A Prediction of Water Content in Sour NG

KING SAUD UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
RESEARCH CENTER
Final Research Report No. 28/426
A PREDICTION OF WATER CONTENT IN SOUR

NATURAL GAS
By
Dr. Khaled Ahmed Abdel Fattah
RabiI 1428 H
April 2007 G
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ENGLISH ABSTRACT
ii
ARABIC ABSTRACT
iii
LIST OF TABLES
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
xii
NOMENCLATURE
xvii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
xix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
INTRODUCTION
2.2
GRAPHICAL CORRELATIONS
2.2.1
McKetta and Wehe Correlation
2.2.2
Katz Chart Correlation
2.2.3
Maddox Correlation
2.2.4
Campbell Correlation
11
2.2.5
Robinson et al. Correlation
11
2.2.6
Gordon and Wichert Correlation
16
2.3
EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS
19
2.3.1
Ideal Model
19
2.3.2
Biukachek Correlation
19
2.3.3
Bukacek Correlation
21
2.3.4
Sloan Correlation
21
2.3.5
Kazim Correlation
22
2.3.6
Ning Correlation
23
CHAPTER 3: NEW EMPIRICAL MODEL FOR ESTIMATING WATER

3.1
NEW EMPIRICAL MODEL
24
3.2
ACID GAS CORRECTION FACTOR
27
CHAPTER 4: STATISTICAL ERROR ANALYSIS
4.1
AVERAGE PERCENT RELATIVE ERROR
29
4.2
AVERAGE ABSOLUTE PERCENT RELATIVE ERROR
29
4.3
MINIMUM/MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE PERCENT RELATIVE
30
4.4
STANDARD DEVIATION
30
CHAPTER 5: COMPUTER PROGRAMS
31
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
34
6.1
6.2
SWEET NATURAL GAS

NATURAL GAS CONTAINING CARBON DIOXIDE
38
43
6.3
NATURAL GAS CONTAINING HYDROGEN SULFIDE
40
6.4
NATURAL GAS CONTAINING BOTH CARBON DIOXIDE
48
AND HYDROGEN SULFIDE

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
53
7.1
CONCLUSIONS
53
7.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
54
REFERENCES
55
APPENDIX [A]
58
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to the Saudi Basic Industry
Company (SABIC) and the research center of College of Engineering in King Saud
University for their financial support and cooperation.
ABSTRACT
The accuracy of estimating water content of natural gas is extremely important

for designing processing units and pipelines networks for natural gas in order to avoid
any hazards that may be caused by the presence of the water in the natural gas such as
hydrate formation, plugging of flow system and damage to the production equipment.
Condensed water may form water slugs, which will tend to decrease the flow efficiency
and increase the pressure drop in the pipeline. The presence of the free water in the
pipeline system may also cause corrosion problems.
In this research, common correlations used for estimating water content of

natural gas were studied and computer programs were designed for the empirical
methods, and the water content values were estimated from charts accompanying to the
graphical methods. A new empirical model for estimating water content in acid gases
was developed.
The calculated results of the new empirical model and the common correlations
such as Kazim, Katz, Campbell, Maddox, Sloan, Ideal model, Ning, Gordon, McKetta,
Bukacek and Biukachek were compared to the published experimental data in order to
be a guide for designers and operators to select the best correlations for their particular
environment. The obtained results of the new correlation for calculating water content
in natural gas provides high accuracy with average absolute relative errors equal to
0.86% for sweet natural gas, 2.16% for gas containing H2S above 10%, and 2.18% for
gas containing CO2 above 10%.
% 0.86 % 2.16
% 10 % 2.18
.%10
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Page
Components of Typical Natural Gases
Values of the Correlation Coefficients in Equation 1
Values of the Coefficients in Equation 6
20
Values of Constants in Equation 9
21
Values of the Constants Used in Equations 11 and 12
22
Values of the Constants in Equation 13
23
Values of the Constants in Equations 15 and 16
27
28
28
10
Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 1 at Temperature = 100 F

and Pressures from 200 psia to 9000 psia
11

and Pressures from 200 psia to10000 psia
12
36

14
35

13
35
36

37
15
Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 1 at Temperatures from

100 to 340 F and Pressures from 200 psia to 10000 psia
37
16 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 2 at Temperature = 100 F

39
39

40

40

41

41
22 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 3 at Temperatures from

100 to 160F and Pressures from 1000 psia to 2000 psia
42

100 to 160F and Pressures from 1000 psia to 2082 psia
42
24 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 4 at Temperature T=130 F

44
25 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 4 at Temperature =160 F

44

45

45
46

46

47
31 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 7 at Temperature 100 F and

Pressures from 1885 psia to 2387 psia
48
32 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 7 at Temperature 225 F and

49
33 Comparison of Water for Case No. 7 at Temperature 350 F and

49
34 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 8 at Temperature100 F

50
35 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 8 at Temperature 225F and

50
36 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 8 at Temperature 350 F

51
37 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 7 of Temperatures from

52
38 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 8 of Temperatures from

39 Gas Composition of the Studied Cases
52
58
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
1. 1
Page
Typical Diagram for Water Content Vs. Pressure
2.
Typical Diagram for Water Content Vs. Temperature
3.
Water Content of Carbon Dioxide
4.
Water Content of Hydrogen Sulfide
5.
Water Content of Natural Gas Using McKetta and Wehe Chart
6.
Water Content of Natural Gas Using Katz Chart
7.
Maddox Correction for the Water Content of CO2
10
8.
Maddox Correction for the Water Content of H2S
10
9.
Effective Water Content of H2S in Natural Gas Vs. Temperature
12
10.
Effective Water Content of CO2 in Natural Gas Vs. Temperature
12
11.
Water Content of Natural Gas Using Campbell Chart
13
12.
Calculated Water Content of Acid Gas Mixtures to 2000 psia
14
13.
14
14.
15
15.
Water Content of Natural gas Using Gordon Chart
17
16.
Water Content Ratios
18
17
Relationship Between the variable (W1) and Temperature
26
18
Relationship Between the variable (W2) and Temperature
26
19
Water Content Correlations Program
32
20
Flow Chart of Main Program
33
xi
NOMENCLATURE
A
Variable.
Constant.
Variable.
Constant.
CAcid
Acid Correction Factor.
Eq
Equivalent.
Fcorr
Correction Factor.
Pressure, psia
Pc
Critical Pressure, psia
Pv
Vapor Pressure, psia
Ratio.
Req
Ratio Equivalent of New Model.
STD
Standard Deviation
Temperature ,oF
Total Water Content of Natural Gas, lbm/MMscf
W1
New Model Variable.
W2
New Model Variable.
Mole Fraction in Vapor Phase.
Absolute
Component in Mixture.
max
Maximum
min
Minimum
Subscripts
xii
H2S
Hydrogen Sulfide.
CO2
Carbon Dioxide.
HC
Hydrocarbon.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Natural gas is a subcategory of petroleum that is naturally occurring, complex
mixture of hydrocarbons, with minor amount of inorganic compounds. Table 1 shows
composition of a typical natural gas. It indicates that methane is major component of the
gas mixture. The inorganic compounds nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide
are not desirable because they are not combustible and cause corrosion and other
problems in gas production and processing system.
Table 1: Components of Typical Natural Gases [1]
Hydrocarbons
Non Hydrocarbons
Component
Mole %
Component
Mole %
Methane
84.07
Nitrogen
3.45
Ethane
5.86
Carbon dioxide
1.3
Propane
2.2
Hydrogen sulfide
0.63
Butane
0.93
Pentane
0.52
Hexane
0.28
Heptane and +
0.76
Natural gas is used as a source of energy in all sectors of the economy. The
consumption of natural gas in all end-use classifications (residential commercial,
industrial and power generation) has increased rapidly since World War II. This growth
2
has resulted from several factors, including development of new markets, replacement
of coal as fuel for providing space and industrial process heat, use natural gas in making
petrochemical and fertilizers, and strong demand for low sulfur- fuels [2]-[9].
The main reason for removing water vapor from natural gas is that water vapor
becomes liquid water under low temperature and/or high-pressure conditions.
Specifically, water content can affect long-distance transmission of natural gas due to
the following facts:
-
Liquid water and natural gas can form hydrates that may plug the pipeline and
other equipment.
Natural gas containing CO2 and/or H2S is corrosive when liquid water is present.
The main objective of this work is evaluating the most commonly used
correlations for estimating water content of natural gas to be a guide for designers and
operators to select the best correlations for their particular environment and introducing
a new empirical model for estimating water content in sour gas.
3
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
INTRODUCTION
Water content of natural gas can be defined as mole fraction of water vapor in
gas mixture at equilibrium with liquid water. The amount of water vapor in the gas will
be governed by pressure, temperature, and gas composition [2], [3] and [10].
The water content of natural gas is a decreasing function of the pressure. That is,
the amount of water in the gas continually decreases as the pressure increases, as shown
in Fig.1. On the other hand, the water content of gas is an increasing function of
temperature, the higher the temperature, the more water in the gas, as shown in Fig. 2.
Also, the effect of gas composition on water content is very clear especially when the
gas contains CO2 and / or H2S where both CO2 and H2S contain more water at
saturation than sweet natural gas. Figs. 3 and 4 display saturated water content of pure
CO2 and H2S respectively [11]-[14].
Water Content, Ib/MMscf
10000
Temperature
1000
100
10
1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Pressure, psi
Fig. 1: Typical Diagram for Water Content Vs. Pressure [3]
Water Content, Ib/MMscf
10000
1000
100
10
Pressure
1
0
50
100
150
200
Temperature, F
Fig. 2: Typical Diagram for Water Content Vs. Temperature [3]
250
Fig. 3:
Water Content of Carbon Dioxide [12]
Fig. 4: Water Content of Hydrogen Sulfide [12]
6
Many correlations had been developed for estimating the water content of
natural gas. These correlations can be divided into graphical correlations [12], [14]-[18],
empirical correlations [3], [18]-[20] and thermodynamics models [16], [21] and [22].
The thermodynamic models give good results for estimating the amount of water
vapor in natural gas but these models take long time and difficult for calculations
because they depend on Equation of State. However, the main advantage of empirical
correlations and graphical correlations is the availability of input data and the simplicity
of calculations. More over, they give us good results. The empirical and graphical
correlations have still kept their popularity among engineers in the natural gas industry.
2.2
GRAPHICAL CORRELATIONS
In these correlations, charts are used to calculate water content as function of
pressure and temperature.
2.2.1
McKetta and Wehe Correlation [23]

