See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250088712

Proper Use of Equations of State for Compositional Reservoir Simulation

Article  in  Journal of Petroleum Technology · July 2001

DOI: 10.2118/69071-MS

CITATIONS READS

17 495

2 authors, including:

Wang Peng
Lanzhou University
9 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wang Peng on 31 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Distinguished Author Series
Proper Use of Equations of
State for Compositional
Reservoir Simulation
Peng Wang, SPE, and Gary A. Pope, SPE, U. of Texas at Austin
Summary
Equation-of-state (EOS) compositional reservoir simula-
tion is an accurate and powerful means to model compli-
cated phase and flow behavior involved in the displacement
of oil and gas in porous media. The use of EOS simulation
becomes even more effective when the process involves sol-
vent injection for miscible or near-miscible displacement of
crude oil in reservoirs. The current trend of combining the
simulation of reservoirs and surface facilities increases the
demand for the use of EOS compositional models.
One key to proper use of compositional simulators is
development of an EOS for describing the phase behavior
of the fluids. This paper is a summary of experiences and
developments in the use of EOS’s for compositional reser-
voir simulation studies. The reader is referred to the recent
monograph by Whitson and Brulé1 for a more complete
treatment of the volumetric and phase behavior of petrole-
um fluids and the use of EOS’s to model these fluids.
Introduction
When the displacement process depends on pressure and
fluid composition, an EOS should be used to simulate the
equilibrium mass transfer between phases and the pres-
sure/volume/temperature (PVT) behavior of the fluids. PVT
laboratory measurements are made on only a small portion
of the composition path encountered throughout the dis-
placement, whereas an EOS can be used to predict behavior
for the entire composition path and pressure range of the
process. Many field development projects have strong com-
position dependence, such as production from gas/conden-
sate reservoirs, miscible and near-miscible gas injection, or
water-alternating-gas injection for enhanced oil recovery.
Until very recently, industry practice was to use a black-oil
model and/or its modified versions2,3 or a limited-composi-
tion reservoir simulator4,5 to approximate the complicated
phase behavior. These simplified approaches require less
computer time and memory and can provide a quick pre-
liminary evaluation of reservoir performance. However,
efforts by industry and universities have led to rapid
advancements in parallel-computer hardware and software
during the last several years, which have increased simula-
tion efficiency considerably6-9 and now make composition-
al simulation practical. Also, most of the commercially
Copyright 2001 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This is paper SPE 69071. Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive
representations that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing
recent developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by
individuals recognized as experts in the area, these articles provide key references to more
definitive work and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to
inform the general readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engineering.
74
available EOS compositional simulators and in-house mod-
els have been improved significantly in terms of robustness,
efficiency, and features. More frequent use of EOS composi-
tional simulators should be expected in the future.
However, uncertainties still exist that are associated with
the use of an EOS to model petroleum reservoir fluids
because of the complicated nature of such fluids and limi-
tations of the most commonly used EOS’s. Tuning the
adjustable EOS parameters to match experimental fluid
PVT data is a common practice. The proper use of EOS
models for reservoir applications has been an active
research topic since the 1970’s. Although significant
progress in this area has been made, engineers still face sev-
eral challenging questions: How many fluid components
should be used? How much experimental data and what
kind of data are needed to tune an EOS? How good is the
predictive power of an EOS that matches all of the experi-
mental data available? What are limitations of the com-
monly used EOS’s for hydrocarbons when the gas or oil
contains significant concentrations of components other
than hydrocarbons? Which EOS should be used when
more than one option is available in a reservoir simulator?
Representative-Sample Collection
The accuracy of any EOS model depends on the quality of
the laboratory PVT data and procedures used to obtain the
EOS parameters. The value of the PVT data depends on the
quality of the fluid samples. They must be representative of
the reservoir fluid. Three common methods are used to
sample the reservoir fluid.
Downhole Sampling. A sample collector with a capacity of
several hundred cubic centimeters is used to obtain a fluid
sample from within the wellbore. The downhole flowing pres-
sure at the sampling point must be greater than the saturation
pressure of the fluid so that the sample is a single phase. At
least three fluid samples should be collected to determine the
appropriate fluid sample for the PVT measurements.
