Optimization of Separator Train in Oil Industry

Similar documents
GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS. Dr. Helmy Sayyouh Petroleum Engineering Cairo University

Validation Study of Gas Solubility Correlations at bubble point pressure for Some Libyan Crude Oils Using Three chosen Correlations

SPE Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

PVT analysis of. bottom hole sample from Well by Otto Rogne. STAT01 L EXPLORATION 81 PRODUCTlON LABORATORY

COPYRIGHT. Reservoir Fluid Core. Single Phase, Single Component Systems. By the end of this lesson, you will be able to:

Evaluation of Three Different Bubble Point Pressure Correlations on Some Libyan Crude Oils

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING 310 SECOND EXAM. October 23, 2002

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING 310 FIRST EXAM. September 22, 2000

PVT Analysis Reports of Akpet GT9 and GT12 Reservoirs

Novel empirical correlations for estimation of bubble point pressure, saturated viscosity and gas solubility of crude oils

stat0il Tone Orke Reservoir Fluid Study for Statoil, Well by Arne M.Martinsen LAB Den norske stab ol.ieselskap a.

16. Studio ScaleChem Calculations

Gas viscosity ( ) Carr-Kobayashi-Burrows Correlation Method Lee-Gonzalez-Eakin Method. Carr-Kobayashi-Burrows Correlation Method

Reservoir Fluid Fundamentals COPYRIGHT. Dry Gas Fluid Basic Workflow Exercise Review

Figure Vapor-liquid equilibrium for a binary mixture. The dashed lines show the equilibrium compositions.

Fit for Purpose Compositional Input for Allocation Using Equations of State Thomas Hurstell, Letton Hall Group

Natural Gas Properties Analysis of Bangladesh: A Case Study of Titas Gas Field

New Viscosity Correlation for Different Iraqi Oil Fields

PETROLEUM & GAS PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY (PTT 365) SEPARATION OF PRODUCED FLUID

International Journal of Petroleum and Geoscience Engineering Volume 03, Issue 01, Pages 56-60, 2015

Reservoir Performance of Fluid Systems with Widely Varying Composition (GOR)

Reserve Estimation Using Volumetric Method

Example: Calculate the density of methane at 50 psig and 32 ⁰F. H.W. In previous example calculate the density of methane in gm/m 3.

Determination of Bubble-Point and Dew-Point Pressure Without a Visual Cell

By: Eng. Ahmed Deyab Fares - Mobile:

Section 2 Multiphase Flow, Flowing Well Performance

Th CO2 P05 Influencing The CO2-Oil Interaction For Improved Miscibility And Enhanced Recovery In CCUS Projects

4 RESERVOIR ENGINEERING

Basic concepts of phase behavior

Chapter 13 Gases, Vapors, Liquids, and Solids

Removing nitrogen. Nitrogen rejection applications can be divided into two categories

Compositional Grading Theory and Practice

1. A pure substance has a specific volume of 0.08 L/mol at a pressure of 3 atm and 298 K. The substance is most likely:

Petroleum Reservoir Rock and Fluid Properties

MINING STUDIES AND RESEARCH CENTER (MSRC) FACULTY OF ENGINEERING CAIRO UNIVERSITY NATURAL GAS ENINEERING DIPLOMA

Comparison of Black Oil Tables and EOS Fluid Characterization in Reservoir Simulation

Development of PVT Correlation for Iraqi Crude Oils Using Artificial Neural Network

ASTM UPDATE to COQA. COQA Meeting Feb San Antonio. RJ (Bob) Falkiner SR (Steve) David GJ (Jay) Grills W (Wayne) Kriel

CALCULATING THE SPEED OF SOUND IN NATURAL GAS USING AGA REPORT NO Walnut Lake Rd th Street Houston TX Garner, IA 50438

International Journal of Petroleum and Geoscience Engineering Volume 03, Issue 02, Pages , 2015

Semi-Synthetic PVT with atmospheric wellhead crude samples. Introduction

International Journal of Advance Engineering and Research Development DESIGN CALCULATIONS TO EVALUATE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS OF COMPRESSOR VALVE

Design Tapered Electric Submersible Pumps For Gassy Wells Desheng Zhou, SPE, Rajesh Sachdeva, SPE, IHS INC.