McKetta and Wehe chart for determining the natural gas water content, as
shown in Fig. 5, has been widely used for many years in the design of sweet natural gas
dehydrators [23] and [24].
2.2.2
Katz Chart Correlation [16]

Katz et al. published their chart for predicting the water content of natural gas as
it is shown in Fig 6. This chart is based on experimental data published by several

investigators [25]-[27].
Fig. 5: Water Content of Natural Gas Using McKetta and Wehe Chart [12]
Water Content , lbb/MMscf
Temperature, F
Fig. 6: Water Content of Natural Gas Using Katz Chart [16]
9
2.2.3 Maddox Correlation [28]
Maddox proposed a method for calculating the water content of sour gas. This
correlation assumes that the water content of sour gas is the sum of three terms: (1) a
sweet gas contribution, (2) a contribution from CO2 and (3) a contribution from H2S.
Charts are provided to estimate the contributions for CO2 and H2S. The chart for
CO2 is for temperatures between 80 and 160 F, and the chart for H2S is for
temperatures between 80 and 280 F as it is shown in Figs. 7 and 8. The water content
of both CO2 and H2S were correlated as a function of the pressure using only the
following relation:
log(W ) = a0 + a1 log P + a2 (log P ) 2
(1)
Where W is the water content in lb/MMscf and a set of coefficients, a0, a1, and a2 was
obtained for each isotherm. The coefficients are listed in Table 2.
Table 2 Values of the Correlation Coefficients in Equation 1

Temperature (F )
a0
a1
a2
80
100
130
160
Carbon Dioxide
6.0901 -2.5396
6.1870 -2.3779
6.1925 -2.0280
6.1850 -1.8492
0.3427
0.3103
0.2400
0.2139
Hydrogen Sulfide
80
100
130
160
220
280
5.1847
5.4896
6.1694
6.8834
7.9773
9.2783
-1.9772
-2.0210
-2.2342
-2.4731
-2.8597
-3.3723
0.3004
0.3046
0.3319
0.3646
0.4232
0.4897
10
Fig. 7: Maddox Correction for the Water Content of CO2 [28]
Fig. 8: Maddox Correction for the Water Content of H2S [28]
11
2.2.4
Campbell Correlation [15]
Campbell proposed the following relation to calculate weighted average water

content of sour natural gas [15].
W=y HC WHC +yCO2 WCO2 +y H2S WH2S
(2)
Where :
2.2.5
W H2S
= Water content of H2S from Fig. 9
W CO2
= Water content of CO2 from Fig. 10
W HC
= Water content of sweet gas from Fig. 11
Robinson et al. Correlation [29]
Robinson et a1. developed an approach to calculate the water content of sour

natural gases. Their correlation was based on a modification by Soave for the Redlich
and Kwong (SRK) equation of state to calculate partial fugacity coefficients of a
component in a mixture. The correlation was computer oriented but to make it usable
without a computer, they generated a series of charts at pressures of 300, 1000, 2000,
3000, 6000 and 10,000 psia and temperatures from 50 to 350 oF as it is shown in Figs.
12, 13 and 14 [29].
Because of the limited experimental data at that time, this correlation is
cumbersome to use due to the multiple interpolations involved.
12
Fig. 9: Effective Water Content of H2S in Natural Gas Vs. Temperature [15]
Fig. 10: Effective Water Content of CO2 in Natural Gas Vs. Temperature [15]
13
Fig. 11: Water Content of Natural Gas Using Campbell Chart [15]
14
Fig. 12: Calculated Water Content of Acid

Gas Mixtures to 2000 psia [29]
Fig. 13: Calculated Water Content of Acid

Gas Mixtures to 6000 psia [29]
15
Fig. 14: Calculated Water Content of Acid Gas Mixtures to 10000

psia [29]
16
2.2.6
Gordon and Wichert Correlation [ 30]-[31]
Gordon and Wichert proposed a relatively simple correction based on the

equivalent H2S content of the gas. The equivalent H2S content used in this correlation is
that defined by Equation (3).
Eq H 2S = y H 2S + 0.7 y CO 2
(3)
They presented a chart where temperature, pressure, and equivalent H2S are
given, and then one can obtain a correction factor, Fcorr. Correction factor is ranged from
0.9 to 5.0. Then the water content of the sour gas is calculated as follows:
W = Fcorr W HC
(4)
Where:
WHC
= Water content of sweet gas, from Fig. 15
Fcorr
= Correction factor, from Fig. 16
This method is limited to an H2S equivalent of 50 mol% and is applicable for

temperatures from 50F to 350F and pressure from 200 to 10,000 psia [30]-[31].
17
Fig. 15: Water Content of Natural Gas Using Gordon Chart [31]
18
Fig. 16: Water Content Ratios [31]
19
2.3 EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS
2.3.1 Ideal Model [2]
In this model, the water content of a gas is assumed equal to the ratio of the
vapor pressure of pure water divided by the total pressure of the system. This yields the
mole fraction of water in the gas in pounds per MMscf.
W = 47484
Pv
P
(5)
This model is reasonably good at very low pressures. This equation can be used
with reasonable accuracy for sweet natural gas and pressures up to about 200 psia [2].
2.3.2 Biukachek Correlation [32]
Biukachek correlation permitting determination of water content of natural gases