Wellhead Sampling. A fluid sample can be collected
directly from the wellhead. The fluid needs to be in the sin-
gle-phase region at wellhead flowing conditions. Normally,
the sample needs to be taken at a pressure of at least
100 psi greater than the bubblepoint to be valid. Again,
taking multiple samples is recommended.
Separator Sampling. A fluid sample is obtained by recom-
bining the gas and liquid taken at a surface separator at the
measured gas/oil ratio (GOR). Usually, GOR’s are measured at
JULY 2001
 dewpoint pressure. The
sampling well needs to
produce fluid steadily
for a long enough peri-
od of time and at a rate
sufficiently high to carry
any condensate in the
wellbore to the surface.

Laboratory PVT
Experiments
The appropriate PVT
experiments are related
closely to the processes
implemented in the field.
The primary purpose of
conducting PVT experi-
ments is to generate reli-
able fluid properties for
use in reservoir simula-
tion and the evaluation
Fig. 1—Effects of number of components on phase envelope of an actual gas condensate. of the fluid properties.
The most commonly
available PVT experi-
ments are the following.
• Constant-mass ex-
pansion (CME)—a series
of volume measurements
performed on the reser-
voir fluid at different
pressures starting at the
saturation pressure.
• Differential libera-
tion (DL)—approxima-
tion of fluid-property
changes with pressure
for oil during a
natural depletion.
• Constant-volume
depletion (CVD)—ap-
proximation of gas/con-
densate depletion when
condensate is immobile.
• Separator test—a
Fig. 2—Effects of number of components on liquid dropout. series of flashes with the
liquid from one flash
stock-tank conditions and need to be corrected to separator becoming the feed for the next flash at different conditions.
conditions to be consistent with the gas and liquid collected. • Swelling test—measurement of oil-property variation
The separator gas and liquid sometimes are recombined to a with the amount of injection gas added. These properties
known reservoir bubblepoint pressure rather than to the might include saturation pressure, oil-volume expansion,
measured GOR. Occasionally, when separator gas is in short oil viscosity, and oil density.
supply, synthetic separator gas made from pure components • Multicontact test (forward and backward)—simulation
can be used to combine with the separator oil or stock-tank of the dynamic phase behavior during a gas-injection
oil to provide a synthetic crude oil. Because of difficulties asso- process. The forward process mimics the mixing of rich gas
ciated with the accurate measurement of GOR, the downhole at the gas front with the original oil. The backward process
or wellhead sampling approach for oil reservoirs is recom- mimics the continuous contact of the injected gas with the
mended when conditions are favorable. When large volumes oil left behind the gas front. The experimental data include
of oil are required for slim-tube or coreflood experiments, sep- interfacial tension (IFT), viscosity, and gas and oil compo-
arator sampling may be the only practical alternative. sition at each contact. The minimum miscibility pressure
However, for gas condensates, the separator-sampling (MMP) might also be determined from such a test.
approach is recommended because liquid condensation • Slim-tube test—a dynamic phase-behavior test where
can occur in the wellbore during the well cleanup, even the injection gas displaces oil from uniform sand or glass
though the reservoir pressure remains greater than the beads packed in a small-diameter tube to minimize non-

75
JULY 2001
 Fig. 3—Variation in saturation and reservoir pressures
with depth for an actual field.
ideal effects such as fingering. The MMP is determined
from the recovery curve. The effluent composition vs.
pressure is provided also.
Fluid density, molecular weight (MW), IFT, and viscosi-
ty are measured in some of the above experiments. Often,
the composition (component mole fractions) of the sample
fluid is obtained from the compositions of gas and liquid at
standard conditions weighted by the GOR. The composi-
tion of gas is measured by use of a gas chromatograph. The
composition of liquid is obtained by use of either the sim-
ulated distillation gas chromatograph if the sample amount
is small, or, if a large volume (a few liters) of the sample is
available, true-boiling-point distillation. The measurements
for oils often provide mass fraction rather than mole frac-
tion. To convert these measurements into mole fractions,
the molecular weight of each fraction must be used, which
can be measured or computed from a correlation.
For gas condensates, the mole fractions of components
up to at least C11 should be measured because the compo-
nent mole fractions often increase with carbon number for
components up to C11. For oil reservoirs with a potential
for solvent injection, extended compositional analysis
might be needed for components up to C30 or even heav-
ier. Mass transfer of these components between the gas and
oil dominates the displacement characteristics of miscible
or near-miscible floods. However, accurate measurement
of such heavy components is not an easy task. Some com-
panies also request that PVT data, primarily CME data, be
provided at temperatures different from the reservoir tem-
perature to validate the EOS model.
