Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

LPG characterization and production quantication for oil and gas reservoirs
Baosheng Liang a, *, Sriram Balasubramanian a, Ben Wang b, Anping Yang b,1, Daniel Kennedy b, Viet Le b,
Joey Legaspi b, Jonathan Southern b
a
b

Chevron Energy Technology Company, 1500 Louisiana Street, Houston, TX 77002, United States
Chevron Global Upstream and Gas Company, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 27 December 2009
Received in revised form
24 July 2010
Accepted 2 August 2010

Liqueed petroleum gas (LPG) refers to the gas extracted and liqueed from the separator gas in a processing plant and mainly consists of propane (C3) and butane (C4). Many offshore projects have
restrictions on aring gases and special scal terms make extracted liquids signicantly more valuable
than oil and condensate in some cases, which in turn impact the economics of many projects.
This paper for the rst time systematically investigates LPG characterization and production quantication coupled together with reservoir simulation. Detailed calculations of LPG yields from both gas cap
and solution gas are given. LPG yield of uid is a function of the initial gaseoil ratio (GOR), gas specic
gravity, and separator condition: LPG yield, which is lower in the gas cap compared to the solution gas of
the same reservoir, has a good correlation with gas specic gravity and is impacted by separator
conditions.
The concept of LPG-produced GOR correlation curve is introduced and applied together with gas
production rate to predict LPG production. Correlation curves depend on reservoir uid properties and
development strategies. Generated from ashing the mixtures of different proportions of oil and gas
samples, LPG-produced GOR correlation curve has a good agreement with the results from reservoir
compositional simulation and can be coupled with various forecasting tools in reservoir engineering.
Lean gas injection has an insignicant impact on LPG recovery but can substantially improve the recovery
of total liquid (oil and condensate). The paper also shows that lumping C3 and C4 as one pseudocomponent is suitable.
2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
LPG characterization
LPG-produced GOR correlation curve
LPG yield in gas cap and solution gas
LPG in place and production quantication
Reservoir simulation

1. Introduction
Gas processing is a critical step in the natural gas value chain
(Hubbard, 2009). Hartell and Greenwald (2009) nicely summarized and analyzed liquid and gas production and export options,
risks and costs in deepwater. Many offshore projects have
restrictions on aring gases and hence it becomes imperative to
extract liquids to justify additional processing plant costs. There
are special scal terms in some countries that even make the
liquids in the gases signicantly more valuable than oil and
condensate that in turn impact the economics of many projects.
For example, Ogwo et al. (2007) gave a number of scal incentives by the Nigerian government in appendix B and table B1 in
their paper; the Angolan government is taking efforts to end gas
aring (EIA, 2010) and provides a tax incentive to treat LPG and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 832 854 6814.

E-mail address: BLiang@chevron.com (B. Liang).
1
Independent Consultant.
1875-5100/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2010.08.002

oil separately; the Australian government encourages the

consumption of LPG with many supports (DRET, 2009); Russia is
tackling the associated gas aring and is in considering
expanding LPG usage through a series of stimulation and policies
(Kristalinskaya, 2010).
LPG refers to the gas extracted and liqueed from the separator
gas in a processing plant and consists of propane and butane. The
remaining gas would either be re-injected back into the reservoir
for gas cycling or sold as natural gas. The utilization of LPG has been
studied for a few decades on miscible ooding (Wiemer, 1963;
Stalkup, 1983; Frimodig et al., 1988), storage (Turnbull, 1969;
Ratigan and Vogt, 1993), and recently environmental and
economic concerns to avoid aring in many major gas production
countries (Jones and Grey, 1994; Egab et al., 2006; Wood et al.,
2007; Brown, 2008; Vines, 2009; Al-Adwani et al., 2009; Balogun
and Onyekonwu, 2009; Efong, 2009). There are several good
offshore examples. Sanha gas condensate project uses an LPG FPSO
(Floating Production Storage Ofoad) (de Ruyter et al., 2005), which
has the capability to process over 37,000 barrels of LPG per day with
135,000 m3 storage in six tanks. Another two good examples

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252
Table 1
PVT Properties of Rich Condensate, Volatile Oil and Intermediate Backoil Samples
(Two-Stage Separator: 135 psia and 150  F; 25 psia and 164  F).
Reservoir A
Fluid type
Reservoir temperature,  F
Psat, psia
Solution GOR, scf/STB
Condensate yield, bbl/MMscf
Reservoir uid density at Psat, g/cc
API gravity
In-situ saturation density, psi/ft
1st stage separator gas gravity
Bgi, RB/MMscf
Boi, RB/STB
C1 mole fraction
C2 mole fraction
C3 mole fraction
C4 mole fraction
C5 mole fraction
C6 mole fraction
C7 mole fraction
C8e10 mol fraction
C10 mole fraction
C10 molecular weight
Reservoir B
Fluid type
Reservoir temperature,  F
Psat, psia
Solution GOR, scf/STB
Reservoir uid density at Psat, g/cc
API gravity
In-situ saturation density, psi/ft
1st stage separator gas gravity
Boi, RB/STB
C1 mole fraction
C2 mole fraction
C3 mole fraction
C4 mole fraction
C5 mole fraction
C6 mole fraction
C7 mole fraction
C8e9 mol fraction
C10 mole fraction
C10 molecular weight