New power in production logging

Introduction to Relative Permeability AFES Meeting Aberdeen 28 th March Dave Mogford ResLab UK Limited

Carbon Dioxide Flooding. Dr. Helmy Sayyouh Petroleum Engineering Cairo University

I I IS9 0.6 to 1.0 at given initial temperatures and

DISTILLATION POINTS TO REMEMBER

1. INTRODUCTION. International Journal of Students Research in Technology & Management Vol 1 (05), September 2013, ISSN , pg

Optimizing Effective Absorption during Wet Natural Gas Dehydration by Tri Ethylene Glycol

44 (0) E:

DEHYDRATION OF ACID GAS PRIOR TO INJECTION Eugene W. Grynia, John J. Carroll, Peter J. Griffin, Gas Liquids Engineering, Calgary, Canada

RESERVOIR DRIVE MECHANISMS

COPYRIGHT. Reservoir Fluid Fundamentals. Reservoir Brine Basic Workflow Exercise Review. Brine Density at Standard Conditions

Description of saturation curves and boiling process of dry air

Analysis of Effects of Temperature on Petrophysical Properties of Petroleum Reservoir Rocks and Fluids

Validation of Custody Transfer Metering Skid at Site After Laboratory Proving

Pore-Air Entrapment during Infiltration

1 PIPESYS Application

Blending to Maximize Crude Oil Revenue & Reid Vapor Pressure: The Most Misunderstood Measurement

Chapter 8: Reservoir Mechanics

Applied Technology and Best Practices in CEE. Conference

Gas Viscosity Measurement and Evaluation for High Pressure and High Temperature Gas Reservoirs

New low temperature technologies of natural gas processing

EVALUATING RESERVOIR PRODUCTION STRATEGIES IN MISCIBLE AND IMMISCIBLE GAS-INJECTION PROJECTS

PRODUCTION I (PP 414) ANALYSIS OF MAXIMUM STABLE RATE AND CHOKES RESOLVE OF OIL WELLS JOSE RODRIGUEZ CRUZADO JOHAN CHAVEZ BERNAL

Vapor Recovery from Condensate Storage Tanks Using Gas Ejector Technology Palash K. Saha 1 and Mahbubur Rahman 2

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITIONAL AND MODIFIED BLACK-OIL MODELS FOR RICH GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS WITH VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL WELLS.

The Pennsylvania State University. The Graduate School. Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering FIELD PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION OF

Laboratory Hardware. Custom Gas Chromatography Solutions WASSON - ECE INSTRUMENTATION. Custom solutions for your analytical needs.

Accurate Measurement of Steam Flow Properties

A NEW PROCESS FOR IMPROVED LIQUEFACTION EFFICIENCY

Pressure Control. where: p is the pressure F is the normal component of the force A is the area

Training Title IDENTIFY OPERATIONAL UPSETS, REVIEW & VALIDATE IN OIL & CHEMICAL PLANTS

SIMULATION OF CORE LIFTING PROCESS FOR LOST GAS CALCULATION IN SHALE RESERVOIRS

NORDCALC Introduction... 2 Registration... 2 Flow Calculations tab Torque Calculation & Actuator Mounting Data tab... 21

Fundamentals of NGL Sampling Systems. By Dominic Giametta & Jim Klentzman

Experimental Determination of Water Content of Sweet Natural Gas with Methane Component Below 70%

SPE Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

Flow transients in multiphase pipelines

Measurement & Analytics Wet gas monitoring

Advances in Environmental Biology

MODELING AND SIMULATION OF VALVE COEFFICIENTS AND CAVITATION CHARACTERISTICS IN A BALL VALVE

GLOSSARY OF TERMS. Adiabatic Compression Compression process when all heat of compression is retained in the gas being compressed.