Data from these experiments can be used as input for a
black-oil model or to calibrate an EOS for a compositional
model. Depending on the simulation model and the field
development, only some of these experiments are needed.
For a waterflood, the CME, differential liberation, and sep-
arator tests are adequate. For gas/condensate reservoirs,
CME, CVD, and separator-test data are adequate. These
experiments describe the fluid-property change during
pressure depletion. For solvent injection, data from the
swelling test also are needed. For miscible or near-miscible
processes, multicontact and slim-tube tests are needed.
Laboratory data from those experiments contain errors.
Material-balance calculations can help an engineer evalu-
ate the quality of each data point. If a sufficiently large
error is identified in a data point, then it can be excluded
76
Fig. 4—Compositional changes of methane and C7+ with
depth.
Fig. 5—Variation in bottomhole and stock-tank densities
with depth.
from the EOS match. Such a calculation can be performed
on PVT experiments that release gases, which include the
DL, CVD, and separator tests. A material-balance calcula-
tion on CVD data can provide oil molar density and satu-
ration at each pressure stage. Dewpoint pressure, high-
pressure composition, molecular weight, and viscosity are
difficult to measure accurately. Accurate measurement of
molecular weight is important to convert laboratory data
to molar units used in EOS calculations.
For a reservoir showing significant compositional varia-
tions, several fluid samples at different depths or locations
might be needed to validate the EOS model for the entire field.
EOS Development for Reservoir Fluids
Usually, petroleum-reservoir fluids contain several hundred
distinct components, which makes it impossible to model
the fluids rigorously as a mixture of these pure compo-
nents. Therefore, “pseudocomponents” are used in EOS
models, especially for the heavier components. The most
widely used EOS models are cubic in volume, so only these
cubic EOS’s are discussed in this paper. This type of EOS is
computationally efficient and does a good job of predicting
phase behavior of petroleum fluids over wide ranges of
pressure and temperature. During simulations with an EOS
compositional model, two families of chemical compounds
represent a reservoir fluid: individual chemical compounds
with well-defined physical properties and several groups of
JULY 2001
 heavy components (pseudocomponents) that are identified
by use of a single carbon number. An EOS requires the crit-
ical temperature (Tc), critical pressure (Pc), and acentric
factor (ω) for each component. However, the physical
properties available for the heavy groups usually are only
the mole fraction, MW, and specific gravity (SG). The crit-
ical properties of the heavy pseudocomponents are diffi-
cult, if not impossible, to obtain experimentally. Therefore,
a bridge is needed between the measurable properties and
the parameters in an EOS. A practical number of compo-
nents to use in large compositional reservoir simulations
typically is between 6 and 15. The EOS still needs to repre-
sent the behavior of the fluids with an acceptable accuracy
even when limited in the number of components. The crit-
ical volume and parachor of these components also are
needed for the calculation of viscosity and interfacial ten-
sion. Therefore, the following steps usually are involved.
1. Develop pseudocomponents for the heavy fraction.
a. Split the heavy fraction into many pseudocomponents
by use of a distribution function that honors the measured
MW and SG.1,10-13 The MW and SG of each split pseudo-
component are obtained.
b. Estimate the Tc, Pc, and ω for these split pseudocom-
ponents by use of an empirical correlation.10,11,14
c. Lump these split pseudocomponents into a few
groups.
d. Compute the Tc, Pc, and ω for these lumped groups
by use of mixing rules.
2. Validate this EOS model against experimental PVT
data and determine if tuning of the EOS parameters
is needed.
3. Tune the EOS parameters.
a. Select suitable experimental data to tune the EOS.
b. Choose the adjustable EOS parameters that will be
used to match these data.
c. Perform tuning by use of an optimization technique.
4. Evaluate the predictive capability of this EOS model.
It appears that Step 1 is independent of the EOS model
used. However, a lumping scheme that uses K-values15
does require a specific EOS to provide the K-values.
It should be added that, because of the cost associated
with PVT-data collection and the time required to develop
the EOS model, it is wise to justify both the purpose and
importance of the effort.
Number of Pseudocomponents
The following guidelines can be used to select the number
of pseudocomponents.