Gas cap
condensate gas
305
6185
9138
109
0.298
49.7
0.135
0.685
0.76
e
0.782
0.0636
0.0339
0.0205
0.0119
0.0072
0.0091
0.0379
0.0339
205
Gas cap sample
Gas
180
2753
174074
e
58.2
e
e
e
0.8717
0.0652
0.0317
0.0132
0.0051
0.0028
0.0014
0.0008
0.0014
203

Oil band
volatile oil
306
5870
1323
e
0.585
34.11
0.253
0.683
e
1.8
0.5841
0.0621
0.0380
0.0260
0.0161
0.0107
0.0162
0.0539
0.1929
274

Oil band sample

Intermediate blackoil
183
2765
645
0.706
35.9
0.253
0.6905
1.35
0.4069
0.0629
0.0585
0.0437
0.0309
0.0260
0.0344
0.0751
0.2616
283

(Hartell and Greenwald, 2009) are Belanak Project offshore

Indonesia and Bayu Undan Project offshore Joint Petroleum
Development Area (Australia and Timor).
LPG production and optimization are mainly discussed in
chemical engineering and process control (de Gouvea and Odloak,

245

1998 for example). Al-Ameeri (1981) developed a computer model

through mathematical vaporeliquid ash calculations to mimic
gaseoil plant operation processes. With Middle East crude oils from
well streams, the author optimized the number of separator stages
and corresponding stage pressures on the basis of maximum net
prot. It is found that the number of stages and uid feed
compositions are important for the proper selection of operation
conditions. Wang et al. (2001) introduced the concept of concentration perturbation during reservoir simulation history match of
a gas condensate eld and proposed a delumping algorithm for
integrating reservoir simulation, gas plant and economics. On the
other hand, a systematic study on LPG characterization coupled
together with reservoir engineering and subsurface modeling has
not been discussed in the literature. It is of great importance to
quantify LPG production before eld development and to integrate
with reservoir simulation for asset economic calculations and
decision making. Data from more than ten elds varying from
blackoil, volatile oil, volatile oil near critical point, gas condensate
near critical point, to rich and lean gas condensate enables us to
study LPG in a broad scope. We have addressed uid PVT characterization and reservoir simulation of volatile oil and gas condensate reservoirs (Liang et al., in press). This paper presents an
approach to the calculation of LPG yield based on LPG process in
multiple stage separators. The study in those reservoirs shows that
solution gas has a higher LPG yield than gas in the gas cap. LPG yield
is also characterized with initial GOR, gas specic gravity, and
separator condition.
Reservoir simulation is a powerful tool to match production
history and forecast development scenarios for decision analysis:
each reservoir requires hundreds of simulation runs during development optimization study and reservoir uncertainty assessment
such as experimental design. It is time consuming to generate LPG
production for each simulation run. More importantly, we have not
seen any report on a LPG production procedure. For each reservoir,
we propose to build LPG-produced GOR correlation curves for
primary depletion and gas injection, respectively, and apply the
curves to all reservoir simulation cases. This paper provides
a convenient way to quantify LPG through LPG-produced GOR
correlation curves and gas production rates.
2. LPG characterization
Through wide studies in different elds, we characterize LPG
from four perspectives: the difference between gas cap and oil
band, initial GOR, gas specic gravity, and separator condition.

C1, C2

Vapor Fraction
V1 = 0.7212

LNG Plant

LPG Plant

Vapor Fraction
V2 = 0.0572
Oil or
Wet Gas

C5+

1st Stage
Separator
Stock Tank Oil
or Condensate
Wellbore
Fig. 1. Schematic of LPG process for oil band in Reservoir A.

C3, C4

LPG

246

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252

Table 2
LPG Yield Calculation Using a Separator Condition in Reservoir A Oil Band (Two-Stage Separator: 135 psia and 150  F; 25 psia and 164  F).
Component

Molecular
Weight (M)

Mole Fraction
in Vapor (y)

1st stage gas composition (vapor fraction 0.7212)

Methane
16
7.99E-02
Ethane
30.07
8.12E-02
Propane
44.1
4.52E-02
I-C4
58.12
8.53E-03
N-C4
58.12
1.65E-02
N-C5
72.15
4.75E-03

Liquid
Sp. gravity

LPG*
bbl/MMscf

LPG Recovery
Efciency

LPG Recovery
bbl/MMscf

0.507
0.563
0.584

29.49
6.61
12.32

0.90
0.99
0.99

26.55
6.54
12.20
Total 45.3

2nd stage gas composition (vapor fraction 0.0572)

Methane
16
4.41E-01
Ethane
30.07
1.52E-01
Propane
44.1
1.51E-01
I-C4
58.12
3.77E-02
N-C4
58.12
7.81E-02
N-C5
72.15
3.06E-02

0.507
0.563
0.584

98.53
29.20
58.31

0.90
0.99
0.99

88.68
28.91
57.73
Total 175.3

LPG* Total amount of LPG component available in the separator gas.