for pressures up to 10,000 psia and for temperature ranged from 40 to 230 oF. The
following expression is used for calculating gas water content:
W =
A
+B
P
(6)
Where:
A
= Coefficient equal to the water content of ideal gas.
= Coefficient dependent on the gas composition.
The values of A and B are given in Table 3 and can be calculated by regression analysis
as it is shown in the computer program.
20
Table 3: Values of the Coefficients in Equation 6
Temperature
Temperature,
A
B
A
B
, F
F
-40
0.1451 0.00347
89.6
36.1 0.1895
-36.4
0.178 0.00402
93.2
40.5 0.207
-32.8
-29.2
-25.6
-22
-18.4
-14.8
-11.2
-7.6
-4
-0.4
3.2
6.8
10.4
14
17.6
21.2
24.8
28.4
32
35.6
39.2
42.8
46.4
50
53.6
57.2
60.8
64.4
68
71.6
75.2
78.8
82.4
86
0.2189 0.00465
96.8
45.2 0.224
0.267
0.3235
0.393
0.4715
0.566
0.6775
0.8909
0.966
1.144
1.35
1.59
1.868
2.188
2.55
2.99
3.48
4.03
4.67
5.4
6.225
7.15
8.2
9.39
10.72
12.39
13.94
15.75
17.87
20.15
22.8
25.5
28.7
32.3
100.4
104
107.6
111.2
114.8
118.4
122
125.6
129.2
132.8
136.4
140
143.6
147.2
150.8
154.4
158
161.6
165.2
168.8
172.4
176
179.6
183.2
186.8
190.4
194
197.6
201.2
204.8
208.4
212
230
50.8
56.25
62.7
69.25
76.7
85.29
94
103
114
126
138
152
166.5
183.3
200.5
219
238
260
283
306
335
363
394
427
462
501
537.5
582.5
624
672
725
776
1093
0.00538
0.00623
0.0071
0.00806
0.00921
0.01043
0.01168
0.0134
0.0151
0.01705
0.01927
0.021155
0.0229
0.0271
0.03035
0.0338
0.0377
0.0418
0.0464
0.0515
0.0571
0.063
0.0696
0.0767
0.0855
0.093
0.102
0.112
0.1227
0.1343
0.1453
0.1595
0.174
0.242
0.263
0.285
0.31
0.335
0.363
0.391
0.422
0.454
0.487
0.521
0.562
0.599
0.645
0.691
0.741
0.793
0.841
0.902
0.965
1.023
1.083
1.148
1.205
1.25
1.29
1.327
1.327
1.405
1.445
1.487
1.53
2.62
21
2.3.3
Bukacek Correlation [33]
Bukacek suggested a relatively simple correlation for the water content of sweet
gas. The water content is calculated using the following equations:
W = 47, 484
log B =
Pv
+B
P
(7)
3083.87
+ 6.69449
459.6 + T
(8)
This correlation is reported to be accurate for temperatures between 60 to 460 F

and for pressures from 15 to 10,000 psia.
2.3.4 Sloan Correlation [34]-[35]
Sloan fitted the water content of natural gas versus both temperature and
pressure. His equation is valid for temperatures between -40 and 120 oF and for
pressures from 200 to 2000 psia.
W = EX P {c1 +
c Ln (P )
c2
c
+ c 3 ln( P ) + 42 + 5
+ c 6 (ln(P )) 2 }
T
T
T
Where:
T
= Temperature in R
c1 to c6 = Constants are given in Table 4

Table 4: Values of Constants in Equation 9
Constants
Value
c1
2.8910758E+01
c2
-9.668146E+03
c3
-1.663358E+00
c4
-1.308235E+05
c5
2.0353234E+02
c6
3.8508508E-02
(9)
22
2.3.5
Kazim Correlation [13]
Kazim proposed analytical correlation for calculating the water content of

natural gases based on of McKetta and Wehe graphs. His equation was valid for
temperatures up to 180 oF and pressures from 300 to 1200 psia. He proposed the
following equation:
W = A BT
(10)
A and B are variables defined as:
P 350
A = ai
i =1 600
4
i 1
4
P 350
B = bi
i=1 600
(11)
i 1
(12)
The values of the constants ai and bi are given in Table 5.
Table 5: Values of the Constants Used in Equations 11 and 12

Constants
T<100 F
100 F T180 F
a1
4.34322
10.38175
a2
1.35912
-3.41588
a3
-6.82391
-7.93877
a4
3.95407
5.8495
b1
1.03776
1.02674
b2
-0.02865
-0.01235
b3
0.04198
0.02313
b4
-0.01945
-0.01155
23
The correlations validity is limited to lean sweet gas mixture. The proposed
correlation predicts water content with an average deviation 4% from the graphical
correlation of McKetta and Wehe.
2.3.6 Ning Correlation [36]
This correlation is based on the McKetta and Wehe chart. This basic equation is
simple in appearance:
ln W = a 0 + a1T + a 2T
(13)
The values for a0, a1, and a2 are tabulated in Table 6 as function of pressure up to
14,500 psia.
P,
psia
15
Table 6: Values of the Constants in Equation 13 [47]

P,
a0
a0
a1
a2
a1
psia
-30.0672 0.1634 -1.7452 X 10-4
725
-26.8976 0.1232
a2
-1.1618 X 10-4
29
-27.5786
0.1435
-1.4347 X 10-4
870
-25.1163
0.1128
-1.0264 X 10-4
44
-27.8357
0.1425
-1.4216 X 10-4
1160
-26.0341
0.1172
-1.0912 X 10-4
58
-27.3193
0.1383
-1.3668 X 10-4
1450
-25.4407
0.1133
-1.0425 X 10-4
73
-26.2146
0.1309
-1.2643 X 10-4
2176
-22.6263
0.0973
-8.4136 X 10-5
87
-25.7488
0.1261
-1.1875 X 10-4
2901
-22.1364
0.0946
-8.1751 X 10-5
116
-27.2133
0.1334
-1.2884 X 10-4
4351
-20.4434
0.0851
-7.0353 X 10-5
145
-26.2406
0.1268
-1.1991 X 10-4
5802
-21.1259
0.0881
-7.4510 X 10-5
218
-26.1290
0.1237
-1.1534 X 10-4
7252
-20.2527
0.0834
-6.9094 X 10-5
290
-24.5786
0.1133
-1.0108 X 10-4
8702
-19.1174
0.0773
-6.1641 X 10-5
435
-24.7653
0.1128
-1.0113 X 10-4
10153
-20.5002
0.0845
-7.1151 X 10-5
580
-24.7175
0.1120
-1.0085 X 10-4
14500
-20.4974
0.0838
-7.0494 X 10-5
24
CHAPTER 3
NEW EMPIRICAL MODEL FOR ESTIMATING WATER
CONTENT OF NATURAL GAS
The petroleum industry spends millions of dollars to combat the formation of

hydrates. Therefore, the accuracy of estimating the natural gas water content at the
prevailing temperatures and pressures is extremely important for optimizing the cost of
piping systems and processing units. Thus, water should be removed from the natural
gas before it is sold to the pipeline company. For these reasons, the water content of
natural gas is an important engineering consideration. Therefore, an accurate and
simplified correlation for predicting the calculations of water content in natural gas is
desirable [37].
3.1
NEW EMPIRICAL MODEL
Actual gases approach perfect gas behavior at high temperatures and low
pressure. At high pressures and low temperatures this is not so since, real gases deviate
considerably from the ideal gas concept, because gas molecules (1) have finite volumes
and (2) tend to attract and repel each other depending upon their separation distance,
which in turn is dependent upon system pressure and temperature. Thus, this simple
approach is valid only at low pressure where the ideal law is valid. The behavior of
most real gases does not deviate drastically from the behavior predicted by this
equation. Therefore, the best way of writing an equation for real gas is to add a
correction factor into the ideal gas equation.
25
So, the water content is calculated using an ideal contribution and a deviation factor. We
suggested a relatively simple correlation for the water content of sweet gas:
HC
W1
+W
P
(14)
Where WHC is water content of natural gas, lb/MMscf, P is absolute pressure psia, and
W1 and W2
are functions that depend on temperature.
The widely used graphs of Campbell [15], Katz [16], and McKetta and Wehe [23] were
used as the basis for calculating the variables W1, W2 as shown in the following Figs.17
and 18 respectively.
26
1.E+07
Variable W1
1.E+06
1.E+05
1.E+04
1.E+03
1.E+02
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Temperature, F
Fig. 17: Relationship between the Variable (W1) and Temperature

1.E+03
Variable W2
1.E+02
1.E+01
1.E+00
0
50
100
150
200
250
Temperature, oF
300
350
400
Fig. 18: Relationship between the Variable (W2) and Temperature
27
Best curve fitting program [9, 24, 51] was designed for the curves in Fig. 17 and18.
The equations resulted are:
b
i =1
i -1
i -1
c
i =1
(15)
(16)
The values of constant bi and ci given in Table 7
Table 7: Values of the Constants in Equations 15 and 16