1. At least two, often three or more, pseudocomponents
are needed for the C7+ fraction. Also, the intermediate
components between C2 and C6 can be grouped into two
pseudocomponents unless surface separation requires
detailed knowledge about them.
2. Injection-gas properties need to be modeled accurately.
3. To adequately describe mass transfer between phases
for vaporized- and condensed-gas drives and their com-
bined processes, more intermediate components (C5
through C15) may be required.
4. For processes involving surface natural-gas liquid and
liquefied petroleum gas extraction, explicit representation
of these components in the EOS model may be required
unless a scheme is used to delump the production stream
at the surface for these components.16
78
A recent practice in the industry17 is to start with more
components (e.g., 15 to 20), then successively reduce the
number of components until the EOS loses its acceptable
representation of the measured PVT data. Often, this
process requires extended analysis of fluid composition
during the laboratory tests and targets complicated sol-
vent-injection displacements. Figs. 1 and 2 show typical
effects of the number of components on phase envelope
and liquid dropout of gas condensates.
Tuning EOS Parameters
As discussed in the previous section, a link is needed
between the measurable properties, such as MW and SG,
and the EOS parameters, such as Tc, Pc, and ω for the
heavy groups. Often, such a link is provided in the form of
empirical correlations, which inevitably involve
some uncertainties.
Additionally, the well-defined compounds used to gener-
alize the parameters of the original cubic EOS are usually
lighter than C15.18,19 Extension of the EOS to heavier com-
ponents existing in the petroleum fluids relies on the extrap-
olation of the EOS parameters. The vapor pressure and the
conditions at the critical point have been used to develop
two-parameter cubic EOS’s, while the volumetric properties
typically are not used. As a result, a fixed critical compress-
ibility factor (0.303 for the Peng-Robinson EOS and 0.333
for the Soave EOS) is used. Therefore, these EOS’s are not
expected to provide accurate estimates of density, especially
for the liquid phase or when a large fraction of heavy com-
ponents is in the mixture. To improve the accuracy of the
liquid-density predictions, a volume-shift parameter was
added to two-parameter cubic EOS’s.20,21 Three-parameter
cubic EOS’s, such as that developed by Patel and Teja22 also
can be used to improve volumetric accuracy, but these EOS’s
commonly are not used in reservoir simulators.
Because of these uncertainties and others not discussed
here, even with the good fluid-characterization procedures
available today, EOS predictions often are found to differ,
sometimes significantly, from the experimental data.
Therefore, tuning the EOS by adjusting some of the input
parameters to the experimental data is required.
Tuning the heavy-group properties that relate to EOS
parameters requires the following.
• Selection of tuning parameters and the ranges in
which the selected parameters may vary.
• Selection of experimental data for matching the tuned
EOS parameters.
• Judgment regarding the predictive capability of the
tuned EOS model.
Tuning-Parameter Selection. It is not practical to measure
the parameters Tc, Pc, and ω for pseudocomponents. How-
ever, three indirect parameters (MW, SG, and true boiling
point) for each heavy group are measurable. The Tc, Pc, and
ω values for each pseudocomponent can be determined
from these indirect parameters by use of empirical correla-
tions. Alternatively, some correlations use carbon numbers
for this purpose. The volume-shift parameter, c, also is
available for tuning. Thus, seven parameters are available
for each heavy group, three direct and four indirect. Binary
interaction coefficients also can be considered as tuning
parameters, but should be used with extreme caution as
discussed below.
JULY 2001
 The direct parameters are functions of the indirect para-
meters. For example, ω can be determined once the MW, SG,
and true boiling point are available. Hence, tuning of all these
parameters by use of a regression program may break the
internal consistency among them and result in a substantial
loss of predictive power of the EOS. A reasonable guideline
is to tune as few parameters as possible and as little as possi-
ble to achieve an acceptable match with the data while still
maintaining internal consistency among the parameters.
Matched-Data Selection. A reliable EOS requires a good
description of both phase volumes and phase mole
amounts. Accurate phase volumes are needed to predict
phase saturation, which directly relates to phase relative
permeability. Therefore, the matched data need to include
both phase volumes and mole amounts.
Normally, the CVD test reports the following data at
each depletion pressure.
• Dewpoint pressure and liquid dropout.
• Composition, Z-factor, and moles of the gas removed
from the PVT cell.