LPG* (Propane) 7.502  y  M/Sp.gravity 7.502  0.0452  44.1/0.507 29.49.
LPG Recovery 26.55 6.54 12.20 45.3 bbl/MMscf.
Overall LPG Yield 45.3 (1 e 0.7212)  0.0572  175.3 48 bbl/MMscf.

Table 1 has two tables and shows the pressureevolumee

temperature (PVT) properties of Reservoir A which has volatile oil in
the oil band and condensate gas in the gas cap and Reservoir B which is
an intermediate blackoil with a small gas cap. Reservoirs A and B will
be used extensively as examples in this paper.
Fig. 1 shows the schematic of a typical LPG extraction process
from oil band production in Reservoir A. Oil and wet gas ow from
the wellbore to the separator and the oil is sent to stock tank. The
LPG plant processes the collected gases and extracts C3 and C4
fractions. The remaining gases are recycled back to the reservoir or
sold as natural gas.
2.1. LPG yields from solution gas and gas cap
LPG yield of a separator sample is typically computed using
a process modeling software. The entire LPG extraction process
could be represented as a multi-stage separation process to simulate
the real eld operation. Without special explanation, the two-stage

conditions in this paper refer to 135 psia and 150  F for the rst stage
and 25 psia and 164  F for the second one, respectively. Al-Ameeri
(1981) assumed 100% LPG plant efciencies and directly converted
all the C3 and C4 from separator gases to LPG products. For more
practicability, the general rule of thumb for plant recovery efciencies is 5e25% for ethane, 80e90% for propane, 95% or more for
butane and 100% for heavier components (McCain, 1990). Based on
our eld operations, recovery efciencies used in this paper for C3
and C4 are 90% and 99%, respectively.
The compositions of the liquid and gas samples are obtained
from PVT analysis and LPG yield is then calculated from each
sample. Detailed in Tables 2 and 3, LPG yields in Reservoir A oil
band (i.e., solution gas) and gas cap (i.e., free gas) are 48 bbl/MMscf
and 36 bbl/MMscf, respectively. Similarly, LPG yield calculations for
oil and gas samples (91 bbl/MMscf and 36 bbl/MMscf) in Reservoir
B are provided in Tables 4 and 5. When the uid from Reservoir A oil
zone is ashed to the separator conditions and LPG is extracted
from the separator gas, LPG yield of the oil zone uid (solution gas

Table 3
LPG Yield Calculation Using a Separator Condition in Reservoir A Gas Cap (Two-Stage Separator: 135 psia and 150  F; 25 psia and 164  F).
Component

Molecular
Weight (M)

Mole Fraction
in Vapor (y)

1st stage gas composition (vapor fraction 0.9437)

Methane
16
8.27E-01
Ethane
30.07
6.68E-02
Propane
44.1
3.47E-02
I-C4
58.12
7.02E-03
N-C4
58.12
1.33E-02
N-C5
72.15
5.66E-03

Liquid
Sp. gravity

LPG*
bbl/MMscf

LPG Recovery
Efciency

LPG Recovery
bbl/MMscf

0.507
0.563
0.584

22.65
5.44
9.94

0.90
0.99
0.99

20.38
5.38
9.84
Total 35.6

2nd stage gas composition (vapor fraction 0.0609)

Methane
16
5.03E-01
Ethane
30.07
1.22E-01
Propane
44.1
1.14E-01
I-C4
58.12
3.06E-02
N-C4
58.12
6.25E-02
N-C5
72.15
3.05E-02

0.507
0.563
0.584

74.10
23.73
46.69

0.90
0.99
0.99

66.69
23.50
46.23
Total 136.4

LPG* Total amount of LPG component available in the separator gas.

LPG* (Propane) 7.502  y  M/Sp.gravity 7.502  0.034709  44.1/0.507 22.65.
LPG Recovery 20.38 5.38 9.84 35.6 bbl/MMscf.
Overall LPG Yield 35.6 (1 e 0.9437)  0.0609  136.4 36 bbl/MMscf.