Distillation Design The McCabe-Thiele Method

Structured packing use in fluid catalytic cracker (FCC)

THE SOLUBILITY OF HYDROCARBONS IN AMINE SOLUTIONS Supplemental Material

CHE 306 Stagewise Operations

OIL AND GAS SEPARATION DESIGN MANUAL

VERIFYING GAS CHROMATOGRAPH OPERATION AT CUSTODY TRANSFER LOCATIONS Murray Fraser Daniel Measurement & Control

Steve David David & Associates, LLC David & Associates, LLC

Deep water plume models - What s special about deep water

GAS LIFT IN NEW FIELDS

Two-Stage Linear Compressor with Economizer Cycle Where Piston(s) Stroke(s) are Varied to Optimize Energy Efficiency

Single- or Two-Stage Compression

THERMODYNAMIC ASPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF GAS RESERVES CONFINED TO COMPACT DEEP-SEATED RESERVOIR BEDS

Nitrogen subtraction on reported CO 2 emission using ultrasonic flare gas meter

Another convenient term is gauge pressure, which is a pressure measured above barometric pressure.

Modeling of Miscible WAG Injection Using Real Geological Field Data

Reservoir Simulator Practical

Transcription:

Optimization of Separator Train in Oil Industry Pawan jain a M.E. Petroleum Engineering, Maharashtra Institute of Technology, Pune-411038 ---------------------------------------------------------------------***--------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract - The fluid that comes out a typical well is actually a combination of crude oil and natural gas often mixed with water, non-hydrocarbon gases and other impurities. That is the reason why the volume of crude oil and natural gas is so different from the reservoir and surface conditions. In general, the volume of oil remaining at the lowest pressure will be smaller for flash process and in surface separators, there is flash expansion of oil i.e. gas stays in equilibrium with oil. However, If multi-stage separation, then gas is physically removed from the first stage separator, before the oil enters the second stage separator at different P and T conditions thus making it a non-isothermal differential liberation. Hence, engineers should consider that differential liberation could take place in separator as the differential liberation test is considered to better describe the separation process taking place in the reservoir and is also considered to simulate the flowing behavior of hydrocarbon systems at conditions above the critical gas saturation. As the saturation of the liberated gas reaches the critical gas saturation, the liberated gas begins to flow, leaving behind the oil that originally contained it. This is attributed to the fact that gases have, in general, higher mobility than oils. Consequently, this behavior follows the differential liberation sequence. The test is carried out on reservoir oil samples and involves charging a visual PVT cell with a liquid sample at the bubble-point pressure and at reservoir temperature. The volume of oil remaining is also measured at each pressure level. The remaining oil is subjected to continual compositional changes as it becomes progressively richer in the heavier components. This paper describes the optimization performed in crude oil facility to enhance the oil recovery. Key Words: (Bubble point pressure, oil formation value factor, oil-gas ratio, constant composition expansion.) 1. INTRODUCTION In recent times of Separation of crude oil as it reaches the surface from the reservoir it must be processed so that it can be sent either to storage or to a refinery for further processing. In fact, the main purpose of the surface facilities is to separate the produced multiphase stream into its vapor and liquid fractions. On production platforms, a multiphase separator is usually the first equipment through which the well fluid flows, followed by other equipment such as heaters, exchangers, and distillation column as shown in Figure 1. Fig:-1: Separation of reservoir fluid. 2017, IRJET Impact Factor value: 5.181 ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1269