• MW and SG of the heavy end for the gas phase.
From the CVD data, material- and volume-balance cal-
culations can be performed for valuable properties. These
properties are the K-values of all components, molar vol-
umes of both gas and oil, and mole and volume fractions
of the oil phase.
The swelling test and multicontact experiments also
should be matched for solvent-injection processes. IFT
data should be considered because of the strong depen-
dency of the relative permeabilities on IFT at low IFT’s,
such as close to a critical point.23 The slim-tube test is a
measure of the dynamic phase behavior included in the
swelling and multicontact tests. MMP or minimum misci-
bility enrichment (MME) data can be included because an
analytical approach for computing the MMP or MME with
an EOS has been proposed.24,25
Tuning Heavy-Group Properties. Many procedures for
tuning the EOS parameters to match the experimental
PVT data have been reported.12,26-30 As described in the
previous section, the number of possible adjustable pa-
rameters is large, which gives the tuning process a high
rate of success in terms of matching the data. However, the
accuracy and predictive power of the tuned EOS model
still remains uncertain. Experience suggests that the fol-
lowing procedure often leads to a good EOS model.
1. Evaluate the reliability of the available PVT data.
2. Group the measured PVT data into phase-equilibrium
data (saturation pressures and K-values) molar and volu-
metric data (molar and volume fractions, and molar vol-
umes), MW-related data (mass density), and other data
such as viscosity and IFT. The surface separator and stock-
tank data, if any, might be grouped together.
3. Predict PVT data by use of the initial EOS with all
zero binary interaction coefficients between hydrocar-
bon components.
4. Identify the major source of the EOS errors in terms
of the data type described in Step 2.
5. Match the measured PVT data in a stepwise manner.
After each step, perform a PVT calculation by use of the
modified model for all the available data to determine the
need for continuation or termination of the tuning process.
JULY 2001
a. For gas injection processes, fit the PVT data of the
injection gas, if available. The Peng-Robinson EOS can sat-
isfactorily predict the PVT properties of pure carbon diox-
ide, methane, and nitrogen, so do not adjust their physical
properties during the EOS tuning process.
b. Fit saturation points, K-values of the key compo-
nents, phase molar fractions, phase molar volumes, gas
moles removed, and Z-factors by sequentially tuning the
critical properties of the heavy pseudocomponents. Some
swelling test and multicontact data also can be added here
if the EOS predictions do not differ significantly from the
measured data.
c. Match the liquid dropout data for gas condensates and
all other volumetric properties by adjusting the volume-
shift parameters of the components. In practice, sometimes
one EOS model must be used for the reservoir fluid and a
different EOS model used for the surface fluid.
d. Refine the EOS model by tuning the MW’s of the
heavy pseudocomponents to improve the match of prop-
erties, such as mass densities, that are related to MW.
e. Repeat Steps b through d until consistent results are
obtained.
f. Match other data such as viscosity and IFT data.
Adjustment of the component critical volumes is used to
match the viscosity data for both gas and oil. The parame-
ters of the viscosity correlation can be adjusted if such an
option is available in the software. To fit the measured IFT
data, tune the component parachors.
6. Test the EOS against the swelling test, multicontact,
and slim-tube data. The match to these data might be
improved by adjusting the binary interaction coefficients
between nonhydrocarbons and hydrocarbons and between
light hydrocarbons (methane and ethane) and the
heavy pseudocomponents.
7. Evaluate the predictive capability of the tuned model.
During each step of the tuning, it is crucial to maintain
the adjusted parameters within reasonable physical limits
and with a monotonically increasing or decreasing trend
with carbon number. As the carbon number increases, the
critical temperature and acentric factor increase, while the
critical pressure decreases.
When several samples are collected at various depths or
from wells with different compositions, the reference fluid
should be the one whose PVT data are more complete and
of better quality. An EOS model for the reference fluid is
then developed first. The tuned model is next applied to
predict the PVT properties at other depths or locations.
The MW of the heavy groups can be adjusted to match the
measured fluid compositions. Figs. 3 to 5 show an exam-
ple of the use of this approach for a reservoir that exhibits
large changes in fluid composition with depth.
The regression process for tuning EOS parameters to
measured PVT data requires specific software. Some of that
software provides a “sensitivity matrix,” which helps the
user assess the effect of adjusted variables on the PVT
properties of the fluid.