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252

247

Table 4
LPG Yield Calculation Using a Separator Condition in Reservoir B Oil Band (Two-Stage Separator: 135 psia and 150  F; 25 psia and 164  F).
Component

Molecular
Weight (M)

Mole Fraction
in Vapor (y)

1st stage gas composition (vapor fraction 0.52572)

Methane
16
7.51E-01
Ethane
30.07
1.10E-01
Propane
44.1
7.00E-02
I-C4
58.12
1.53E-02
N-C4
58.12
3.70E-02
N-C5
72.15
1.85E-03

Liquid
Sp. gravity

0.507
0.563
0.584

LPG*
bbl/MMscf

45.70
11.81
27.63

LPG Recovery
Efciency

LPG Recovery
bbl/MMscf

0.90
0.99
0.99

41.13
11.69
27.36
Total 80.2

2nd stage gas composition (vapor fraction 0.077835)

Methane
16
3.04E-01
Ethane
30.07
1.62E-01
Propane
44.1
2.48E-01
I-C4
58.12
5.41E-02
N-C4
58.12
1.31E-01
N-C5
72.15
1.15E-02

0.507
0.563
0.584

162.00
41.87
97.95

0.90
0.99
0.99

145.80
41.45
96.97
Total 284.2

LPG* Total amount of LPG component available in the separator gas.

LPG* (Propane) 7.502  y  M/Sp.gravity 7.502  0.007  44.1/0.507 45.7.
LPG Recovery 41.13 11.69 27.36 80.2 bbl/MMscf.
Overall LPG Yield 80.2 (1 e 0.52572)  0.077835  284.2 91 bbl/MMscf.

from the oil) is higher than that of the gas cap uid from the same
reservoir. This is because more C3 and C4 move from the liquid
phase to the vapor phase at separator conditions and hence LPG
yield of the solution gas is higher than that of the gas cap sample.
The recognition of LPG yield difference is important not only for
reserve evaluation but also for reservoir engineering, reservoir
simulation and history matching.
Fig. 2 shows the plot of LPG yield from both solution gas and
gas cap from 12 reservoirs in two large geographic areas. Fluids in
Area I are typically blackoil (initial GOR with the range from
100 ft3/STB to 800 ft3/STB) whereas uids in Area II are volatile oil
and condensate gas (initial GOR is larger than 900 ft3/STB). Table 6
is a property summary of PVT data in those 12 reservoirs. In the
table, the rst reservoir has dry gas in the gas cap with a signicantly high GOR value. The rst 6 reservoirs belong to Area I while
the rest reservoirs are located in Area II. Rocks in those two areas
are mainly sandstone mixed with carbonate. Only LPG yield from
gas is shown in the last reservoir since it is a gas condensate

reservoir. Fig. 2 also demonstrates that LPG yield from solution gas
is higher than that from gas cap because the richer nature in
heavier components of the oil in the oil band compared to the
leaner uid in the gas cap. The rst two elds with high LPG yields
from solution gas located in Area I in Fig. 2 are heavier oils (API
less than 31 and initial GOR less than 200 ft3/STB). Fig. 2 illustrates
that heavier oils tend to have a larger difference in LPG yields
between solution gas and gas cap than those from volatile oil and
gas condensate reservoirs.
2.2. LPG yield and initial GOR
Initial GOR has been widely used in reservoir engineering to
characterize reservoir uid type. Fig. 3 shows LPG yields from
different oil samples in 11 reservoirs with the corresponding initial
GOR values. The gure clearly illustrates that LPG yield decreases
as initial solution GOR increases. The LPG yield was correlated with
initial GOR. However, LPG yield may vary with formation type,

Table 5
LPG Yield Calculation Using a Separator Condition in Reservoir B Gas Cap (Two-Stage Separator: 135 psia and 150  F; 25 psia and 164  F).
Component

Molecular
Weight (M)

Mole Fraction
in Vapor (y)

1st stage gas composition (vapor fraction 0.99013)

Methane
16
8.53E-01
Ethane
30.07
6.37E-02
Propane
44.1
3.75E-02
I-C4
58.12
5.76E-03
N-C4
58.12
1.20E-02
N-C5
72.15
4.63E-03

Liquid
Sp. gravity

LPG*
bbl/MMscf

LPG Recovery
Efciency

LPG Recovery
bbl/MMscf

0.507
0.563
0.584

24.48
4.46
8.93

0.90
0.99
0.99

22.03
4.41
8.84
Total 35.3

2nd stage gas composition (vapor fraction 0.1428)

Methane
16
5.35E-01
Ethane
30.07
1.27E-01
Propane
44.1
1.31E-01
I-C4
58.12
2.61E-02
N-C4
58.12
5.80E-02
N-C5
72.15
2.61E-02

0.507
0.563
0.584

85.55
20.20
43.33

0.90
0.99
0.99

76.99
20.00
42.89
Total 139.9

LPG* Total amount of LPG component available in the separator gas.

LPG* (Propane) 7.502  y  M/Sp.gravity 7.502  0.0375  44.1/0.507 24.48.
LPG Recovery 22.03 4.418.84 35.3 bbl/MMscf.
Overall LPG Yield 35.3 (1 e 0.99013)  0.1428  139.9 36 bbl/MMscf.

248

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252

Fig. 2. LPG yields from solution gas and gas cap in 12 reservoirs. The last reservoir is gas condensate with no oil ring.

depositional environment and geologic time. The correlation is

also constrained by the accuracy of the measurements. It is our
intention to simply demonstrate the trend instead of an accurate
correlation because LPG yield is recommended to be obtained from
compositional calculation procedure shown in Tables 2e5. It is
better to quantify LPG yield during reservoir production period,
which will be addressed later in the paper.

