sour gas equivalent and 5.26 % of water content at reservoir
temperature of 360 K .Bentheim was set as an ideal case and the additional antifreeze required
to inhibit hydrate formation increased by 34.31 % for Cappeln gas reservoir. Non-associated
gas reservoirs contain small composition of sour gases compared to associated gas reservoirs
hence, the effect of sour gases on non-associated gas reservoirs may be ignored due to their
slight effect on water vapor solubility similar with that of sweet gas. In summary, companies
operating on non associated gas reservoirs with high concentration of sour gases will spend
more money for antifreeze to inhibit hydrate formation in the pipes, flow lines and processing
utilities due to the additional water contributed by presence of sour gases.














iv

Table of content
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................... II
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. III
Table of content .............................................................................................................................. IV
List of tables ........................................................................................................................................ V
Table of figures .................................................................................................................................. V
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Parameters controlling gas composition .......................................................................... 2
2.1 Parameters controlling h
2
s content in natural gas .................................................................................... 2
2.2 Classification of sour gases ........................................................................................................................ 3
3.0 Factors affecting water content in natural gas ............................................................... 4
3.1 Temperature and system pressure ............................................................................................................ 4
3.2 Gas gravity ................................................................................................................................................ 4
3.3 Salinity ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.4 Presence of sour gas in natural gas ........................................................................................................... 6
4.0 Factors affecting solubility of gas in brine and water .................................................. 7
5.0 Methods to estimate water content .................................................................................... 8
6.0 Additional antifreeze required .......................................................................................... 10
7.0 Results and discussion.......................................................................................................... 11
8.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 15
9.0 Recommendation ................................................................................................................... 15
10.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 16
11.0 Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 17

v

List of tables
Table 1: Different gas reservoirs with the sour gas composition ............................................................ 3
Table 2: German sour gas composition ................................................................................................. 17
Table 3: Urengoy gas composition Russia ............................................................................................. 17
Table 4: the gas reservoirs considered ................................................................................................... 18
Table 5: The constants used for calculation in equation ....................................................................... 18
Table 6: Correction factors due to presence sours gases ....................................................................... 18
Table 7: The calculated water content by analytical method ................................................................ 19
Table 8: The percent increase of water .................................................................................................. 19
Table 9: Input data for Hysys ............................................................................................................ 20

Table of figures
Figure 1: Water content with system pressure and temperature ............................................................. 4
Figure 2: Water content with temperature with effect on gravity ......................................................... 5
Figure 3: Water content with temperature with effect on salinity ......................................................... 5
Figure 4: Water content with system pressure of H
2
S, CO
2
and CH
4
...................................................... 6
Figure 5: Gas solubility in water and in brine .......................................................................................... 7
Figure 6: Graph of water content of sweet and sour gases with temperature ........................................ 11
Figure 7: Graph of water content of sweet and sour gases with saturation pressure ............................. 12
Figure 8: Graph of pressure with temperature for Bentheim gas reservoir ........................................... 13
Figure 9: Graph of pressure with temperature for Cappeln gas reservoir ............................................. 14







1

1.0 Introduction
Natural gases are usually saturated with water at reservoir conditions. Dissolved water in the
gas phase may form liquid water phase, ice or gas hydrates during production, transportation
and processing. Forming a liquid water phase may lead to corrosion or two phase flow
problems. Gas hydrates or ice formation may also cause blockages, reduction in flow rates
and pressure losses in pipes and flow lines.
This project firstly, will find out different gas compositions of associated and non-associated
gas around the world that has different sour gas compositions. In additional to that, it will
bring out how different sour gases affect the amount of water content. The findings will also
show how sour gases affect water vapor solubility in natural gas. This will be done by
considering water content of a gas reservoir with sour gases and with the one without sour
gases composition. From this comparison, the discussion part will tell us whether this effect
can be ignored or something more should be proposed to solve out the problem of water in
natural gas.
Secondly, it will discuss on the methods used to determine the amount of water content in
natural gas having the effect of sour gases. It is necessary to be able to estimate the
equilibrium water content of sour gases as a function of system temperature, pressure and gas
composition. This is very important in order to enable engineers to calculate the amount of
water condensed as a result of changes in the system conditions. Furthermore, it will find out
factors affecting water content in natural gas and gas solubility in water.
Lastly, it will demonstrate the effect caused by the increased water content on the additional
amount of antifreeze required to inhibit hydrate formation and relate it to how hydrate
formation increases the operation cost of a given company.