Remarks
The saturation pressures and K-values are sensitive to the
binary interaction coefficients, so it has become common
practice to tune them to fit these data.31 As noted by Ped-
ersen et al.,10,11 this practice might not always be good,
even though it is sometimes effective. In fact, experience
79
 shows that an acceptable match can result without adjust-
ing binary interaction coefficients of the hydrocarbons if
the EOS model includes some pseudocomponents that are
heavy enough. The Gaussian quadrature method32 for
lumping meets this requirement compared with other pop-
ular lumping schemes.
The volume-shift technique moves the bubblepoint
curve of a pure component, usually to the left, to match the
saturation liquid density. Then, a linear mixing rule is used
to compute the volume-shift parameter for a mixture. Use
of this property does not affect the calculation of saturation
pressures and phase molar amounts, but it does affect the
properties computed with the molar or mass densities, such
as viscosity and IFT. This parameter also affects multiple
flashes if the input to each flash is a function of the phase
volumes from the previous flashes. It should be noted that
this parameter bears an empirical nature in both its defini-
tion and its extension to a mixture. To maintain a physical-
ly acceptable density, it is suggested that the volume-shift
parameter be limited to within the range
. . . .(1)
Linking the EOS compositional reservoir simulation with
the surface-facility simulation to optimize the field devel-
opment plan is now feasible.16 Usually, the surface simula-
tion demands the use of a large number of components
(e.g., 15 to 20) which is far more than that typically used in
full-field reservoir simulations. To compensate for this need
and also to make the reservoir simulation affordable, it is
natural to delump or expand the production stream from
the reservoir model that used pseudocomponents into the
surface model, which requires many components. To make
the delumping possible and unique,33 it is necessary to use
the concept of the three-equation flash that requires zero
binary interaction coefficients. To approximate this process,
small binary interaction coefficients can be used. For this
purpose, it is better to limit the value or not to use the bina-
ry interaction coefficients during the EOS development.
Coats and Smart26 proposed tuning the parameters Ωa
and Ωb of the Peng-Robinson EOS. This method has been
used widely in the petroleum industry. It is easy to show that
this procedure is somewhat equivalent to tuning Tc and Pc
as follows.
, . . . . . . . . . . .(2)
Changes in the parameters Ωa and Ωb should be bound-
ed to guarantee a monotonic increase of Tc and a mono-
tonic decrease of Pc as the carbon number increases, but
this condition is often violated when Ωa and Ωb are tuned.
Although tuning Ωa and Ωb for carbon dioxide and
methane can be very effective in improving the match, it is
much better to tune the critical properties directly rather
than Ωa and Ωb for the heavy components.
Link Between EOS-PVT and
Compositional Simulation
Reservoir simulators are built on the basis of mass or
molar balances of each component. Such a balance is
assumed at any moment during the fluid flow. Because dif-
80
ferent phases flow at different velocities in the direction
that leads to a decrease in the flow potential of each phase,
the equilibrium between phases changes with time. To
achieve this new equilibrium, mass transfer of these com-
ponents between phases needs to take place constantly. An
EOS is used to solve this equilibrium part of the equations
governing the multiphase and multicomponent flow at a
given pressure and overall composition. After the solution
of the equilibrium equations is reached, the EOS provides
the number of phases, phase molar and mass densities,
phase saturations, and the composition of each phase.
Subsequently, phase viscosities and interfacial tension
between phases can be determined by use of correlations.
Future Trends
This paper has treated the proper use of traditional cubic
EOS’s for compositional reservoir simulation. It is worth
noting that many improved EOS’s have been developed in
recent years. Orbey and Sandler34 and Sandler35 discuss
and illustrate some of these developments. In particular,
they show how liquid-activity-coefficient models can be
used with new mixing rules in the EOS formalism. Such
models greatly improve the accuracy of calculations for
mixtures containing polar components, such as water, as
well as greatly increase the predictive power of the EOS.