2.3. LPG yield and gas specic gravity

It has been realized in our study that LPG yield has a good
correlation with specic gravity of separator gas. Fig. 4 plots LPG
yields and gas specic gravity measurements from 35 reservoirs in
27 elds. The narrow spread and clear trend in the plot make gas
specic gravity a better indicator than initial GOR for LPG yield. The
solid line in Fig. 4 shows the correlation and a linear regression can
be reached.
Our study also shows that LPG yields can be better characterized
through gas specic gravity rather than initial GOR due to the large
standard deviation presented in Fig. 3.

2.4. LPG yield and separator condition

The amount of LPG produced from the separator is affected by
separator condition and the number of separator stages. Fig. 5
shows LPG yields from the intermediate blackoil uid in Reservoir B. Two-stage separator with 265 psia/100  F and 14.7 psia/60  F
gives LPG yield 65 bbl/MMscf while two-stage separator with
100 psia/100  F and 14.7 psia/60  F yields 86 bbl/MMscf. If 135 psia/
150  F and 25 psia/164  F are used in two stages, LPG yield with the
detailed calculation in Table 4 is 91 bbl/MMscf. If only one-stage
atmospheric stage (14.7 psia/60  F) is used, LPG yield is 95 bbl/
MMscf. In this sense, when LPG yields from different scenarios are
considered or compared, separator condition should be kept in
mind.
On the other hand, both LPG production and liquid (oil plus
condensate) production are impacted by separator condition.
A single-stage separator generates a higher LPG yield, but it affects
the oil formation volume factor. Facility process capability is another
concern. Therefore, the optimization of separator condition is
a complex problem. LPG production, liquid production, and facility
capacity should be integrated during the optimization. Al-Ameeri

Table 6
Property Summary from PVT Data in 12 Reservoirs.
Reservoir name

1
2
3(B)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11(A)
12

Oil band sample

Gas cap sample

API

GOR
(scf/STB)

LPG Yield
(bbl/MMscf)

API

GOR (scf/STB)

Condensate Yield
(bbl/MMscf)

LPG Yield
(bbl/MMscf)

30.7
30.6
35.9
32.4
33.0
34.0
40.4
38.1
38.3
42.3
34.1
e

167
152
645
710
726
800
1159
1645
1590
2174
1323
e

205
176
91
81
79
45
106
81
76
72
48
e

e
61
54.2
89.0
53.2
49.4
50.5
49.5
51.6
46.0
49.7
50.1

10,000,000
250,000
90,909
500,000
84,196
43,478
25,374
5813
10,548
10,417
9138
7111

0.1
4
11
2
12
23
39
172
95
96
109
141

50
26
36
47
30
28
65
50
54
56
36
42

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252

(1981) shows that the optimal separator pressure can be correlated

with the GOR for each set of separators when the number of separator stages is known. However, how to optimize separator conditions is beyond the scope of this paper and will not be discussed
here.

250

LPG Yield, bbl/MMscf

249

200
150
100

R = 0.69

2.5. Total LPG in place and recovery factor

Reservior B Oil Band

50

The total amount of LPG or associated liquids in place has not

been explicitly dened in a consistent manner in the literature.
Since LPG comes from both solution gas and gas cap, the following
denitions are proposed to build a consistency in the LPG in place:

Reservior A Oil Band

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Initial Solution GOR, scf/STB

Fig. 3. LPG yield versus initial solution GOR in oil samples from 11 reservoirs. Most
reservoirs have multiple oil samples. The oil samples for reservoirs A and B are labeled
in the plot. The solid diamonds and the hollow circles denote data from Area I and Area
II, respectively.

NgcLPG Ggc  Ygc

(1)

NsgLPG Gsg  Ysg

(2)

NtLPG NgcLPG NsgLPG

(3)

In the above equations, NgceLPG, NsgeLPG, and NteLPG represent gas

cap LPG in place, solution gas LPG in place, and total LPG in place,
respectively. The unit for LPG in place is barrel (bbl). Ggc denotes gas
cap in place and Gsg is solution gas in place. Both Ggc and Gsg have
the unit of MMscf. Ygc and Ysg are LPG yields from gas cap and
solution gas, respectively. The unit for LPG yield is bbl/MMscf.
Note that the Eqs. (1)e(3) are only valid for the xed separator
conditions. If separator conditions change during the production,
LPG yields will change. Also, LPG in place here is an approximation
and does not consider compositional variation effect in both gas
cap and oil band in the reservoir. If the vertical composition
gradient exists in the reservoir, different LPG yields should be
obtained from different layers based on the corresponding uid
compositions. If the uid composition changes laterally, LPG yield
and LPG in should be accounted for in each equilibrium region.
Based on the denitions in Eqs. (1)e(3), LPG recovery factor can
be dened as
Fig. 4. LPG yield versus gas specic gravity.