Constant
Value
Constant
Value
b1
2.508E+05
c1
1.376E+00
b2
-6.946E+03
c2
-5.785E-04
b3
7.658E+01
c3
1.257E-03
b4
-3.788E-01
c4
-3.528E-06
b5
1.032E-03
c5
5.114E-08
3.2
Acid Gas Correction Factor
Acid gases can contain more water than sweet natural gases. The presence of
acid gases should be taken into account, using an appropriate correlation. A new
approach has been developed, based on experimental data [1], [2], [10], [22], and [38],
to provide a quick calculation of the correction factor for the presence the acid gases in
natural gas. The following expressions for the acid gas corrections were proposed:
Eq
R eq
H 2S
= y
= 1
H 2S
+ 0.75 y CO 2
a + T a +
1
0
(17)
a2
Eq
H 2S
(18)
28
C Acid

ln 1
) LLLLLP 1500 psia
(
(
b
b
b
P
+
+
R
eq
0
1
2
= Exp b0 + R eq (b1 + b 2 P ) LL1500 < P 3000 psia
b2
) LLLLP > 3000 psia

b0 + R eq (b1 +
P
(19)
The values of the constants in Equations 18 and 19 were found by regression analysis
and tabulated in Tables 8 and 9.
Table 8: Values of the Constants in Equation 18
Constants
Value
a0
-4.095E-02
a1
-1.363E-03
a2
1.444E-01
Table 9: Values of the Constants in Equation 19
Value
Constants
P1500 psia 1500< P 3000 psia P >3000 psia
b0
3.59E-01
5.16E-02
1.04E+00
b1
7.46E-04
-2.84E-02
5.48E-02
b2
-3.26E-06
1.04E-03
-1.91E+00
29
CHAPTER 4
STATISTICAL ERROR ANALYSIS
The statistical error analyses were used to check the performance, as well as the
accuracy of the water content in natural gas correlations [39]-[42]. The accuracy of the
correlations was compared with the experimental values using various statistical
methods. The criteria used in this work are average percent relative error, average
absolute percent relative error, minimum and maximum absolute percent relative error,
and standard deviation
4.1
AVERAGE PERCENT RELATIVE ERROR
This is an indication of the relative deviation in percent from the experimental

values and is given by:
Er =
( n ) E
n
i =1
(20)
Where Ei is the relative deviation in percent of an estimated value from an

experimental value and is defined by:
X exp
100
E i = est
X exp
i
4.2
i = 1, 2,...n
(21)
AVERAGE ABSOLUTE PERCENT RELATIVE ERROR
Ea = 1
n
Ei
(22)
It indicates the relative absolute deviation in percent from the experimental values.
A lower value implies a better correlation.
30
4.3
MINIMUM/MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE PERCENT RELATIVE ERROR
After the absolute percent relative error for each data point is calculated both the
minimum and maximum values are scanned to know the range of error for each
correlation:
n
m in
= m in E
m ax
= m ax E
i =1
(23)
i =1
(24)
The accuracy of a correlation can be examined by maximum absolute percent

relative error. The lower the value of maximum absolute percent relative error, the
higher the accuracy of the correlation is.
4.4
STANDARD DEVIATION
Standard deviation is a measure of dispersion and is expressed as:
STD =
( n - 1 )
i =1
2
i
(25)
Where (n-1) are the degrees of freedom in multiple regressions. A lower value of
standard deviation means a smaller degree of scatter.
31
CHAPTER 5
COMPUTER PROGRAMS
Computer programs were designed for estimating the water content of natural
gas using FORTRAN and VISUAL BASIC softwares. The water content of natural gas
using all empirical correlations mentioned in this work was developed by using Visual
Basic program. Fig. 19 shows the front page of this program. Also, the main program
has subroutines to calculate all the empirical correlations used in this work and also
estimates gas properties such as vapor pressure, specific gravity and the statistical errors
in comparison with the other correlations. Fig. 20 shows the flow chart of the main
program.
32
Fig. 19: Water Content Correlations Program
33
START
Gas properties [yi . MWi , Tci Pci ]
Condition of gas [T, P, Wexp]
WKatz-WMcKetta-WMaddox-WCampbell-WGordon
Call Subroutines
n
Ea = 1 Ei
n i
i
E m in = m i n E
i= 1
i= 1
1 n
=
E
n i =1
2
x
1
=
n -1
i= 1
T, P, Wexp, WKatz , WMcKetta, WMaddox, WCampbell,

WGordon , WBukacek, WNing, WSloan, WKazim, WIdeal
Model, WBiukachek, WNew Model
T, P, EiKatz , EiMcKetta, EiMaddox, EiCampbell, EiGordon ,
EiBukacek, EiNing, EiSloan, EiKazim, EiIdeal Model,
EiBiukachek, EiNew Model
T, P, SxKatz , SxMcKetta, SxMaddox, SxCampbell,
SxGordon , SxBukacek, SxNing, SxSloan, SxKazim,
SxIdeal Model, SxBiukachek, SxNew Model
END
Fig. 20: Flow Chart of Main Program
2
i
BUKACK
NING
100
W exp
E m ax = m a x E
SLOAN
(W exp W est )
KAZIM
IDEAL MODEL
NEW MODEL
BIUKACHEK
Ei =
34
CHAPTER 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The literature data [17],[22],[38], and [43]-[46] are used to demonstrate the
reliability, the validity and the accuracy of estimating water content of natural gas using
different techniques, over wide ranges of temperatures up to 340oF and pressures up to
10000 psia and for different mixtures of natural gas containing different amounts of acid
gases. Four cases of gas mixtures were studied in this work. These mixtures are:
1- Sweet natural gas, methane (C1, 100%).
2- Natural gas containing Carbon dioxide (C1, &CO2)
3- Natural gas containing Hydrogen sulfide(C1& H2S)
4- Natural gas containing both Carbon dioxide and Hydrogen
sulfide (C1&CO2 & H2S)
6.1
SWEET NATURAL GAS
This group of data includes 89 data points that cover a wide range of pressures
from 200 to 10000 psia and temperatures from 100 to 340 oF and the gas composition is
100% methane. Tables 10 to 14 show comparison between the average absolute percent
relative error, minimum absolute percent relative error, maximum absolute percent
relative error, and standard deviation of all correlations at temperatures 100, 160, 220,
280, and, 340 oF. Table 15 shows comparison between the average absolute percent
relative error, and standard deviation of all correlations for the range of temperatures
from 100 oF to 340 oF and pressures from 200 psia to 10000 psia.
35
Table 10: Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 1 at Temperature = 100 F
Range Condition of Correlation
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
3.731
7.843
2.765
3.731
7.843
2.765
MCKETTA
8.265
13.15
2.222
4.571
8.265
13.15
2.222
4.571
CAMPBELL
5.21
18.033
4.359
5.21
18.033
4.359
GORDEN
4.716
9.259
0.649
3.764
4.716
9.259
0.649
3.764
MADDOX
8.265
13.15
2.222
4.571
8.265
13.15
2.222
4.571
NEW
1.351
7.831
0.015
0.59
1.351
7.831
0.015
0.59
SLOAN
3.194
6.216
1.405
8.42
12.575
32.137
1.405
5.569
NING
6.861
13.959
0.523
6.141
6.861
13.959
0.523
6.141
KAZIM
0.976
1.637
0.089
63.29
70.961
100
0.089
27.406
IDEAL MODEL
43.241
73.435
5.955
15.533
43.241
73.435
5.955
15.533
BUKACEK
1.308
7.617
0.035
0.563
1.308
7.617
0.035
0.563
BIUKACHEK
4.043
6.876
0.436
2.511
4.043
6.876
0.436
2.511
and Pressures from 200 psia to10000 psia
CORRELATION

Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
All Range Condition

Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
2.636
12.412
15.244
2.636
12.412
15.244
MCKETTA
5.592
10.38
1.256
14.988
5.592
10.38
1.256
14.988
CAMPBELL
3.66
10.256
0.427
23.757
3.66
10.256
0.427
23.757
GORDEN
4.297
8.837
0.477
18.977
4.297
8.837
0.477
18.977
MADDOX
5.592
10.38
1.256
14.988
5.592
10.38
1.256
14.988
NEW
1.34
3.853
0.026
1.994
1.34
3.853
0.026
1.994
SLOAN
O/RT*
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
NING
3.218
11.551
0.123
23.894
3.218
11.551
0.123
23.894
KAZIM
2.868
5.951
0.857
338.526
74.426
100
0.857
142.209
IDEAL MODEL
38.202
70.848
3.537
53.664
38.202
70.848
3.537
53.664
BUKACEK
1.193
3.661
0.068
1.67
1.193
3.661
0.068
1.67
3.548
7.041
BIUKACHEK
*O/R-T: out the range of temperature
1.303
6.715
3.548
7.041
1.303
6.715
36
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
2.152
5.254
31.145
2.152
5.254
31.145
MCKETTA
4.706
13.628
0.923
61.519
4.706
13.628
0.923
61.519
CAMPBELL
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
GORDEN
4.698
31.142
0.16
152.748
4.698
31.142
0.16
152.748
MADDOX
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
NEW
0.327
1.018
0.002
1.513
0.327
1.018
0.002
1.513
SLOAN
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
NING
2.825
6.24
0.364
39.805
2.825
6.24
0.364
39.805
KAZIM
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
IDEAL MODEL
32.045
63.809
2.048
138.267
32.045
63.809
2.048
138.267
BUKACEK
0.542
1.068
0.265
4.414
0.542
1.068
0.265
4.414
BIUKACHEK
6.479
12.885
1.44
33.718
6.479
12.885
1.44
33.718
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
3.832
6.798
0.125
122.518
3.832
6.798
0.125
122.518
MCKETTA
2.455
6.192
108.626
2.455
6.192
108.626
CAMPBELL
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
GORDEN
4.759
18.445
0.107
340.997
4.759
18.445
0.107
340.997
MADDOX
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
NEW
0.624
1.033
0.258
35.313
0.624
1.033
0.258
35.313
SLOAN
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
NING
4.299
8.539
0.32
239.896
4.299
8.539
0.32
239.896
KAZIM
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
IDEAL MODEL
28.133
58.455
0.751
311.392
28.133
58.455
0.751
311.392
BUKACEK
0.932
1.365
0.54
47.332
0.932
1.365
0.54
47.332
BIUKACHEK
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
37
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
2.077
4.772
0.183
117.445
2.077
4.772
0.183
117.445
MCKETTA
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
CAMPBELL
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
GORDEN
2.000
2.000
2.000
175.461
2.000
2.000
2.000
175.461
MADDOX
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
NEW
0.690
2.207
0.024
168.505
0.690
2.207
0.024
168.505
SLOAN
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
NING
2.330
4.844
0.151
305.513
2.330
4.844
0.151
305.513
KAZIM
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
IDEAL MODEL
25.956
54.713
0.209
650.402
25.956
54.713
0.209
650.402
BUKACEK
0.798
2.540
0.078
196.263
0.798
2.540
0.078
196.263
BIUKACHEK
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
Table 15: Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 1 at Temperatures from 100
to 340 F and Pressures from 200 psia to 10000 psia
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
2.876
12.412
0.000
76.145
2.876
12.412
0.000
76.145
MCKETTA
5.212
13.628
0.000
4323.842
24.383
100.000
0.000
3856.35
CAMPBELL
4.413
18.033
0.000
6732.408
42.710
100.000
0.000
4184.74
GORDEN
4.087
31.142
0.107
181.631
4.087
31.142
0.107
181.631
MADDOX
7.121
13.150
2.185
7925.724
63.384
100.000
1.256
4224.42
NEW
0.861
7.831
0.002
75.679
0.861
7.831
0.002
75.679
SLOAN
3.194
6.216
1.405
465.846
10.368
33.630
1.353
131.386
NING
3.873
13.959
0.123
171.965
3.873
13.959
0.123
171.965
KAZIM
1.922
5.951
0.089
143016.9 112.790
1307.03
0.089
40336.2
IDEAL MODEL
33.406
73.435
0.209
323.644
33.406
73.435
0.209
323.644
BUKACEK
0.951
7.617
0.035
88.760
0.951
7.617
0.035
88.760
BIUKACHEK
4.703
12.885
0.436
1464.842
28.462
221.943
0.410
1126.03
38
From Tables 10 to 15, it is clear that:
1. New, Bukacek, Kazim, Katz, Sloan, Ning, Gordon, Campbell, McKetta,
Biukachek, and Maddox correlations give good results of water content of
natural gas when using these correlations at their limited conditions.
2. Ideal Model gives large values of average absolute relative error (33.406%)
when using with pressure greater than 200 psia because it is limited to low
pressure.
3. New, Bukacek, Katz, Ning, and Gordon correlations, are better correlations for
the range of temperatures from 100oF to 340 oF, and range of pressures from 200
psia to 10000 psia.
4. The Katz correlation is the best one of the graphical correlations for the range of
temperatures from 100oF to 340 oF, and range of pressures from 200 psia to
10000 psia.
5. McKetta, Biukachek, Ideal Model, Campbell, Maddox, Sloan, and Kazim
correlations cannot be used outside their limited range of conditions.
6. The new model predictions are in good agreement with experimental data of
sweet natural gas for the pressures up to 10000 psia and temperatures up to
340oF with average absolute relative error 0.861 %
6.2
NATURAL GAS CONTAINING CARBON DIOXIDE
This group of data includes 16 data points. This covers concentration of carbon
dioxide in natural gas up to 20% and for pressures up to 2082 psia and temperatures up
to 160 oF. The gas compositions are 89% methane, with 11% carbon dioxide for 8 data
points, and 80% methane, with 20% carbon dioxide for the other 8 data points. Tables
16 to 21 show comparison between the average absolute percent relative error,
39
minimum absolute percent relative error, maximum absolute percent relative error, and
standard deviation of all correlations at temperatures 100 oF, 130 oF, and 160oF.
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
10.488
12.530
6.980
6.546
10.488
12.530
6.980
6.546
MCKETTA
7.227
12.530
2.172
4.980
7.227
12.530
2.172
4.980
CAMPBELL
5.208
9.149
2.563
3.395
5.208
9.149
2.563
3.395
GORDEN
3.75
5.810
2.367
2.932
3.750
5.810
2.367
2.932
MADDOX
4.555
6.115
3.412
3.325
4.555
6.115
3.412
3.325
NEW
1.6
3.682
0.423
1.146
1.600
3.682
0.423
1.146
SLOAN
11
15.755
7.650
6.812
11.000
15.755
7.650
6.812
NING
7.162
7.952
6.765
4.820
7.162
7.952
6.765
4.820
KAZIM
4.727
4.727
4.727
1-PO.*
68.242
100.000
4.727
46.962
IDEAL MODEL
37.465
46.305
29.575
23.408
37.465
46.305
29.575
23.408
BUKACEK
7.549
10.075
5.963
4.710
7.549
10.075
5.963
4.710
11.376
14.217
9.454
7.138
11.376
14.217
9.454
7.138
BIUKACHEK
*1-PO.: one point
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
3.595
4.752
2.439
6.825
3.595
4.752
2.439
6.825
MCKETTA
2.585
2.730
2.439
4.423
2.585
2.730
2.439
4.423
CAMPBELL
3.747
4.390
3.105
6.121
3.747
4.390
3.105
6.121
GORDEN
1.458
1.756
1.160
2.376
1.458
1.756
1.160
2.376
MADDOX
2.427
2.495
2.359
4.119
2.427
2.495
2.359
4.119
NEW
4.29
5.300
3.280
7.841
4.290
5.300
3.280
7.841
SLOAN
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
NING
2.461
2.923
1.998
4.014
2.461
2.923
1.998
4.014
KAZIM
1.206
1.206
1.206
1-PO.
50.603
100.000
1.206
102.513
IDEAL MODEL
25.514
30.724
20.305
41.571
25.514
30.724
20.305
41.571
BUKACEK
1.826
2.592
1.061
3.011
1.826
2.592
1.061
3.011
BIUKACHEK
1.604
2.824
0.385
2.940
1.604
2.824
0.385
2.940
40
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
5.992
8.665
2.136
17.587
5.992
8.665
2.136
17.587
MCKETTA
7.74
8.665
7.175
22.660
7.740
8.665
7.175
22.660
CAMPBELL
2.133
2.581
1.594
6.094
2.133
2.581
1.594
6.094
GORDEN
2.04
2.765
0.820
6.909
2.040
2.765
0.820
6.909
MADDOX
1.364
2.325
0.554
4.366
1.364
2.325
0.554
4.366
NEW
0.761
1.286
0.469
2.813
0.761
1.286
0.469
2.813
SLOAN
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
NING
5.639
6.964
4.780
16.314
5.639
6.964
4.780
16.314
KAZIM
0.844
0.844
0.844
1-PO.
66.948
100.000
0.844
214.489
IDEAL MODEL
27.387
31.990
20.526
78.080
27.387
31.990
20.526
78.080
BUKACEK
5.642
8.037
2.949
16.270
5.642
8.037
2.949
16.270
BIUKACHEK
7.441
9.886
4.636
21.260
7.441
9.886
4.636
21.260
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
14.149
21.610
6.687
11.069
14.149
21.610
6.687
11.069
MCKETTA
14.149
21.610
6.687
11.069
14.149
21.610
6.687
11.069
CAMPBELL
5.947
10.805
1.089
5.148
5.947
10.805
1.089
5.148
GORDEN
2.395
3.390
1.400
1.836
2.395
3.390
1.400
1.836
MADDOX
5.122
5.932
4.311
3.940
5.122
5.932
4.311
3.940
NEW
2.431
3.302
1.560
2.248
2.431
3.302
1.560
2.248
SLOAN
9.319
17.903
0.735
8.464
9.319
17.903
0.735
8.464
NING
12.053
16.444
7.662
9.193
12.053
16.444
7.662
9.193
KAZIM
4.428
4.428
4.428
1-PO.
52.214
100.000
4.428
47.286
IDEAL MODEL
35.428
47.675
23.181
26.991
35.428
47.675
23.181
26.991
BUKACEK
12.539
19.410
5.667
9.860
12.539
19.410
5.667
9.860
BIUKACHEK
8.819
16.405
1.232
7.784
8.819
16.405
1.232
7.784
41
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
8.384
13.924
1.074
12.631
8.384
13.924
1.074
12.631
MCKETTA
9.726
10.886
8.140
13.711
9.726
10.886
8.140
13.711
CAMPBELL
3.898
4.403
3.392
5.732
3.898
4.403
3.392
5.732
GORDEN
1.094
1.427
0.629
1.737
1.094
1.427
0.629
1.737
MADDOX
2.013
4.020
0.266
3.139
2.013
4.020
0.266
3.139
NEW
1.709
2.276
0.913
2.609
1.709
2.276
0.913
2.609
SLOAN
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
NING
12.269
18.760
7.448
17.226
12.269
18.760
7.448
17.226
KAZIM
6.7
6.700
6.700
1-PO.
68.900
100.000
6.700
105.426
IDEAL MODEL
31.049
43.855
18.434
43.218
31.049
43.855
18.434
43.218
BUKACEK
11.229
18.835
4.560
16.106
11.229
18.835
4.560
16.106
BIUKACHEK
5.881
11.890
2.741
9.059
5.881
11.890
2.741
9.059
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
All Range Condition

Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
8.018
11.711
0.653
24.632
8.018
11.711
0.653
24.632
MCKETTA
11.523
16.883
5.975
31.966
11.523
16.883
5.975
31.966
CAMPBELL
4.063
5.174
3.250
11.310
4.063
5.174
3.250
11.310
GORDEN
1.079
2.214
0.450
4.539
1.079
2.214
0.450
4.539
MADDOX
3.229
4.623
1.820
9.482
3.229
4.623
1.820
9.482
NEW
2.484
4.852
0.316
10.347
2.484
4.852
0.316
10.347
SLOAN
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
O/RT
NING
9.142
14.281
3.337
25.863
9.142
14.281
3.337
25.863
KAZIM
0.658
0.658
0.658
1-PO.
66.886
100.000
0.658
210.209
IDEAL MODEL
25.543
36.163
12.797
70.979
25.543
36.163
12.797
70.979
BUKACEK
8.739
14.204
1.479
25.832
8.739
14.204
1.479
25.832
BIUKACHEK
6.382
9.292
4.638
17.755
6.382
9.292
4.638
17.755
Tables 22 and 23 show comparison between the average absolute percent

relative error, and standard deviation of all correlations for the range of temperatures
from 100oF to 60oF and pressures from 1000 to 2082 psia.
42
to 160F and Pressures from 1000 psia to 2000 psia
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
7.079
12.530
2.136
10.357
7.079
12.530
2.136
10.357
MCKETTA
6.259
12.530
2.172
12.514
6.259
12.530
2.172
12.514
CAMPBELL
3.690
9.149
1.594
4.388
3.690
9.149
1.594
4.388
GORDEN
2.536
5.810
0.820
4.111
2.536
5.810
0.820
4.111
MADDOX
2.827
6.115
0.554
3.321
2.827
6.115
0.554
3.321
NEW
1.958
5.300
0.423
3.379
1.958
5.300
0.423
3.379
SLOAN
11.000
15.755
7.650
27.426
8.539
15.755
1.643
14.660
NING
5.415
7.952
1.998
9.218
5.415
7.952
1.998
9.218
KAZIM
2.259
4.727
0.844
231.226
63.347
100.000
0.844
123.595
IDEAL MODEL
30.698
46.305
20.305
46.317
30.698
46.305
20.305
46.317
BUKACEK
5.403
10.075
1.061
9.125
5.403
10.075
1.061
9.125
BIUKACHEK
7.458
14.217
0.385
12.039
7.458
14.217
0.385
12.039
to 160F and Pressures from 1000 psia to 2082 psia
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emin
Emax
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
9.688
21.61
0.653
15.377
9.688
21.61
0.653
15.377
MCKETTA
11.506
21.610
5.975
19.057
11.506
21.610
5.975
19.057
CAMPBELL
4.472
10.805
1.089
7.051
4.472
10.805
1.089
7.051
GORDEN
1.413
3.390
0.450
2.689
1.413
3.390
0.450
2.689
MADDOX
3.246
5.932
0.266
5.542
3.246
5.932
0.266
5.542
NEW
2.180
4.852
0.316
5.767
2.180
4.852
0.316
5.767
SLOAN
9.319
17.903
0.735
35.644
8.108
17.903
0.666
13.472
NING
11.042
18.760
3.337
16.969
11.042
18.760
3.337
16.969
KAZIM
3.929
6.700
0.658
237.530
63.973
100.000
0.658
126.965
IDEAL MODEL
30.079
47.675
12.797
45.576
30.079
47.675
12.797
45.576
BUKACEK
10.623
19.410
1.479
16.693
10.623
19.410
1.479
16.693
BIUKACHEK
6.803
16.405
1.232
11.053
6.803
16.405
1.232
11.053
43
1. Gordon, New model, Campbell, Bukacek, Ning and Maddox correlations are the
best correlations that can deal with gas containing carbon dioxide.
2. Ideal Model can not deal with gas containing carbon dioxide, because its average
absolute relative error is equal to 30.079%
3. The new model can be applied for estimating the water content of natural gas
containing carbon dioxide (up to 20%) with average absolute relative error (2.18%)
at pressures up to 2082 psia and temperatures up to 160 oF.
6.3
NATURAL GAS CONTAINING HYDROGEN SULFIDE
This group of data includes 17 data points that cover hydrogen sulfide
concentrations up to 30% and for pressures up to 2000 psia and temperatures up 160 oF.
The gas compositions are 89% methane, 11% hydrogen sulfide for 5 data points, 80%
methane, 20% hydrogen sulfide for 8 data points, and 70% methane, with 30%
hydrogen sulfide for 4 data points. Tables 24 to 28 show comparison between the
average absolute percent relative error, minimum absolute percent relative error,
maximum absolute percent relative error, and standard deviation of all correlations.
Tables 29 and 30 show comparison between the average absolute percent relative error,
minimum absolute percent relative error, maximum absolute percent relative error, and
standard deviation of all correlations
44
Table 24: Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 4 at Temperature T=130 F
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
5.123
6.542
3.704
8.602
5.123
6.542
3.704
8.602
MCKETTA
5.123
6.542
3.704
8.602
5.123
6.542
3.704
8.602
CAMPBELL
2.578
3.897
1.259
4.503
2.578
3.897
1.259
4.503
GORDEN
1.957
2.804
1.111
3.354
1.957
2.804
1.111
3.354
MADDOX
5.784
6.729
4.839
9.721
5.784
6.729
4.839
9.721
NEW
2.904
5.267
0.54
7.134
2.904
5.267
0.54
7.134
SLOAN
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NING
4.992
7.006
2.979
8.507
4.992
7.006
2.979
8.507
KAZIM
2.194
2.194
2.194
1-PO.
51.097
100
2.194
107.041
IDEAL MODEL
27.37
33.637
21.102
45.902
27.37
33.637
21.102
45.902
BUKACEK
3.369
6.688
0.05
7.157
3.369
6.688
0.05
7.157
BIUKACHEK
3.765
6.911
0.62
7.441
3.765
6.911
0.62
7.441
Table 25: Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 4 at Temperature =160 F
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
5.924
7.997
2.136
17.295
5.924
7.997
2.136
17.295
MCKETTA
7.671
7.997
7.379
22.434
7.671
7.997
7.379
22.434
CAMPBELL
4.481
5.303
3.279
13.607
4.481
5.303
3.279
13.607
GORDEN
2.499
5.426
0.249
8.936
2.499
5.426
0.249
8.936
MADDOX
4.906
8.117
2.771
15.035
4.906
8.117
2.771
15.035
NEW
1.663
2.674
0.244
5.809
1.663
2.674
0.244
5.809
SLOAN
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NING
5.57
6.283
4.78
16.029
5.57
6.283
4.78
16.029
KAZIM
0.844
0.844
0.844
1-PO.
66.948
100
0.844
214.264
IDEAL MODEL
27.338
31.493
20.526
77.855
27.338
31.493
20.526
77.855
BUKACEK
5.574
7.365
2.949
15.928
5.574
7.365
2.949
15.928
BIUKACHEK
7.375
9.227
4.636
20.958
7.375
9.227
4.636
20.958
45
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
9.603
13.345
4.372
14.217
9.603
13.345
4.372
14.217
MCKETTA
14.514
18.996
11.202
20.927
14.514
18.996
11.202
20.927
CAMPBELL
8.659
9.513
7.104
12.6
8.659
9.513
7.104
12.6
GORDEN
1.558
3.744
0.41
2.746
1.558
3.744
0.41
2.746
MADDOX
11.903
15.69
4.959
17.422
11.903
15.69
4.959
17.422
NEW
1.392
2.439
0.548
2.077
1.392
2.439
0.548
2.077
SLOAN
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NING
14.206
18.309
10.534
20.421
14.206
18.309
10.534
20.421
KAZIM
9.81
9.81
9.81
999
69.937
100
9.81
109.021