2. SEPARATION Separator tests are conducted to determine the changes in the volumetric behavior of the reservoir fluid as the fluid passes through the separator (or separators) and then into the stock. The resulting volumetric behavior is influenced to a large extent by the operating conditions, i.e., pressures and temperatures, of the surface separation facilities. The primary objective of conducting separator tests, therefore, is to provide the essential laboratory information necessary for determining the optimum surface separation conditions, which in turn will maximize the stock-tank oil production. In addition, the results of the test, when appropriately combined with the differential liberation test data, provide a means of obtaining the PVT parameters (Bo, Rs, and Bg) required for petroleum engineering calculations. These separator tests are performed only on the original oil at the bubble point.the test involves placing a hydrocarbon sample at its saturation pressure and reservoir temperature in a PVT cell. The volume of the sample is measured as Vsat. The hydrocarbon sample is then displaced and flashed through a laboratory multistage separator system commonly one to three stages. The pressure and temperature of these stages are set to represent the desired or actual surface separation facilities. The gas liberated from each stage is removed and its specific gravity and volume at standard conditions are measured. The volume of the remaining oil in the last stage (representing the stock-tank condition) is measured and recorded as (Vo)st. These experimental, measured data can then be used to determine the oil formation volume factor and gas solubility at the bubble-point pressure as follows: The above laboratory procedure is repeated at a series of different separator pressures and at a fixed temperature. It is usually recommended that four of these tests be used to determine the optimum separator pressure, which is usually considered the separator pressure that results in minimum oil formation volume factor. At the same pressure, the stock tank oil gravity will be maximum and the total evolved gas, i.e., the separator gas and the stock-tank gas will be at a minimum. 2.1 One separator test: The goal of the one separator test is to find the separation pressure and temperature such that the solution gas oil ratio at the bubble point is a minimum, the API gravity of the oil at stock tank conditions is a maximum, and the formation volume factor at the bubble point (BoSb ) is a minimum. 2.2 Two or more separator test: The objective here is the same as with one separator (obtain a maximum API gravity oil), but here you need to optimize the pressure and temperature of two separators. We use the output from one of these tests to illustrate the calculation procedure. 2.3 Flash and Differential liberation test: In order to measure GOR lab measurements of crude oil the two basic laboratory experiments are: 1. Flash liberation: In flash liberation, crude oil is flashed in separator, therefore less Rs & Bo from the solution hence, gas remains in equilibrium with oil and Overall hydrocarbon composition remains same (components are re-distributed between the gas and liquid phase). 2017, IRJET Impact Factor value: 5.181 ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1270

2. Differential liberation: At each stage of depletion gas physically removes from contact with oil and there is continual change of fluid composition on the other hand Remaining hydrocarbons in progressively become heavier (mol. wt. continually increases). 3. METHODOLOGY & CALCULATIONS Constant compositional expansion and Differential liberation test: The following compositional information as shown in table 1 computed by PETE 310 for Reservoir fluids will help us in interpreting our results. The reservoir temperature is T= 220 F and the initial reservoir pressure is 2200 psia Constant Composition Expansion (CCE) Results. Table 2 shows the CCE data with pressure steps of 200 psia, here the experiment ends at 200 psia The table displays the liquid and vapor fraction, the compressibility factor, and the volumes of oil and gas at each pressure stage. From this table we can find the bubble point pressure graphically. Table 1 Compositional data of crude oil sample. Component Mol. Wt. Pc (psia) Tc (ᶞF) Accentric Moles Zi factor Methane 16 667.4-116.9 0.008 48.5 0.36283384 Ethane 30 708.5 89.7 0.098 9.67 0.07234234 n-pentane 72.2 489.5 385.3 0.251 10 0.0748111 n-hexane 86 477.2 453.5 0.275 65.5 0.49001272 Table 2 Constant composition expansion results. Pressure Fw Fo Fg Zw Zo Zg vw(cc) vo (cc) vg (cc) (PSI) 2200 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5240 0.0000 0.0000 14.5072 0.0000 2000 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4833 0.0000 0.0000 14.7182 0.0000 1800 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4420 0.0000 0.0000 14.9569 0.0000 1600 0.0000 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4001 0.0000 0.0000 15.2307 0.0000 1400 0.0000 0.9972 0.0028 0.0000 0.3884 0.8042 0.0000 15.2694 0.0886 1200 0.0000 0.8366 0.1634 0.0000 0.3114 0.8352 0.0000 13.2223 6.9278 1000 0.0000 0.7622 0.2378 0.0000 0.2650 0.8532 0.0000 12.3008 12.3578 800 0.0000 0.6947 0.3053 0.0000 0.2168 0.8713 0.0000 11.4667 20.2564 600 0.0000 0.6286 0.3714 0.0000 0.1666 0.8897 0.0000 10.6317 33.5403 400 0.0000 0.5535 0.4465 0.0000 0.1140 0.9078 0.0000 9.6088 61.7229 200 0.0000 0.4134 0.5866 0.0000 0.0587 0.9229 0.0000 7.3857 164.8516 2017, IRJET Impact Factor value: 5.181 ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1271