These new mixing rules can be combined easily with famil-
iar cubic EOS’s, such as the Peng-Robinson EOS. Software
for volumetric and phase-behavior calculations that use the
Wong-Sandler approach are readily available. It seems like-
ly that such improvements will gradually be incorporated
into at least some compositional reservoir simulators. JPT
Nomenclature
cilower= lower bound of the volume-shift parameter for
component i
ciupper= upper bound of the volume-shift parameter for
component i
Mi= molecular weight for component i
Pc,i= critical pressure for component i
R= universal gas constant
Tc,i= critical temperature for component i
vc,i= critical molar volume for component i
Zc,i= critical compressibility for component i
γi= specific gravity for component i
ω= acentric factor
Ωa= an EOS constant
Ωb= an EOS constant
Superscripts
EOS= property computed from an EOS
t= property after tuning
u= properties before tuning
References
11. Whitson, C.H. and Brulé, M.R.: Phase Behavior, Monograph
Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (2000) 20.
12. Todd, M.R. and Longstaff, W.J.: “The Development, Testing, and
Application of a Numerical Simulator for Predicting Miscible
Flood Performance,” JPT (July 1972) 874; Trans., AIME 253.
13. Fayers, F.J. et al.: “Use of the Four-Component Todd and
Longstaff Method as an Upscaling Technique in Simulating
Gas Injection Projects,” paper SPE 59340 presented at the
2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 3–5 April.
80
JULY 2001
 14. Tang, D.E. and Zick, A.A.: “A New Limited Compositional
Reservoir Simulator,” paper SPE 25255 presented at the 1993
SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, New Orleans, 28 Feb-
ruary–3 March.
15. Jerauld, G.R.: “A Case Study in Scaleup for Multicontact Mis-
cible Hydrocarbon Gas Injection,” paper SPE 39626 present-
ed at the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 19–22 April.
16. Wang, P. et al.: “A Fully Implicit Parallel EOS Compositional
Simulator for Large Scale Reservoir Simulation,” paper SPE
51885 presented at the 1999 SPE Reservoir Simulation Sym-
posium, Houston, 14–17 February.
17. Dogru, A.H.: “Megacell Reservoir Simulation,” JPT (May
2000) 54.
18. Abate, J., Wang, P., and Sepehrnoori, K.: “Parallel Composi-
tion Reservoir Simulation on Clusters of PC’s,” The Intl. J.
High Performance Computing Applications (Spring 2001) Vol.
15, No. 1.
19. Shiralkar, G.S. et al.: “Falcon: A Production Quality Distribution
Memory Reservoir Simulator,” SPEREE (October 1998) 400.
10. Pedersen, K.S., Thomassen, P., and Fredenslund, A.: “Char-
acterization of Gas Condensate Mixtures,” paper presented at
the 1988 AIChE Spring National Meeting, New Orleans,
16–19 March.
11. Pedersen, K.S., Fredenslund, A., and Thomassen, P.: Proper-
ties of Oils and Natural Gases, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston,
Texas (1989).
12. Whitson, C.H., Anderson, T.F., and Soreide, I.: “C7+ Charac-
terization of Related Equilibrium Fluids Using the Gamma
Distribution,” paper presented at the 1988 AIChE Spring
National Meeting, New Orleans, 16–19 March.
13. Khan, S.A., Pope, G.A., and Sepehrnoori, K.: “Fluid Charac-
terization of Three-Phase CO2/Oil Mixtures,” paper SPE/DOE
24130 presented at the 1992 SPE/DOE Eighth Symposium on
Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 22–24 April.
14. Twu, C.H.: “An Internally Consistent Correlation for Predict-
ing the Critical Properties and Molecular Weights of Petrole-
um and Coal-Tar Liquids,” Fluid Phase Equilibria (1984) 16,
137.
15. Newly, T.M.J. and Merrill, R.C.: “Pseudocomponent Selection
for Compositional Simulation,” SPERE (November 1991)
490; Trans., AIME, 291.
16. Barker, J.W. and Leibovici, C.F.: “Delumping Compositional
Reservoir Simulation Results: Theory and Applications,”
paper SPE 51896 presented at the 1999 SPE Reservoir Simu-
lation Symposium, Houston, 14–17 February.
17. Jerauld, G.R.: “Timing of Miscible Hydrocarbon Gas Injec-
tion After Waterflooding,” paper SPE 59341 presented at the
2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 3–5 April.
18. Peng, D.-Y. and Robinson, D.B.: “A New Two-Constant Equa-
tion of State,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. (1976) 15, 59–64.
19. Soave, G.: “Equilibrium Constants From a Modified Redlich-
Kwong Equation of State,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 27 (1972) 1197.