2

2.0 Parameters controlling gas composition
Amursky et al (1983) described the analysis of the geological-geochemical conditions under
which the different natural gas formed as well as the study of the variations in the distribution
of their fields show that the composition of a natural gas is dependent on some natural
factors, the main of which are:
Lithofacies development of source-rock formations controlling the type and
concentration of organic matter (OM).
Catagenic intensity (maturity level).
The process of lateral and vertical migration and hyper genesis, leading to the
redistribution of the useful components of natural gas.
2.1 Parameters controlling H
2
S content in natural gas
H
2
S generation and accumulation in the sulphate-carbonate formations of the largest gas
bearing basins may be described by the following scheme:
The zones of active biochemical and sulphur organic-thermo chemical processes often
replace and overlap each other in depth
The reaction intensity of biochemical and sulphur organic-thermo chemical processes
decreases drastically and practically 2.5-3.0 km below in subsurface.
The maximum possible H
2
S concentration, produced by the biochemical reactions
does not exceed one tenth or perhaps as low as one hundredth of a per cent, and for
sulphur-organic-thermo chemical processes only some percent; along the margins of
oil-and-gas-bearing basins, in the zones of aeration which reach down to depths of
500-600 m, and under tectonic-dynamical active conditions in the 1700-2000 m range.
Amursky et al.(2003)
Formation of H
2
S varies from one geological environment to another as explained above
leading to variable composition of H
2
S in gas reservoirs. This may be a reason to why other
gas fields have H
2
S and some to lack H
2
S for example Tanzania and Norway has little or no
H
2
S.




3

2.2 Classification of sour gases
Depending on the H
2
S concentration, the natural gases containing hydrogen sulphide was
divided into groups by Amursky (1983) as follows;
i). Practically H
2
S free H
2
S up to 0.0014 %
ii). Low sulphurous H
2
S from 0.0014-0.3 %
iii). Sulphurous H
2
S from 0.3-1.0 %
iv). Medium sulphurous H
2
S from 1 -5 %
V). Highly sulphurous H
2
S more than 5 %

Germany gas reservoirs were studied, for instance, Cappeln, Adorf, Sagermeer, Dtlingen,
Visbek, Siedenburg and Bentheim gas reservoir. According to Mohammadi et al. (2005) the
correlations are valid for gas reservoir with methane composition of 70 % and
above.Therefore, the above gas reservoirs have met that criterion. The table below shows the
classification of the gas reservoirs used in this project according to the above classification
described by Armusky et al. (2003) .The calculated sour gas equivalent was used to categorize
the reservoirs in various groups as shown.
Table 1: Different gas reservoirs with the sour gas composition
Gas reservoirs CO
2
H
2
S Description
S/N mol% mol%
1 Sagermeer 6.2 0.04 Low sulphurous
2 Cappeln 16.1 2.9 Medium sulphurous
3 Dtlingen 6.8 7 Highly sulphurous
4 Visbek 9 4.3 Medium sulphurous
5 Siedenburg 8.5 6.8 Highly sulphurous
6 Adorf 15.3 1.5 Medium sulphurous
7 Bentheim 2.1 0.4 Sulphurous



4

3.0 Factors affecting water content in natural gas
Water content in the gas reservoir is affected by temperature, system pressure, gas
composition, presence of salts (salinity in the reservoir) and gas gravity. Detailed discussion
on the factors affecting water content in natural gas is shown below.
3.1 Temperature and system pressure
Literature shows water content of natural gas is decreasing as system pressure increases. On
the other hand, water content increases with increase in temperature. Ahmed et al. (2007)
presented the figures which show the water content versus pressure and temperature. See
figure 1 below.