From P-V graph by the intersection of two lines we can see that the bubble point pressure for this mixture is between 1600 & 1400 psia. Refining the search provides Pb = 1545 psi, note that at this pressure the volume of gas obtained is very small. Differential liberation Table 3 displays the differential liberation results for our example mixture. This output includes the fraction of liquid and vapour, the compressibility factor, and the volume of oil and gas at the specified pressure and temperature. This volume of gas is removed from the cell before the next expansion. Using data from this table we can compute Rsd, Bod, and Bg as indicated below in calculations. Table 3 Differential liberation results at T =220ᶞF Separator Tests Pressure Fo Fg Zo Zg Vo, Vg, cm*3 (Psi) cm*3 1545 1.0000 0.0000 0.3966 0.0000 11.9553 0.0000 1000 0.9429 0.0571 0.2653 0.8154 11.6517 2.1677 500 0.7892 0.2108 0.1469 0.8974 10.1858 16.6163 100 0.8114 0.1886 0.0325 0.9711 9.1343 63.4813 14.7 0.9234 0.0766 0.0049 0.9886 8.7055 144.8846 14.7 psi, 60F 1.0000 0.0000 0.0049 0.0000 8.7055 0.0000 The objectives of the separator tests are to optimize the amount of oil produced at the surface. You will conduct tests with one and two separators; your goal is to find the best pressure and temperature combinations (for one or multiple separators) that maximize liquid production. The stock tank, which acts as another separator at standard temperature and pressure, is included automatically in your computation. The goal of the one separator test is to find the separation pressure and temperature such that the solution gas oil ratio at the bubble point is a minimum, the API gravity of the oil at stock tank conditions is a maximum, and the formation volume factor at the bubble point (Bosb ) is a minimum. 2017, IRJET Impact Factor value: 5.181 ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1272

Table 4 Single separator test results Pressure (psia) T (ᶞF) Fo Fg Z0 Zg Vo in cm 3 Vg( cm 3 ) ρo,( lb /ft 3 ) ρg, (lb /ft 3 ) 1545 220 0.9972 0.0028 0.3884 0.8042 15.2694 0.0886 30.3073 6.6528 150 100 0.5871 0.4129 0.0466 0.9640 9.1312 132.7221 42.5594 0.5587 14.7 60 0.9208 0.0792 0.0049 0.9898 8.4342 145.4989 44.5354 0.0893 One Separator Test Results Table 4 shows the PVT properties from the example mixture at its bubble point (computed earlier) and at a separator pressure and temperature of 150 psia and 100 ᶞ F. The corresponding PVT properties from the separator test are computed as follows: 1. Bosb = volume of oil at bubblepoint pressure/volume of oil at standard conditions ( in bbl/sto). = 15.2694/8.4342 = 1.81 bbl/sto 2. The volume of gas released from the separator at standard conditions : Vsc1 = (Ps.Vs/Zs.Ts) (Tsc.Psc) = = 1257.88 cm3. 3. The solution gas oil ratio of the separator is then : RsSb = Vsc+Volume of gas at standard conditions / Volume of oil at standard conditions (in scf/sto) = scf/sto =934.121 scf/sto 4. Density of oil at standard conditions : ρo (Tsc, psc) = 44.5354 lbm/ft3 or in API = 141.5/(44.5354/62.4)-131.5 = 66.77 Two Separators The objective here is the same as with one separator (obtain a maximum API gravity oil), but here we need to optimize the pressure and temperature of two separators. We use the output from one of these tests to illustrate the calculation procedure. In this example we chose Separator 1 at 500 psia and 100 ᶞF and Separator 2 at 100 psia and 80 ᶞF. The corresponding PVT properties from this separator test are computed as follows: 2017, IRJET Impact Factor value: 5.181 ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1273

