AVINASH SHANKAR RAMMOHAN SUBRAMANIAN

NATURAL GAS EXERCISE 4

Solubility of water in gas Water balance in gas streams

Section 1: Problem Description

Objectives
1. Investigate the feasibility of 2 options for development of the Hoton gas field: case 1 with no offshore
processing and case 2 with offshore liquid separation to obtain pipeline specifications on water content.
2. Using water balance to figure out the amount of free water to remove at the separator such that there is no
free water present at the onshore plant entry point, and also meet pipeline specifications.
3. To compare water content obtained by the Whitson procedure (SPE Monograph) with that obtained by the
Kazim procedure and discuss any reasons for difference.
4. To investigate if hydrate formation will occur in either case.
Section 2: Methodology
Case 1
Task 1: Make a simple sketch for the two development alternatives (from the well to the shore
terminal), including only the important process valves, as well as temperatures and pressures at
important valves.

-Complete missing pressure and temperature information using the cooling by expansion
Method
1. The graph gives the temperature difference in degrees F and pressure in psig. The first step is to convert
from bara to psig using the formula, for both the initial pressure at the wellhead and the pressure difference
across the choke.
x bara=( 14.504 x14.504 ) psig ------------------ (1)
2. Read off the temperature difference from the x-axis of the GPSA graph and convert the temperature
difference to degrees C using the formula
5
T ( C )= . T ( F) --------------------------------------- (2)
9
Section 3: Results
The final table for all the tasks is given below. In each task section, I will outline the method to follow.
Node

T
o

bara

Reservoir

303

82

Wellhead

138

70

Downstream choke

90

53.3

Production manifold

90

53.3

Water
solubility in
gas (Whitson)

Water
solubility in
gas (Kazim)

kg/106Sm3

kg/106Sm3

2379.9026
93
2494.4373
85
1693.9681
77
1693.9681
77

#VALUE!
0.0064524
94
1517.7602
52
1517.7602
52

Amount of
water
dissolved in
gas
kg/106Sm3

2379.9026
93
2379.9026
93
1693.9681
77
1693.9681
77

Free water
condensed

Total
condense
d water

kg/106Sm3

kg/d

Hydrate
forming
temperature
o

Hydrate
forming
yes/no
o

0.0E+00

25 No

0
685.934
515
685.934
515

0.0E+00

20 No

1.9E+09

17.5 No

1.9E+09

17.5 No

Delivery to shore terminal

55

219.67212
86

206.00939
77

219.67212
86

2160.23
056

6.0E+09

15.5 Yes

Task 3: Perform a water balance to calculate the free water and

dissolved water at nodes of interest. Use the water content
correlation suggested by Whitson et al. in SPE phase behaviour
monograph.
Method
1. This was done using the UDF rsw_kg_MCM.
Discussion:
The water content correlation obtained using the Whitson et al method
gives the amount of water that can be saturated in the gas under given
temperature and pressure conditions. The results for this solubility value
are given in the fourth column.
-The assumption used is that the gas in the reservoir is saturated so at
reservoir temperature and pressure the amount of free water is 0
kg/MSm^3 of water.
-Note that the gas has a higher solubility of water at the wellhead. This
means that at this point, the gas will become unsaturated so the gas can
accept more water. However, the total amount of water dissolved cannot
change from the reservoir by conservation of mass. This is given in
column 6.
-To get the amount of free water that condenses out get the total amount
of water dissolved in the gas at the reservoir subtracted by the amount of
water dissolved in the gas at the subsequent node of interest.
-The total amount of condensed water is given by the multiplying column
7 by the rate of field production per day.
-Assume temperature and pressure at the separator is the same as the
temperature and pressure downstream of the choke.

Task 4: Develop a UDF using VBA in Excel to calculate the water

content procedure suggested by Kazim. Compare the results of
Kazim with the result of the SPE monograph by testing a few
pressure-temperature nodes & comment on the difference in
results obtained.

The code is given below.

The results of the UDF are listed in column 5.

Discussion:
-The Kazi method gives significantly inaccurate answers at high pressures
above 90 bar. The Whitson procedure gives rather accurate results at a
large range of operating temperatures and pressures.
-It also underestimates the water content at other operating conditions
compared to the method proposed by Whitson et al. Comparing with the
data of McKetta-Hene, the Whitson procedure gives more accurate results
so should be used more.
-The Whitson method is also more accurate because it includes the effect
of different gas gravity and salinities.

Task 5: Use hydrate formation plots to assess the possibility of

hydrate formation along the production path.
Method
-Use the hydrate formation plot generated by Statoil assuming no hydrate
inhibition measures have been used i.e. use the fresh water curve. We use
fresh water because salinity is assumed to be 0 ppm and no MeOH or NaCl
is present.
The results are given in columns 9 and 10.
Discussion
-Hydrates are predicted to form at 15.5 degrees C at 55 bara, so we could
either add 15wt%MeOH or ensure the lowest temperature at the pipeline
is above 15.5 degrees till the shore processing plant.

Case 2:
Task 1: Make a simple sketch for the two development alternatives (from the well to the shore
terminal), including only the important process valves as well as pressure and temperatures at
important nodes.