Figure 1: Water content with system pressure and temperature Ahmed et al. (2007)
3.2 Gas gravity
Presence of heavy hydrocarbon in a gas increases gas gravity which has some effects on the
water content of that gas. Mohammadi et al. (2005) stated the correction factor to take into
account the effect of gas gravity with temperature. Figure 2 below was established for mole
fraction of water vapor in sweet gas having gravity of 0.7 and sweet gas with gravity of 0.9,
both at 10 [MPa]. Upper and Lower curves are for gas with gravity of 0.7 gravity of 0.9
respectively.
5


Figure 2: Water content with temperature with effect on gravity Gudmundsson (2012)
3.3 Salinity
Another factor affecting the water content of natural gas is presence of salts. Again in
Mohammadi et al. (2005) the correction factor to take in to account the effect of salts was
stated. The mole fraction of water vapor in natural gas in contact with water having 5 [%]
dissolved solids (salt) at 10 [MPa] system (reservoir) pressure is shown in figure 3 below
where upper curve is for gas in contact with water and lower curve is for gas in contact with
5 [%] saline water.

Figure 3: Water content with temperature with effect on salinityGudmundsson (2012)



0,000E+00
1,000E-02
2,000E-02
3,000E-02
4,000E-02
5,000E-02
6,000E-02
7,000E-02
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
T [C]
y

[
-
]
0,000E+00
1,000E-02
2,000E-02
3,000E-02
4,000E-02
5,000E-02
6,000E-02
7,000E-02
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
T [C]
y

[
-
]
6

3.4 Presence of sour gas in natural gas
Wayne et al. (2012) also on their discussion about the sour/acid gases with water content of
natural gases said that, within the normal design range, carbon dioxide CO
2
and hydrogen
sulphide exhibit unusual saturation water content characteristics compared to methane. Both
of these acid gases demonstrate higher saturation water content in the liquid and supercritical
(dense) phase than in the vapor phase. Hydrogen sulphide exhibits the biggest offset from the
vapor phase saturation at about 5:1 carbon dioxide pales in comparison at about 2:1 water
content capacity. This means that at a particular high pressure H
2
S can no longer exist as a gas
it changes rapidly to liquid form and the water content rises sharply and remain constant with
increase in system pressure as shown on the figure below. For CO
2
it forms water gradually
with the increase in pressure. The effect of gas composition was taken into detailed
consideration to assess the effect of sour gases on water content in natural gas. The vivid
picture will be portrayed in the analytical determination of water content of the natural gas

Figure 4: Water content with system pressure of H2S, CO2 and CH4 Wayne et al. (2012)




7

4.0 Factors affecting solubility of gas in brine and water
Gas solubility in water and in brine was studied by Dodson and Standing (1944). They
presented the experiment report which shows solubility of natural gas in brine decreases with
increasing total solids' content. A brine having a total solids' content of 30,000 ppm will have
only about 90 per cent as much gas dissolved in it at 5,000 psi, absolute, and 200 deg F as will
fresh water at the same pressure and temperature. The figure below illustrates their finding.

Figure 5: Gas solubility in water and in brine Dodson and Standing (1944)


8

5.0 Methods to estimate water content
Estimating the water content of natural gases is necessary in many chemical and petroleum
engineering processes e.g. calculating the amount of water condensed in a pipeline for
designing hydrate inhibition strategy. Methods to estimate the amount of water vapor in
natural gas have been reviewed by Carroll (2003) and Mohammadi et al. (2005). To describe
how sour gases affect the water content in natural gas, semi-empirical correlations developed
and presented by Mohammadi et al. (2005) was chosen to elaborate the effects of the above
factors on water content in natural gas. See equation 1 below.