RFtLPG NPLPG =NtLPG ;

(4)

where, RFteLPG is the total LPG recovery factor; NPLPG is the cumulative LPG production which has the unit of barrel and will be
introduced in the next section.

Fig. 5. LPG yield versus separator condition in Reservoir B oil.

250

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252

LPG Yield, bbl/MMscf

50
45
40
35
30
25

Primary depletion

20

Gas injection

15
10
5
0
0

10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000

Produced GOR, scf/STB

Fig. 6. LPG-produced GOR correlation curves versus compositional results from

primary depletion in reservoirs A and B. Reservoir A has volatile oil leg with rich
condensate gas cap and Reservoir B is intermediate blackoil with a small gas cap. Oil
samples in the gure refer to the samples from oil band while gas samples are from
reservoir gas cap.

3. Quantication of LPG production

The selection of reservoir simulation model depends on reservoir development strategy and uid type. A modied blackoil
model is sufcient for primary depletion and waterooding in
blackoil, volatile oil, uid near critical point, gas condensate, and
gas reservoirs. A compositional model is necessary for gas injection.
In this paper, blackoil model refers to the classical treatment of oil
and gas in which oil can dissolve gas, but not vice versa. Modied
blackoil model handles the dissolution of oil in the gaseous phase
and the condensational liquid compared to blackoil model. A
compositional model uses an equation of state (EOS) and describes
the ow problem in terms of several components that exist both in
the liquid and vapor phases. How to select a simulation formulation
and how to model various uid types with different development
strategies have been comprehensively discussed by Liang et al.
(2010). Our primary interest here is how to conveniently obtain
LPG production rates from reservoir simulation results.
3.1. LPG-produced GOR correlation curve
A concept of the correlation curve between LPG yield and
produced GOR, which is named LPG-produced GOR correlation
25
Gas rate

80

20

LPG rate
LPG yield

60

curve, is introduced in this paper to quantify LPG production. Fig. 6

shows the plots of LPG-produced GOR correlation curves for
primary depletion in reservoirs A and B, respectively. Reservoir A is
a volatile oil with a rich condensate gas cap while Reservoir B is an
intermediate blackoil with a small gas cap. Curves for GOR greater
than 10,000 scf/STB are very at and therefore are truncated in the
gure for visualization purpose. As shown previously, the samples
from oil bands have LPG yield 48 bbl/MMscf in Reservoir A and
91 bbl/MMscf in Reservoir B, respectively. Both reservoirs have LPG
yield 36 bbl/MMscf in gas cap. Given a reservoir, oil and gas samples
are systematically mixed in different proportions: from 100% oil
sample in oil band to 10% oil sample plus 90% gas sample, and then
to 100% gas sample in gas cap. Each mixture is ashed to the
specied separator conditions with a PengeRobinson EOS model
(Peng and Robinson, 1976). LPG yield after such ashing and the
GOR of the corresponding mixture are plotted as either a solid circle
or a triangle in Fig. 6. The solid line represents LPG yield computed
from a compositional simulation model with produced GOR under
primary depletion. Clearly, there is a very good agreement between
the compositional models and LPG-produced GOR correlation
curves.
Both oil and gas samples are needed to generate an LPGproduced GOR correlation curve. However, it is common that oil or
gas uid is either not sampled or does not exist in the reservoir at all.
If only oil sample is obtained, gas sample can be assumed from the
rst data point in the constant volume depletion (CVD) experiment
of oil sample. Alternatively, the EOS model tuned for oil sample can
be used to generate gas sample if the oil is dropped slightly below its

15

GOR

40

10

20

GOR, Mscf/STB

Gas Rate, MMscf/Day

LPG Rate, X100 bbl/Day
LPG Yield, bbl/MMscf

100

Fig. 8. Comparison of LPG yield versus GOR for primary depletion and lean gas
injection in Reservoir A.

0
0

1000

2000
3000
Time, Days

4000

5000

Fig. 7. Produced gas rate, LPG rate, LPG yield and GOR in Reservoir An under primary
depletion. LPG yield is obtained from its correlation with GOR in Fig. 6.

Fig. 9. Comparison of cumulative LPG recoveries from primary depletion and lean gas
injection in Reservoir A.

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252

251

Fig. 10. C3 to C3 C4 versus pressure calculated from the CVD experiment in Reservoir A gas cap.

