'.

~"/////////////$'~///////////$3;J
J].~-~,
~ AI TECHNICAL NOTE _ ~
@
_
~
'd/////////////#/#//~' ~

A Method for Determining Optimum Second Stage

Pressure in Three Stage Separation

K[NNETH F. WHINERY PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO.

JUNIOR MEMBER AIME SHIDLER, OKLA.
JOHN M. CAMPBELL UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
MEMBER AIME NORMAN, OKLA.

INTRODUCTION flashed through three stages to determine the optimum

second stage pressure for each first stage pressure. Equi-
This investigation was prompted by the absence of librium vaporization ratios proposed by Latham and
a simple, accurate method to predict optimum second Campbell were used throughout. The heptane plus frac-
stage separation pressure in three stage separation op- tion, for simplicity, was assumed to have the proper-
erations. Three stage separation as used here includes ties of octane.
two separators plus the stock tank. The first stage pres-
sure is usually fixed by gas sales conditions and the The results were subjected to an empirical analysis in
third stage is at atmospheric pressure. Thus, the second an attempt to develop a correlation that would be (1)
simple, (2) accurate, and (3) eliminate the need for
stage pressure is the only one that may be varied in-
discriminantly during production operations. No varia- any flash vaporization calculations. This analysis yielded
two equations, one for well streams having a specific
tions in temperature were considered in this study, even
though it will vary among systems, for a change in tem- gravity greater than one (air = 1.0) and one for those
less than one. For crude streams (specific grav-
perature has little effect on the optimum pressure.
Optimum pressures may be determined from flash ity > 1.0),
calculations, but these are tedious unless a computer is P, = A(P,)O,68G + C (2)
available. An early attempt to develop a simpler meth- + 0.057
C = A
(2A)
od' yielded an equation which gave the optimum pres- 0.0233 .
sure only as a function of initial and final pressure. For condensate (specific gravity < 1.0),
Experience, however, confirms theoretical relationships
which show that composition as well as pressure and
temperature must be a factor. This indicates that the
basic relationship should be an equation of the form,
P 2 = A (P,)" , (1)
where P 2 is second stage pressure, P, is first stage pres-
I I

sure, A is a function of p. (stock-tank pressure) and

the system composition, and n is a function of the num-
ber of stages and the system composition.
Fig. 1 shows the basic variation of P 2 with P for a
fixed system composition. A series of such figures clearly a:
showed the effect of composition. The peak of each ~ 142 ~--i-H-+--I-l
curve reflects that second stage pressure at which the <n
z
o
stock"tank recovery (gal/MMcf) residue gas is a maxi- :j 141 I--il--+f-Hf-
mum value. <t
<.?

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW CORRELATION 14o1--+--+l--+--I--+----1i---1i----t~--__+_---~

PI:: FIRST STAGE PRESSURE. PSIA I
Wellstreams having 17 different analyses, ranging
from low gravity crude to condensate, were used to de- 139 !------t-t-+-+--+---+-t-----+-
I
~-1Ii----------11
termine the effect of composition. Each wellstream was I i I
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers
1380o--~~~~5'0__s'5_- 85 100 --rk----I~-- ---~o
office July 18. 1957. Revised manuscript received Feb. 26. 1958, SECOND STAGE PRESSURE, PSIA
Paper presented at 32'nd Annual Fall Meeting of Society of Petro-
leum Engineers in Dallas. Tex . Oct. 6-9. 1957. FIG. I-QUANTITY OF STOCK-TANK LIQUID
'References given at end of paper. SPE 901-G (ANALYSIS 6) TEMPERATURE 80F.

APRIL, 1958 53
 7 .7 -- _.
MOL % C
I
+ C2 + C3
10
0>
0
0>
0
CJ)
0
I'-
0
<D
0
10
.6 r-- f---
0
/
.6

'"w
V
I
A+ 0.057
'" .5 ~ C =
I 0.0233
'"'"w .5
...J
z
Q ~
0

~
...J
z
Q '"wz .4
'"w
z
.4
::!:
a V
::!: ~
a .3
~ I- l---~
~.2

1
Z

--
.3 I- ~ A +0.028.
I- .2
z
'"0z J,.--<>-- 0.0120
I-
u ~
'"0Z
u .1
21
I
15 17 19 21 23 25 27
(C) - DIMENSIONLESS SHIFTING CONSTANT
FIG. 3-DIMENSIONLESS SHIFTING CONSTANT VS
CONSTANT (A).
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PSUEDO-SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF FEED, DIMENSIONLESS
C, + Co + C 3 = 70 per cent
FIG. 2-CONSTA,(T (A) vs PSEl.:DO-SPECIFlC Frvm Fig. 2, A = 0.421; consequently, from Eq. 2A,
GI!.~VITY OF FEED, TDIPERATURJ.: 80F.
= 0.421 + 0.057 = 20.5_
C 0.0233
P, = A (P, )o..." + c, . (3)
A -1- 0.028 If all values are substituted into Eq. 2,
C, = - -0.012- . (3A) P, = 0.421 (500)"'" + 20.5 = 50.5 psi a
This correlation is not the absolute solution to all
As might be expected from Eq. 1 the constants A and three stage separation problems, nor is it intended to
C are functions of composition. It was found that com- be so. It should, further, not be misconstrued as a re-
position could be expressed in terms of the wellstream placement for a digital computer where such is avail-
specific gravity and the percentages of methane, ethane able to perform flash calculations. Instead, it is a tool
and propane. This is shown in Fig. 2. Fi3. 3 shows the for the field engineer where time and expediency are of
basis for Eqs. 2A and 3A. prime importance. It is the opinion of the authors, con-
One may therefore determine optimum pressure firmed by field results, that this correlation is flexible
knowing only the specific gravity of the wellstream, the and will yield results with a mean err:: r of 5 per
percentage of methane, ethane and propane, and the cent.
first stage pre::sure. This may be illustrated with an
example.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
EXAMPLE
The authors wish to thank the Continental Oil Co.
Determine the optimum second stage pressure, for and the Sohio Petroleum Co. for making the use of
a three stage separation, for a wellstream having the their computers available to the School of Petroleum
fo!bwing composition, if P, = 500 psia. Engineering
II) 12) (3) (4)
Mol Mol
Component Fraction YI~J_g~ 2 X 3 REFERENCES
-- --
C[ .40 16.01 6.40
C, .20 30.07 6.01 1. Whiteley, Burton: "Optimum Conditions for Condensate
C3 .10 44.09 4.41 Recovery," MPE Thesis, The University of Tulsa, Tulsa,
.10 58.12 5.81 Okla. (1947) 21, 43.
C, .10 72.15 7.22
C6 .05 86.17 4.31 2. Campbell, J. M., and Latham, J. A.: "Composite Equilib-
C, + (Cs) .05 ll5.22 5.76 rium Ratios for Separation Calculations," Pap.er 900-G,
1.00 39.92 presented at 32nd Annual Fall Meeting of Society of Petro-
leum Engineers, Dallas, Tex. (Oct. 6-9, 1957).
. 39.92
Specific gravIty = 28.96 = 1.38 3. Whinery, K. F.: MS Thesis, University of Oklahoma, Nor-
man, Okla. (1957). ***

5t JOlrIlNAJ~ OF PETHOLElJM TECHNOLOGY