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
T
p
a
p
p
y
a
w
w
2
1
exp . (1)
Where p
w
[MPa] is the saturation pressure of water, p [MPa] the system pressure,
a
1
=11.81479, a
2
=0.92951 and T [K] the system temperature. The constants a
1
and a
2
were
obtained from methane data from 273.15 [K] to 477.59 [K], equivalent to 0 [C] to 204.44
[C].The above equation was used to calculate the amount of water in sweet gas, yw ideal in
table 8 in the appendix. The saturation pressure of water can be found from Steam Tables and
empirical correlations. In this context the empirical correlation was used as recommended by
Mohammadi et al. (2005) to determine saturation pressure in [MPa] and the temperature unit
in [K].
(

+ =
2 6 6
10 1653 . 4 ) ln( 3037 . 7
2 . 7258
649 . 73 exp 10 T T
T
p
w
. .. (2)
Mohammadi et al. (2005) stated that the correlation based on methane data could be used for
natural gas with methane content above 70 [%]. Such a methane concentration will cover
most of the natural gases encountered in the oil and gas industry. If many factors are
considered in calculation of water content it is important that all factors are multiplied as
shown in the equation below

ideal salt gravity sour real
y F F F y =
. (3)
The effect of gravity and salinity in water content has been explained theoretically in the
factors affecting water content in natural gas. However, in the analytical approach of
estimating water content they were neglected and only the effect of sour gas was considered.
A correction factor F
sour
is used to correct for the effect of sour gases through the relationship
9


sweet w sour sour w
y F y
, ,
=
.. (4)

Mohammadi et al. (2005) suggested the following correlation for the correction factor

(
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
0
3
0 0
2
0
1
1
p
p
c
p
p
T
T
c
T
T
c y F
effective sour
.. (5)

The values for constants p
0
, T
0
, c
1
, c
2
and c
3
are in table 5 in the appendix. The temperature T
and pressure p are the system (reservoir) values. Equation 5 above was used to develop Table
6 in appendix. However, instead of accounting for the effect of the different sour gases on
water content separately, it is customary to use equation 6 below for the equivalent mole
fraction of sour gases. Equation 6 below was used to calculate the y
effective
in table 4 in the
appendix.

2 2
75 . 0
CO S H effective
y y y + = . (6)














10

6.0 Additional antifreeze required
Presence of sour gases in natural gas tends to increase water content in natural gas resulting to
hydrate formation. In order to inhibit hydrate formation antifreeze is injected in natural gas so
as to depress the hydrate formation temperature and to lower the dew point of water. Inhibitor
considered in this study was the mono ethylene glycol (MEG). Gudmundsson (2012) gives the
simplest correlation equation which was used to estimate the amount of the inhibitor required
to lower hydrate formation temperature by using Hammerschmidts correlation equation
shown equation 7 and 8 below.
AT=

.. (7)
T=Hydrate depression temperature,
M
w
=Inhibitors molecular weight,
X= Inhibitors mass concentration and
K= Inhibitors constant.
Gudmundsson (2012) recommends the values for inhibitors constant and molecular weight
of MEG to be 1222 and 62.00kg/kmol respectively .Therefore, the required inhibitors
concentration of MEG was obtained from equation 8 below and the values is displayed in the
result section;
X
MEG =

................................ (8)







11

7.0 Results and discussion
The water content of sour gas from Germany gas reservoirs and for ideal sweet gas are shown
in figure 5.1 below

Figure 6: Graph of water content of sweet and sour gases with temperature
The above figure was plotted using information in table 7 in the appendix and it shows the
analytical results of calculated water content versus temperature using the equations
developed by Mohammadi et al. (2005). The upper curve represents water content of Cappeln
gas reservoir which has high amount of sour gases of about 0.18 mol-% and methane
composition of 78.8 mol-%.At reservoir temperature of 360 K water content of Cappeln is
40.08 %. The lower curve is water content of sweet gas which is almost similar to that of sour
gas of Bentheim which is a non- associated gas reservoir of methane composition of 91.0
mol-% and sour gas composition of 0.02mol-%. The water content for both cases increases
simultaneously with temperature depending on the sour gas composition of a particular gas
field. For example, at the temperature of 360 K the water content at Cappeln field (sour gas
field) increases by 40.08 % while at Bentheim water increases by 5.26 %.
0,0000
0,0010
0,0020
0,0030
0,0040
0,0050
0,0060
0,0070
0,0080
300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440
W
a
t
e
r

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
y
w
)