-Complete missing pressure and temperature information using the cooling by expansion graph.
AND Task 3: Perform a water balance to calculate the free water and dissolved water at nodes of
interest. Use the water content correlation suggested by Whitson et al. in SPE phase behaviour
monograph.

Section 3: Results
This is the final table. Please see individual sections for the method.

Node

T
o

bara

kg/106Sm3

Amount of
water
dissolved in
gas (with
separation)
kg/106Sm3

2379.90269
3
2379.90269
3
1472.45585
9

Water
solubility in
gas (Whitson)

Free water
condensed

Total
condense
d water

Water
solubility in
gas (Kazim)

kg/106Sm3

kg/d

kg/106Sm3

0.0E+00
0.0E+00

#VALUE!
0.006452
494
1424.293
057
210.7541
54
210.7541
54
1633.791
833
1311.095
317
206.0093
977

Reservoir

303

82

Wellhead

138

70

Downstream choke

70

46

2379.90269
3
2494.43738
5
1472.45585
9

After cooler

70

10

219.669993

219.669993

0
907.446833
8
1252.78586
6

Separator

70

10

219.669993

0.0E+00

After heater

70

49

219.669993

0.0E+00

Compressor discharge

90

49

219.669993

0.0E+00

Delivery to shore terminal

55

219.669993
1692.60112
3
1395.16593
4
219.672128
6

219.669993

0.0E+00

2.5E+09
3.5E+09

Hydrate
forming
temperature
o

Hydrate
forming
yes/no
o

25 No
20 No
17 No
17 Yes
17 Yes
17 No
17.5 No
15.5 Yes

Method
1. Using the same procedure of the GPSA chart as case 1, we can use
test values for the downstream choke pressure as given in column 1.
This value has to be lower than 90 bara because we have a
compressor after the separator and the compressor discharge
pressure is 90 bara which should be higher than separator pressure
(compressor inlet). I use lower bounds of 40 bar because below this
value the temperature required at the separator to be able to
condense enough water to satisfy specifications at onshore platform
becomes very small.
2. P_choke is got by subtracting from P_wh, and to be able to use the
GPSA convert it to psig using the formula in equation (1).
3. Read T_choke in degrees F from the graph and convert it to
degrees C using the equation (2) and subtract from the wellhead
temperature to get the T_down_choke

P_initial_w
h

138 bara

1987.04
8 psig

Test value of
downstream
choke
pressure

P_choke

P_choke

T_choke

bara

bara

psig

deg F

T_choke

T_down_cho
ke

T_down_chok
e _required

deg C

deg C

deg C

50

15.8333
333
20.5555
556
24.1666
667
27.7777
778

54

30

40

63

35

35

90

48

681.688

28.5

80

58

826.728

37

70

68

43.5

60

78

50

88

40

98

971.768
1116.80
8
1261.84
8
1406.88
8

54

13

49

12

46

10

42

Getting the required temperature downstream of the

choke/temperature of the separator
1. The temperature of the separator has to be sufficiently low so as to
condense enough water that will be removed at the flash, so as to
meet specifications at the onshore process.
2. The way to do this for a particular test pressure is to use the solver
to change the water solubility to be equal to the water solubility at
the onshore terminal since this is the most vulnerable point at which
most water condenses out. Set the temperature of the separator as
the variable.

The temperature reached is the required temperature of the

separator which is outlined in the T_down_choke_required column.
Looking at the table above we see that the temperature reached
downstream of the choke solely due to Joule-Thompson cooling is higher
than the required temperature for all pressure values. This means that it is
necessary to have a cooler to reach the required temperature at the
separator.
-We have a specification for the compressor discharge pressure and
temperature.
Assume that the compressor is ideal so no heating occurs in the
compressor itself since we have no information about this. So we need a
heater, after the separator. It may be possible to have heat integration
between the heater and cooler.
-I choose a midrange pressure of 70 bara for the separator but this can
change according to the second table above.
-If we meet the specifications at the onshore process inlet, we
automatically also meet specifications at the pipeline because the onshore
process has the lowest temperature and is most vulnerable to have water
condense out.

Task 2: List and briefly explain the main complication factors for
the second scenario compared to the first one
1. We need extra facilities and equipment to separate the water out.
This has to be a three phase separator because it will involve MEG,
gas and oil phase usually.
2. We need an extra compressor to keep the pressure of the gas high
in the pipeline downstream of the separator. This compressor will
require work input which has to be provided by an electric cable
from shore or through an offshore gas turbine, both of which are
very expensive.
Task 4: Develop a UDF using VBA in Excel to calculate the water
content procedure suggested by Kazim. Compare the results of
Kazim with the result of the SPE monograph by testing a few
pressure-temperature nodes & comment on the difference in
results obtained.
Same as case 1

Task 5: Use hydrate formation plots to assess the possibility of

hydrate formation along the production path.
Method
Same as case 1

Discussion
Since we get hydrate formation at the cooler and separator, we need to
inject MEG. However, this is not a problem if the cooler and separator are
close to each other and the pipeline connecting them is not very large.
Appendix:
GPSA Temperature drop accompanying a given pressure drop for
natural gas wellstream.
Taken from Gas Production Engineering by Sanjay Kumar.
Diagram given in exercise text is not clear.