20. Peneloux, A., Rauzy, E., and Freze, R.: “A Consistent Correc-
tion for Redlich-Kwong-Soave Volumes,” Fluid Phase Equilib-
ria (1982) 8, 7–23.
21. Jhaverl, B.S. and Youngren, G.K.: “Three-Parameter Modifi-
cation of the Peng-Robinson Equation of State to Improve
Volumetric Predictions,” SPERE (August 1988) 1033.
22. Patel, N.C. and Teja, A.S.: “A New Cubic Equation of State for
Fluids and Fluid Mixtures,” Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 37, No. 3
(1982) 463.
23. Pope, G.A. et al.: “Modeling Relative Permeability Effects in
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs With a New Trapping Model,”
SPEREE (April 2000) 171.
81
JULY 2001
View publication stats
24. Jessen, K. et al.: “Calculation of MMP,” paper presented at Intl.
Conference on Production of Reservoir Fluids in Frontier
Conditions, Rueil-Malmaison, France (4–5 December 1997).
25. Wang, Y. and Orr, F.M.: “Calculation of Minimum Miscibili-
ty Pressure,” paper SPE 39683 presented at the 1998
SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Okla-
homa, 19–22 April.
26. Coats, K.H. and Smart, G.T.: “Application of a Regression-
Based EOS PVT Program to Laboratory Data,” SPERE (May
1986) 277.
27. Agarwai, R.K., Li, Y.-K., and Nghiem, L.: “A Regression Tech-
nique With Dynamic Parameter Selection for Phase-Behavior
Matching,” SPERE (February 1990) 115.
28. Merrill, R.C., Hartman, K.J., and Creek, J.L.: “A Comparison
of Equation of State Tuning Methods,” paper SPE 28589 pre-
sented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, 25–28 September.
29. Joergensen, M. and Stenby, E.: “Optimization of Pseudocom-
ponent Selection for Compositional Studies of Reservoir Flu-
ids,” paper SPE 30789 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 October.
30. Liu, K.: “Fully Automatic Procedure for Efficient Reservoir
Fluid Characterization,” paper SPE 56744 presented at the
1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, 3–6 October.
31. Slot-Petersen, C.: “A Systematic and Consistent Approach To
Determine Binary Interaction Coefficients for the Peng-
Robinson Equation of State,” SPERE (November 1989) 488.
32. Behrens, R.A. and Sandler, S.I.: “The Use of Semicontinuous
Description to Model the C7+ Fraction in Equation of State
Calculations,” SPERE (August 1988) 1041.
33. Leibovici, C.F., Barker, J.W., and Wache, D.: “A Method for
Delumping the Results of a Compositional Reservoir Simula-
tion,” paper SPE 49068 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
27–30 September.
34. Orbey, H. and Sandler, S.I.: Modeling Vapor-Liquid Equilibria:
Cubic Equations of State and Their Mixing Rules, Cambridge U.
Press, New York City (1998).
35. Sandler, S.I.: Chemical and Engineering Thermodynamics, third
edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York City (1999).
Peng Wang is a reservoir simulation engineer at DeGolyer
and MacNaughton. His areas of interest include reservoir sim-
ulation, equation-of-state development, enhanced oil-recov-
ery processes, and well deliverability for gas condensates.
Previously, Wang was with the Elf Geoscience Research Cen-
ter in London and the U. of Texas at Austin. He holds a BS
degree in chemical engineering from Tsinghua U., Beijing, an
MS degree in petroleum engineering from Petroleum U. of
China, Beijing, and a PhD degree in chemical engineering
from Technical U. of Denmark. Gary A. Pope is director of
the Center for Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at U. of
Texas at Austin. His areas of interest include enhanced oil
recovery, reservoir engineering, fluid flow in porous media,
numerical simulation, phase behavior and fluid properties,
water-soluble polymers, surfactants, surfactant-enhanced
aquifer remediation, characterization of nonaqueous-phase
liquids in groundwater, and the use of tracers for characteri-
zation of aquifers. Previously, Pope was with the U. of Texas
and Shell Development Co. He holds a BS degree in chemical
engineering from Oklahoma State U. and a PhD degree from
Rice U. Pope has received the SPE Distinguished Achievement
Award (1996), SPE Distinguished Member Award (1995), and
the SPE Reservoir Engineering Award (1991).
81