Temperature (K)
Water content of sour and sweet gases vs temperature
yw(sweet)
yw(sour)-
Sagermeer
yw(sour)-
Cappeln
yw(sour)-
Dtlingen
yw(sour)-
Adorf
yw(sour)-
Visbek
yw(sour)-
Bentheim
yw(sour)-
Siedenburg
12

Also at the temperature of 390 K the water content at Cappeln increases by 46.54 % while
that of Bentheim increases by 6.11 %. The water content increase at various temperatures is
presented at table 8 in the appendix. Therefore, water content of sour gas is higher than that of
sweet gas if it is assumed that water content of sour gas is the sum of three components (water
content of sweet gas, CO
2
and H
2
S)

Figure 7: Graph of water content of sweet and sour gases with saturation pressure
The above figure was also plotted using information in table 7 in the appendix. Water content
increases linearly with saturation pressure and with the increase in sour gases composition. As
seen above the sweet gas water content is less than for sour gases. The non-associated gas
reservoir (Bentheim) has the lowest water content compared to the rest which are typically
associated gas reservoirs. For example, at the saturation pressure of 0.007 MPa the water
content of Cappeln gas field which has also high sour gas composition after Cappeln
increases by 24.35 % while that of Bentheim increases by 3.2 % and the similar trend is
shown in table 8 in the appendix.

0,000
0,001
0,002
0,003
0,004
0,005
0,006
0,007
0,008
0,00 0,02 0,04 0,06 0,08 0,10
W
a
t
e
r

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
y
w
)

Saturation pressure(Mpa)
Water content vs saturation pressure
yw(Ideal)
yw(sour)-
Sagermeer
yw(sour)-
Cappeln
yw(sour)-
Dtlingen
yw(sour)-
Adorf
yw(sour)-
Visbek
yw(sour)-
Bentheim
yw(sour)-
Siedenburg
13

Due to high increase of water content in natural gas by presence of sour gases, it is necessary
to calculate the additional amount of antifreeze required to inhibit hydrate formation. The fact
that, Bentheim and Cappeln gas reservoirs have lowest and highest water content respectively,
they were chosen for this case study to investigate the amount of antifreeze required to inhibit
hydrate formation and how it varies with the increase amount of sour gases present in natural
gas. By assuming some reservoir conditions of temperature and pressure ,gas compositions
from these gas reservoirs were fed to the Hysys to model the phase envelop and hydrate
curves. Hydrate depression temperatures were obtained from Hydrate curve shown in figure 7
and 8 below

Figure 8: Graph of pressure with temperature for Bentheim gas reservoir

14


Figure 9: Graph of pressure with temperature for Cappeln gas reservoir
Hydrate depression temperature from the above figures for Bentheim and Cappeln are 6
o
C
and 9
o
C respectively by assuming reservoir pressure of 40 bars and temperature 0
o
C.
Therefore, inhibitors mass concentration for Bentheim and Cappeln gas reservoirs was
calculated from equation 8 as shown below:
X
MEG
for Bentheim
=

X
MEG=0.2334

X
MEG
for Cappeln
=

X
MEG=0.3135

Increment due 0.18 % sour gas = (0.3135-0.2334)
=0.08
Therefore, % Increment of antifreeze =

X100
= 34.31%
15

8.0 Conclusion
From this project it can be concluded that, the composition of sour gases in natural gas
increases the amount of water content directly proportional, that is the more sour gas the more
water content in natural gas. Cappeln was chosen to represent associated gas reservoirs since
it has high sour gas equivalent and high water content of 0.1 8 mole-% and 40.08 %
respectively. Bentheim has 0.02 % sour gas equivalent and 5.26 % of water content thus the
effect of sour gases on water vapor in non-associated gas reservoirs can be ignored since their
behavior in water vapor is similar with that of sweet gas.
It was also found that, sour gases have effect on water vapor solubility; it increases the soluble
water in natural gas by 40.08 % when 0.18 mole-% of sour gas equivalent was present in
Cappeln gas reservoir and antifreeze required to inhibit hydrate formation increased by
34.31%. Therefore, gas reservoirs with high concentration of sour gases will require more
antifreeze to inhibit hydrate formation in the pipelines, flow lines and processing utilities due
to additional water contributed by presence of sour gases.
9.0 Recommendation
It is recommended that, for non-associated gas reservoirs the effect of sour gases may be
ignored .However, for associated gas reservoirs the effect of sour gases in natural gas is
critical hence detailed research should be done pertaining the design of the system. Removal
of sour gases can be done first in the processing unit before transporting it in pipelines. In
addition to that, proper design should be done to combat the hydrate formation and corrosion
in the utilities.