IDEAL MODEL
37.701
47.391
27.246
54.144
37.701
47.391
27.246
54.144
BUKACEK
13.33
18.768
7.741
19.123
13.33
18.768
7.741
19.123
BIUKACHEK
13.573
18.673
8.358
19.449
13.573
18.673
8.358
19.449
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
11.646
18.816
4.201
55.196
11.646
18.816
4.201
55.196
MCKETTA
11.094
21.203
5.862
40.907
11.094
21.203
5.862
40.907
CAMPBELL
9.644
17.945
0.799
70.999
9.644
17.945
0.799
70.999
GORDEN
3.715
5.624
2.08
19.864
3.715
5.624
2.08
19.864
MADDOX
7.587
14.371
0.051
26.418
7.587
14.371
0.051
26.418
NEW
2.163
3.842
0.387
8.249
2.163
3.842
0.387
8.249
SLOAN
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NING
12.804
21.199
6.789
63.805
12.804
21.199
6.789
63.805
KAZIM
5.602
10.079
2.937
230.364
43.361
100
2.937
162.892
IDEAL MODEL
25.534
45.706
11.007
87.711
25.534
45.706
11.007
87.711
BUKACEK
9.491
21.128
4.503
33.557
9.491
21.128
4.503
33.557
BIUKACHEK
11.052
22.852
5.819
39.481
11.052
22.852
5.819
39.481
46
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
15.354
20.334
11.204
50.425
15.354
20.334
11.204
50.425
MCKETTA
14.335
18.457
11.421
46.965
14.335
18.457
11.421
46.965
CAMPBELL
10.52
14.678
4.401
37.312
10.52
14.678
4.401
37.312
GORDEN
1.458
2.428
0.613
5.246
1.458
2.428
0.613
5.246
MADDOX
16.295
18.547
14.202
53.583
16.295
18.547
14.202
53.583
NEW
1.493
3.856
0.286
6.249
1.493
3.856
0.286
6.249
SLOAN
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NING
15.51
19.214
12.755
50.765
15.51
19.214
12.755
50.765
KAZIM
8.741
9.366
8.117
366.38
54.371
100
8.117
211.53
IDEAL MODEL
27.014
35.432
18.848
88.329
27.014
35.432
18.848
88.329
BUKACEK
14.672
19.938
9.613
48.088
14.672
19.938
9.613
48.088
BIUKACHEK
9.467
15.188
3.967
32.168
9.467
15.188
3.967
32.168
Table 29: Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 4 at Temperatures from
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
5.603
7.997
2.136
12.964
5.603
7.997
2.136
12.964
MCKETTA
6.652
7.997
3.704
16.436
6.652
7.997
3.704
16.436
CAMPBELL
3.72
5.303
1.259
9.881
3.72
5.303
1.259
9.881
GORDEN
2.282
5.426
0.249
6.537
2.282
5.426
0.249
6.537
MADDOX
5.257
8.117
2.771
11.69
5.257
8.117
2.771
11.69
NEW
2.159
5.267
0.244
5.44
2.159
5.267
0.244
5.44
SLOAN
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NING
5.339
7.006
2.979
12.106
5.339
7.006
2.979
12.106
KAZIM
1.519
2.194
0.844
321.366
60.608
100
0.844
160.683
IDEAL MODEL
27.351
33.637
20.526
59.644
27.351
33.637
20.526
59.644
BUKACEK
4.692
7.365
0.05
11.818
4.692
7.365
0.05
11.818
BIUKACHEK
5.931
9.227
0.62
15.279
5.931
9.227
0.62
15.279
47
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
10.88
18.816
4.201
42.411
10.88
18.816
4.201
42.411
MCKETTA
12.377
21.203
5.862
32.884
12.377
21.203
5.862
32.884
CAMPBELL
9.275
17.945
0.799
54.091
9.275
17.945
0.799
54.091
GORDEN
2.906
5.624
0.41
15.088
2.906
5.624
0.41
15.088
MADDOX
9.206
15.69
0.051
22.034
9.206
15.69
0.051
22.034
NEW
1.874
3.842
0.387
6.333
1.874
3.842
0.387
6.333
SLOAN
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NING
13.33
21.199
6.789
49.452
13.33
21.199
6.789
49.452
KAZIM
6.654
10.079
2.937
208.091
53.327
100
2.937
136.228
IDEAL MODEL
30.097
47.391
11.007
72.344
30.097
47.391
11.007
72.344
BUKACEK
10.93
21.128
4.503
27.349
10.93
21.128
4.503
27.349
BIUKACHEK
11.997
22.852
5.819
31.604
11.997
22.852
5.819
31.604

1. Ideal Model cannot deal with gas containing hydrogen sulfide, with average
absolute relative error equals to 27.351% with H2S concentration equal to 11%.
2. Maddox and Campbell correlations can deal with gas containing hydrogen sulfide
concentration up to 20%, with average absolute percent relative error equals to
9.206% and 9.275% respectively. Also, as the concentration of hydrogen sulfide is
decreased the average absolute relative error is decreased.
3. New model, Gordon, and Campbell correlation are best correlations for predicting
the water content in natural gas containing low or high concentrations of hydrogen
sulfide up to 30% H2S, with average absolute relative error equals to 1.493%,
1.458%, and 10.52%.
4. The new model results are in good agreement with experimental data for hydrogen
sulfide concentrations up to 30% with average absolute relative error equals to
1.493% and at pressures up to 2000 psia and temperatures up to160 oF.
48
6.4
NATURAL GAS CONTAINING BOTH CARBON DIOXIDE AND
HYDROGEN SULFIDE
This group of data includes 18 data points cover hydrogen sulfide concentrations
up to 80% and carbon dioxide up to 60%, and pressures ranged from 699 to 2597 psia
and temperatures ranged from 100 to 350 oF. The gas composition is 10% methane,
80% hydrogen sulfide, and 10% carbon dioxide for 7 data points and 30% methane,
10% hydrogen sulfide, and 60% carbon dioxide for 11 data points. Tables 31 to 36 show
comparison between the average absolute percent relative error, minimum absolute
percent relative error, maximum absolute percent relative error, and standard deviation
of all correlations used at temperatures 100, 160, and 350 oF.
Table 31: Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 7 at Temperature 100 F
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
91.289
91.653
90.925
562.897
91.289
91.653
90.925
562.897
MCKETTA
90.572
91.064
90.079
558.464
90.572
91.064
90.079
558.464
CAMPBELL
50.495
68.396
32.593
328.102
50.495
68.396
32.593
328.102
GORDEN
O/R-H2S O/R-H2S O/R-H2S O/R-H2S O/R-H2S O/R-H2S O/R-H2S O/R-H2S
MADDOX
72.656
72.866
72.445
448.068
72.656
72.866
72.445
448.068
NEW
34.427
49.058
19.796
232.472
34.427
49.058
19.796
232.472
SLOAN
90.756
90.756
90.756
999.000
91.383
92.011
90.756
563.453
NING
91.179
91.616
90.741
562.210
91.179
91.616
90.741
562.210
KAZIM
O/R-P
O/R-P
O/R-P
O/R-P
O/R-P
O/R-P
O/R-P
O/R-P
IDEAL MODEL
94.586
95.165
94.008
583.211
94.586
95.165
94.008
583.211
BUKACEK
91.544
92.030
91.057
564.455
91.544
92.030
91.057
564.455
91.167 91.691
BIUKACHEK
O/R-H2S: equivalent of H2S > 50%
90.643
562.129
91.167
91.691
90.643
562.129
49
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
43.042
62.807
18.269
768.269
43.042
62.807
18.269
768.269
MCKETTA
40.072
60.113
15.261
726.158
40.072
60.113
15.261
726.158
CAMPBELL
GORDEN
O/R-T O/R-T O/R-T O/R-T