bubble point (for example, 20 psia). If the reservoir has been

produced for a certain time by depletion or water drive, or if the
uid sample is commingled, Equilibrium Contact Mixing (ECM)
method proposed by Fevang and Whitson (1994) can be applied to
recover original oil and gas compositions through ashing the uid
sample to the gaseoil contact.
LPG-produced GOR correlation curve has the potential for wide
applications through coupling with standard reservoir engineering
methods, such as material balance forecast (such as Tarners
method (Tarner, 1944)), decline curve analysis (cumulative
production versus produced GOR), and reservoir simulation tools.
3.2. Quantication of LPG in primary depletion and waterooding
Since the uid composition does not change much during
primary depletion or water ooding scenarios, LPG yield of the
produced gas falls between the LPG yield of the solution gas and
that of the free gas from gas cap of the same reservoir. Hence,
a modied blackoil model along with the LPG-produced GOR
correlation curve is sufcient to quantify LPG production under
primary depletion or water ooding scenarios: gas production and
corresponding GOR are acquired from a modied blackoil simulation; the generated correlation curve such as Fig. 6 is used to obtain
LPG yield and LPG rate once GOR and gas production are given in
a specic reservoir. The whole workow is convenient.
As an example, Fig. 7 shows the plot of produced gas rate, LPG
rate, LPG yield and GOR for Reservoir A under primary depletion.
LPG yield is obtained from Fig. 6 and LPG rate is calculated from
simulated gas rate and LPG yield. A strong correlation exists
between gas rate and LPG rate: LPG rate is proportional to the total
gas production rate and inversely proportional to produced GOR. In
the case of Reservoir A, when oil and gas production is commingled
from both the oil band and gas cap, ultimate recovery factors for gas
and LPG simulated for primary depletion are very close, around 60%
and 55%, respectively. Meanwhile, liquid (oil plus condensate)
recovery is around 30%.
3.3. Quantication of LPG in gas injection
We consider lean gas injection in Reservoir A to improve liquid
(oil plus condensate) and LPG productions. Leas gas consists of
around 90% C1 plus 10% C2 after stripping C3. The composition of
the produced uids change with time since lean gas is displacing
richer reservoir oil and gas. Hence a compositional model is
required to quantify produced uids. C3 and C4 are lumped together

as one pseudocomponent in our various studies. Fig. 8 shows the

plot of LPG yield with produced GOR for primary depletion (shown
by the solid line) and gas injection (shown by the dotted line). The
dotted line shown in Fig. 8 for Reservoir A, is obtained from the
compositional simulation. LPG yield drops sharply with increasing
GOR as more lean gas is injected into the reservoir and uid
composition becomes leaner with time.
Fig. 9 almost gives the same ultimate cumulative LPG
production simulated from both primary depletion and lean gas
injection in Reservoir A. It demonstrates that LPG recovery in
Reservoir A is insensitive to the project development strategy,
either primary depletion or lean gas injection. On the other hand,
LPG recovery factor is a function of the gas recovery factor: A high
gas recovery leads to a high LPG recovery since LPG is extracted
from produced gas. Lean gas injection has a tendency to increase
oil and condensate production but it may not be economical
when the overall productions of liquid and LPG are considered
together with the total operation costs. Simulation results indicate that lean gas injection can improve oil and condensate
recovery by more than 50% (from 30% to 45%) but LPG recovery is
almost the same.
Further, Fig. 9 shows the injection result from the continuous
lean gas injection. Blowdown after 10 or 15 years of gas injection
could increase LPG recovery but may not be economical for the
overall project.
Lastly, the effect of lumping C3 and C4 is also investigated. Fig. 10
presents the plot of the fraction of C3 to (C3 C4) with pressure
calculated from the CVD laboratory test in Reservoir A gas cap. The
proportion of C3 remains nearly a constant with pressure, which
illustrates that C3 and C4 exhibit similar depletion behavior with
pressure and hence it is reasonable to lump them together for
easier tracking purpose and the reduction of the total number of
pseudocomponents.
4. Conclusions
Based on a large number of eld data and uid sample
measurements, this paper comprehensively studies LPG characterization and production through coupling with reservoir simulation. The key observations are as follows:
1. LPG yield of uid is lower in the gas cap compared to the
solution gas of the same reservoir. The difference of LPG yields
between solution gas and gas cap is larger as reservoir uid in
oil band gets heavier.