16

10.0 References
Amursky G.I, V.I. Ermakov, I.P. Zhabrev, V.I. Staroselsky and N. N. Solovyev. VNII Gas,
Ministry of Gas Industry, Moscow, USSR (1983).
Donson, C.R, I.B Standing.Pressure-Volume-Temperature and Solubility Relations for
Natural Gas Water Mixtures. Standard Oil Company of California, La Habra, Calof.Mach
1994.
Fattals,K.A.A.Prediction of Water Content in Sour Natural Gas.King Saul University
College of Eng.April 2007.
Gudmundsson, J.S. Flow Assurance Solids in Oil and Gas Production. Appendix L, Water
vapour in Natural Gas. Norwegian University of Science and Technology September 2012.
Gudmundsson, J.S. Pipeline Flow Assurance-
http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~jsg/undervisning/naturgass/lysark/LysarkGudmundssonFlowAssuran
ce2012.pdf.
Hrncevic, L., K. Simon, Z.Kistafor and M.Malnar. Sour gas Reservoir exploitation in
Croatia. University of Zagreb June 2011.
Istomin .V.A, R.S. Suleimanov, G.A. Lanchakov, A.N. Kulkov, V.A. Stavitskii, "Research
Institute of Natural Gases and Gas Technologies -VNIIGAZ, OAO. Russia. Presentation in
17th World Petroleum Congress September 1-5, 2002, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Mohammadi, A. H., Chapoy, A., Tohidi, B., and Richon, D., A Semi-Empirical Approach
for Estimating the Water Content of Natural Gases, Ind. Eng. Chem.Res, 43(22) (2004),
7137-7147.
Wayne Mckay, James R. Maddocks, Acid Gas Dehydration-Is there a better way?Gas
liquid Engineering Ltd (2012).




17

11.0 Appendix
Table 2: German sour gas composition Amursky et al. (1983)

Typical data of German sour gases
( mol %)
Compone
nt
sagerme
er
cappel
n
dtling
en
visbe
k
varnho
rn
buchhor
st
C1 88.7 78.8 78.6 82.9 64.9 69.8
C2+ 0.2 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.002 0.003
N2 3.9 2.19 7.3 3.5 5.3 2.5
CO
2
6.2 16.1 6.8 9.0 7.3 26.4
H
2
S 0.04 2.9 7.0 4.3 22.4 1.1


Siedenburg Barenburg Adorf Bentheim
80.8 72.1 77.2 91.0
0 0 0.23 0.1
3.7 4.9 4.8 5.7
8.5 8.7 15.3 2.1
6.8 14.3 1.5 0.4

Table 3: Urengoy gas composition Russia
Istomin et al.(2002)
Component mol-%
C1 98.5-99
C2 0.06-0.1
C3 0.01
C4 -
C5+ 0.3-0.5
CO
2
0.08-0.1
N
2
0.5-1.0
H
2
S -


18

For calculation with equivalent z-sour gas composition
Table 4: the gas reservoirs considered
Gas reservoirs H2S CO2 Sour equivalent
S/N mol% mol% mol %
1 SAGERMEER 6,2 0,04 0,0623
2 CAPPELN 16,1 2,9 0,1828
3 DTLINGEN 6,8 7 0,1205
4 VISBEK 9 4,3 0,1223
5 SIEDENBURG 8,5 6,8 0,1360
6 ADORF 15,3 1,5 0,1643
7 BENTHEIM 2,1 0,4 0,0240

Table 5: The constants used for calculation in equation
c1 0,03185
c2 0,01538
c3 -0,02772
Po 0,1 Mpa
To 273,15 K