1. Bosb =volume of oil at bubble point pressure/volume of oil at standard conditions (in bbl/sto) = 15.2694/8.6498 = 1.76 bbl/sto. 2. The volume of gas released from the separator at standard conditions: (a.)vsc1 = (Ps.Vs.Tsc /Zs.Ts.Psc) (At 500 psia and 100 ᶞf). Table 5 Two separator test results = = 914.99 cm3 (b.)vsc2 = (Ps.Vs.Tsc /Zs.Ts.Psc). (at 100 psia and 80 ᶞf) = = 335.27 cm3 3. The total solution gas oil ratio is the sum of all volumes of gas released in each stage divided the oil volume at standard conditions : RsSb = Vsc1 + Vsc2 + volume of gas at standard conditions/volume of oil at standard conditions. = scf/sto. = 902.29 scf/sto. 4. Density of oil at standard conditions: ρo (Tsc, psc) = 44.4944 in lbm/ft 3 or in API = 141.5/(44.4944/62.4)-131.5 = 66.94 Table 5 Two separator test results P,psia T *f Fo Fg Zo Zg Vo, cm 3 Vg, cm 3 ρo, lb/ft 3 1545 220 500 100 100 80 14.7 60 ρg, lb/ft 3 0.9972 0.0028 0.3884 0.8042 15.2694 0.0886 30.3073 6.6528 0.7104 0.2896 0.1440 0.9098 10.2350 26.3569 40.7404 1.7375 0.8449 0.1551 0.0325 0.9715 9.0628 49.7227 43.9127 0.3822 0.9254 0.0746 0.0049 0.9887 8.6498 139.9513 44.4944 0.0936 In the above case, we have lower Bosb, and higher API gravity than in the previous n case. Clearly, by adding a separation stage we will have a better oil quality and less gas production 4. CONCLUSION AND SCOPE In general the volume of oil remaining at the lowest pressure will be smaller for flash expansion & in separator there is flash expansion of oil. However if multi-stag separation is done then gas is physically removed from the first stage separator, before the oil enters the second stage separator at different P & T conditions thus making it is as non-isothermal differential liberation.hence engineers should consider that multi-stage separation could take place in separators as the differential liberation test is 2017, IRJET Impact Factor value: 5.181 ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1274

considered to better describe the separation process taking place in reservoir and is also considered to simulate the flowing behavior of hydrocarbon systems at conditions above the critical gas saturation, as the saturation of gas reaches critical gas saturation, the liberated gas begins to flow leaving behind the oil original contained in it.this is attributed from the fact that gas have higher mobility than oils. 5. REFERENCES 1. H.Y. Al-yousef (king fahd university of petroleum and minerals) M.A. Al-marhoun (king fahd university of petroleum and minerals) published by journal of Canadian petroleum technology, march 1995. 2. Ali Pourahmadi Laleh and William Y. Svrcek, University of Calgary, Computational Fluid Dynamics-Based Study of an Oilfield Separator 3. McCain, W.D. Jr. : Analysis of Black oil PVT reports Revisited, paper SPE 77386 presented at the SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,Texas,29 sept 2 oct. 4. Moses, P.L.: Engineering Applications of Phase Behavior of Crude Oil and Condensate Systems, JPT (July 1986) 715. 5. Al-Marhoun, M.A.: Adjustment of Differential Liberation Data to Separator Conditions, paper SPE 68234 presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 17 20 March. 6. Instructional materials for reservoir fluids class from Prof. Maria A Barrufet, Texas A&M University. 2017, IRJET Impact Factor value: 5.181 ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal Page 1275