252

B. Liang et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 2 (2010) 244e252

2. LPG yield is a function of the initial GOR, specic gravity and

separator condition. LPG yield decreases as the initial GOR
increases. LPG yield has a good positive correlation with gas
specic gravity and such correlation is a good indicator for LPG
yield estimation. LPG yield is sensitive with the number of
separator stages and separator condition.
3. LPG yield has been found to have a good correlation with
produced GOR. The correlation for primary depletion is
generated by ashing the mixture of two uid samples with
different proportions in a systematic way. Those samples are
obtained from initial oil band and gas cap, respectively. It can
be used with standard reservoir engineering tools, such as
material balance, decline curve analysis and reservoir simulation, to prediction LPG production.
4. Gas injection can signicantly improve the total liquid (oil plus
condensate) recovery but may not enhance LPG production. Gas
injection should be simulated with a compositional model and
it is reasonable to lump C3 and C4 as one pseudocomponent.
References
Al-Adwani, A.E., Al-Ghanem, F.A., and Singhal V. 2009. Gas utilization e The KOC
Approach. Paper SPE 127734 presented at the Kuwait International Petroleum
Conference and Exhibition held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 14e16 December.
Al-Ameeri, R.S. 1981. Optimization of LPG and LNG production from a Middle East
Crude Oil. Paper SPE 9624 presented at the Middle East Oil Technical Conference of the SPE held in Manama, Bahrain, 9e12 March.
Balogun, O.M. and Onyekonwu, M.O. 2009. Economic Viability of Gas-to-Liquids in
Nigeria. Paper SPE 128342 presented at the 33rd Annual SPE International
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Abuja, Nigeria, 3e5 August.
Brown, A. 2008. Pearl GTL-Assuring Success from the Outset. Paper SPE 118290
presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference
held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 3e6 November.
DRET (Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Australian Government),
2009. Liqueed Petroleum Gas (LPG)-Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.
docstoc.com/docs/29781023/LPG-Fact-Sheet/.
Efong, G.M. 2009. Environmental and Safety Management in the Nigerian Petroleum Industry. Paper SPE 128345 presented at the 33rd Annual SPE International Technical Conference and Exhibition in Abuja, Nigeria, 3e5 August.
Egab, M.A., Vasagam, M., and Pandav, P. 2006. Change in Liquid Splitter OperationAverted Environmental Flaring. Paper SPE 100845 presented at the Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE,
5e8 November.
EIA (Energy Information Administration Independent Statistics and Analysis), 2010.
Angola Energy Data, Statistics and Analysis. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/
cabs/Angola/pdf.pdf.

Fevang, . and Whitson, C.H. 1994. Accurate Insitu Compositions in Petroleum

Reservoirs. Paper SPE 28829 presented at the EUROPEC Petroleum Conference
held in London, 25e27 October.
Frimodig, J.P., Sankur, V., Chun, C.K., 1988. Design of a tertiary hydrocarbon miscible
ood for the Mitsue reservoir. Journal of Petroleum Technology 40 (2),
215e222.
de Gouvea, M.T., Odloak, D., 1998. One-layer real time optimization of lpg prouduction in the FCC unit: procedure, advantages and disadvantages. Computers
& Chemical Engineering 22 (Supplement 1), S191eS198.
Hartell, W.D and Greenwald, J.R. 2009. Deepwater Development Production and
Export Options. Paper SPE 123415 presented at the SPE Asia Pacic Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, August 4e6.
Hubbard, R., 2009. The role of gas processing in the natural-gas value chain. Journal
of Petroleum Technology 61 (8), 65e71.
Jones, J.A. and Grey, P.C. 1994. Recovery of Condensate Liquids from Flare Gas. Paper
SPE 28771 presented at the SPE Asia Pacic Oil and Gas Conference held in
Melbourne, Australia, 7e10 November.
Kristalinskaya, S., 2010. Russia tackles associated gas aring. Oil & Gas Eurasia 3
March 2010.
Liang, B., Balasubramanian, S., Wang, B., Jensen, C., Yang, A.P., Kennedy, D. PVT
characterisation and compositional modelling of gas condensate and
volatile oil reservoirs. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology,
in press.
McCain Jr., W.D., 1990. The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, second ed. PennWell
Publishing Co., Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Ogwo, O.U.J., Mbeledogu, I.U., and Nwokedi, M. 2007. Equitable Gas Pricing Model.
Paper SPE 111897 presented at the 31st Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Abuja, Nigeria, 6e8 August.
Peng, D.Y., Robinson, D.B., 1976. A new-constant equation of state. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals 15 (1), 59e64.
de Ruyter, W., Pellegrino, S., and Cariou, H. 2005. The Sanha LPG FPSO. Paper OTC
17361 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, TX,
May 2e5.
Ratigan, J.L., Vogt, T.J., 1993. LPG storage at Mont Belvieu, Texas: a case study. SPE
Advanced Technology Series 1 (1), 204e211.
Stalkup, F.I., 1983. Status of miscible displacement. Journal of Petroleum Technology
35 (4), 815e826.
Tarner, J., 1944. How different size gas caps and pressure maintenance programs
affect amount of recoverable oil. Oil Weekly 144 (2), 32e34.
Turnbull, W.M., 1969. Storage of LPG in gas reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum
Technology 21 (5), 587e591.
Vines, M. 2009. Multivariable Control for Upstream Gas Processing. Paper SPE
125235 presented at the SPE ATCE held in New Orleans, LA, 4e7 October.
Wang, S.W., Ringe, D.P., Gable, M.M., and Staples, D.J. 2001. Integrated Simulation of
Reservoir, Gas Plant, and Economics for a Rich Gas Condensate Reservoir. Paper
SPE 71598 presented at the SPE ATCE held in New Orleans, LA, 30 September-3
October.
Wiemer, R.F., 1963. LPG-gas injection recovery process Burkett unit, Greenwood
County, Kansas. Journal of Petroleum Technology 15 (10), 1067e1072.
Wood, D., Mokhatab, S., Economides, M.J. 2007. Offshore Natural Gas Liquefaction
Process Selection and Development Issues. Paper SPE 109522 presented at the
SPE ATCE held in Anaheim, CA, 11e14 November.