Table 6: Correction factors due to presence sours gases
Temperatur
e
System
pressure
Sagermee
r
Cappel
n
Dtlinge
n
Adorf Visbe
k
Siedenbur
g
Benthei
m
T(K) P(Mpa
)
Fsour Fsour Fsour Fsour Fsour Fsour Fsour
310 5 1,030 1,087 1,057 1,078 1,058 1,041 1,011
320 10 1,058 1,170 1,112 1,153 1,114 1,044 1,022
330 15 1,083 1,243 1,161 1,219 1,163 1,047 1,032
340 20 1,104 1,306 1,202 1,275 1,205 1,049 1,040
350 25 1,122 1,359 1,236 1,322 1,240 1,051 1,047
360 30 1,137 1,401 1,264 1,360 1,268 1,053 1,053
370 35 1,147 1,433 1,285 1,389 1,289 1,054 1,057
380 40 1,155 1,454 1,299 1,408 1,304 1,055 1,060
390 45 1,159 1,465 1,307 1,418 1,311 1,055 1,061
400 50 1,159 1,466 1,308 1,419 1,312 1,055 1,061
410 55 1,156 1,457 1,301 1,411 1,306 1,055 1,060

19

Table 7: The calculated water content by analytical method
The amount of water content in various gas reservoirs
Ideal Sagermeer Cappeln Dtlingen Adorf Visbek Bentheim Siedenburg
yw(sweet) yw(sour) yw(sour) yw(sour) yw(sour) yw(sour) yw(sour) yw(sour)
0,0007 0,0007 0,0007 0,0007 0,0007 0,0007 0,0007 0,0007
0,0006 0,0007 0,0007 0,0007 0,0007 0,0007 0,0006 0,0007
0,0007 0,0008 0,0009 0,0008 0,0009 0,0008 0,0007 0,0008
0,0009 0,0010 0,0012 0,0011 0,0012 0,0011 0,0009 0,0010
0,0012 0,0013 0,0016 0,0015 0,0016 0,0015 0,0012 0,0013
0,0015 0,0017 0,0021 0,0019 0,0021 0,0019 0,0016 0,0017
0,0020 0,0023 0,0028 0,0025 0,0027 0,0025 0,0021 0,0022
0,0025 0,0029 0,0037 0,0033 0,0035 0,0033 0,0027 0,0028
0,0032 0,0037 0,0047 0,0042 0,0045 0,0042 0,0034 0,0036
0,0040 0,0046 0,0058 0,0052 0,0056 0,0052 0,0042 0,0044
0,0049 0,0056 0,0071 0,0064 0,0069 0,0064 0,0052 0,0055

Table 8: The percent increase of water
Pw Sat Ideal Cappeln Adorf Bentheim
Mpa T(K) yw(sweet)

yw(sour)
%H20
content yw(sour)
%H20
content yw(sour)
%H20
content
0,003 310 0,00066 0,00072 8,72 0,0007 7,84 0,0007 1,15
0,004 320 0,00062 0,00072 17,05 0,0007 15,32 0,0006 2,24
0,007 330 0,00072 0,00090 24,35 0,0009 21,88 0,0007 3,20
0,010 340 0,00091 0,00119 30,62 0,0012 27,52 0,0009 4,02
0,015 350 0,00118 0,00160 35,86 0,0016 32,23 0,0012 4,71
0,021 360 0,00153 0,00214 40,08 0,0021 36,02 0,0016 5,26
0,029 370 0,00197 0,00282 43,26 0,0027 38,88 0,0021 5,68
0,039 380 0,00252 0,00366 45,42 0,0035 40,82 0,0027 5,96
0,051 390 0,00318 0,00466 46,54 0,0045 41,83 0,0034 6,11
0,065 400 0,00397 0,00582 46,64 0,0056 41,92 0,0042 6,13
0,081 410 0,00488 0,00711 45,71 0,0069 41,08 0,0052 6,00




20

Table 9: Input data for Hysys
Component Molecular weight M
kg/kmol
C1 16
C2+ 30
N
2
28
CO
2
44
H
2
S 34

Reservoir temperature 87
o
C
Normal boiling point of C2+ = -89
o
C
Reservoir pressure 50 bars