MADDOX
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NEW
8.899
12.665
5.189
152.997
8.899
12.665
5.189
152.997
SLOAN
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NING
40.408
62.148
14.531
740.253
40.408
62.148
14.531
740.253
KAZIM
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
IDEAL MODEL
50.959
71.440
25.436
889.264
50.959
71.440
25.436
889.264
BUKACEK
42.824
62.652
18.629
763.472
42.824
62.652
18.629
763.472
BIUKACHEK
41.000
61.954
15.357
745.309
41.000
61.954
15.357
745.309
Table 33: Comparison of Water for Case No. 7 at Temperature 350 F and
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
22.795
42.115
3.475
2260.736
22.795
42.115
3.475
2260.73
MCKETTA
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
CAMPBELL
GORDEN

MADDOX
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NEW
26.987
48.916
5.058
2191.374
26.987
48.916
5.058
2191.37
SLOAN
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NING
24.729
38.470
10.987 2117.367
24.729
38.470
10.987
2117.36
KAZIM
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
IDEAL MODEL
26.635
50.929
2.340
2729.487
26.635
50.929
2.340
2729.48
BUKACEK
24.182
39.699
8.665
2160.694
24.182
39.699
8.665
2160.69
BIUKACHEK
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
50
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
45.052
64.130
25.962
52.587
45.052
64.130
25.962
52.587
MCKETTA
39.220
59.182
15.563
47.355
39.220
59.182
15.563
47.355
CAMPBELL
10.412
17.868
3.411
13.583
10.412
17.868
3.411
13.583
GORDEN
7.332
18.160
1.283
10.694
7.332
18.160
1.283
10.694
MADDOX
25.415
42.089
7.973
32.538
25.415
42.089
7.973
32.538
NEW
7.100
22.580
0.333
12.556
7.100
22.580
0.333
12.556
SLOAN
33.004
56.714
14.649
61.151
40.832
64.316
14.649
49.930
NING
44.259
62.277
24.403
51.339
44.259
62.277
24.403
51.339
KAZIM
23.537
27.932
19.142
138.816
61.769
100.000
19.142
80.146
IDEAL MODEL
56.519
78.584
29.620
65.156
56.519
78.584
29.620
65.156
BUKACEK
44.040
64.292
20.894
51.919
44.040
64.292
20.894
51.919
BIUKACHEK
41.034
62.747
16.118
49.519
41.034
62.747
16.118
49.519
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
28.880
37.525
12.787
319.570
28.880
37.525
12.787
319.570
MCKETTA
29.242
37.116
14.348
323.382
29.242
37.116
14.348
323.382
CAMPBELL
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
GORDEN
5.041
6.792
1.233
57.817
5.041
6.792
1.233
57.817
MADDOX
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NEW
1.862
4.036
0.390
25.176
1.862
4.036
0.390
25.176
SLOAN
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NING
27.389
38.210
10.747
305.136
27.389
38.210
10.747
305.136
KAZIM
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
IDEAL MODEL
41.941
53.594
24.214
457.380
41.941
53.594
24.214
457.380
BUKACEK
30.189
39.073
15.916
330.742
30.189
39.073
15.916
330.742
BIUKACHEK
28.196
37.938
12.684
311.576
28.196
37.938
12.684
311.576
51
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
KATZ
28.386
31.422
MCKETTA
O/R-T
CAMPBELL
STD
All Range Condition

Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
22.516 1685.608
28.386
31.422
22.516
1685.60
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
GORDEN
6.225
8.157
2.943
380.842
6.225
8.157
2.943
380.842
MADDOX
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NEW
2.235
4.081
1.164
167.874
2.235
4.081
1.164
167.874
SLOAN
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
NING
22.314
27.345
13.417 1339.816
22.314
27.345
13.417
1339.81
KAZIM
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
IDEAL MODEL
36.005
41.951
25.338 2143.570
36.005
41.951
25.338
2143.57
BUKACEK
24.283
28.912
15.955 1450.237
24.283
28.912
15.955
1450.23
BIUKACHEK
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
O/R-T
Tables 37 and 38 show comparison between the average absolute percent

relative error, and standard deviation of all correlations for temperatures from 100 to
350 oF. From Tables 31 to 38, it is clear that:
1. Campbell correlation predicts the water content for gas having 60%CO2 with
average absolute relative error equals to 10.41%. As the concentration of hydrogen
sulfide decreases the average absolute relative error decreases.
2. New model, and Gordon correlation are the best correlations to estimate the water
content of natural gas having concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide
up to 55% EqH2S, with the average absolute relative error equals to 3.868% and
6.197% for 60% CO2 concentrations.
3. The effect of hydrogen sulfide on water content in natural gas is greeter than the
effect of the same amount of carbon dioxide.
52
Table 37: Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 7 of Temperatures from
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
51.042
91.653
3.475
1049.464
51.042
91.653
3.475
1049.46
MCKETTA
60.272
91.064
15.261 3528.803
71.623
100.000
15.261
2881.25
CAMPBELL
50.495
68.396
32.593 7069.875
64.985
100.000
29.267
2886.26
GORDEN
MADDOX
72.656
72.866
72.445 7321.335
92.187
100.000
72.445
2988.92
NEW
21.361
49.058
5.058
903.971
21.361
49.058
5.058
903.971
SLOAN
90.756
90.756
90.756
1-PO.
51.007
92.011
13.204
990.729
NING
50.434
91.616
10.987
991.234
50.434
91.616
10.987
991.234
KAZIM
O/R-T-P O/R-T-P O/R-T-P O/R-T-P O/R-T-P O/R-T-P O/R-T-P O/R-T-P
IDEAL MODEL
56.474
95.165
2.340
1249.788
56.474
95.165
2.340
1249.78
BUKACEK
51.418
92.030
8.665
1012.669
51.418
92.030
8.665
1012.66
BIUKACHEK
61.067
91.691
15.357 2385.902
62.112
95.576
15.357
1948.08
Table 38: Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 8 of Temperatures from 100
All Range Condition
CORRELATION
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
Ea
Emax
Emin
STD
KATZ
34.626
64.130
12.787
774.417
34.626
64.130
12.787
774.417
MCKETTA
34.231
59.182
14.348 3217.067
52.168
100.000
14.348
2691.59
CAMPBELL
10.412
17.868
3.411
4928.434
42.501
100.000
3.411
2699.41
GORDEN
6.197
18.160
1.233
173.336
6.197
18.160
1.233
173.336
MADDOX
25.415
42.089
7.973
5024.416
72.878
100.000
7.973
2751.98
NEW
3.868
22.580
0.333
76.641
3.868
22.580
0.333
76.641
SLOAN
33.004
56.714
14.649 1357.968
30.967
64.316
12.485
607.302
NING
32.140
62.277
10.747
622.691
32.140
62.277
10.747
622.691
KAZIM
23.537
27.932
19.142 8703.469
86.098
100.000
19.142
2752.27
IDEAL MODEL
45.624
78.584
24.214
991.469
45.624
78.584
24.214
991.469
BUKACEK
33.615
64.292
15.916
673.991
33.615
64.292
15.916
673.991
BIUKACHEK
34.615
62.747
12.684 1817.053
40.535
62.747
12.684
1520.25
53
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1
[1]
CONCLUSIONS
At or near atmospheric pressure, ideal model is valid and may be used to

estimate the water content of the natural gas for pressure less than 200 psi.
[2]
The new model results are in good agreement with the experimental data and
demonstrating reliability of the model.
[3]
The best correlations for predicting the water content in sweet natural gas
according to their average absolute relative errors are:
[4]
New model (0. 86%)
Bukacek correlation (0.95%)
Katz correlation (2.87%)
Ning correlation (3.87%)
Gorden correlation (4.09%)
The new model can be applied to different mixtures of gases for pressures up to
10000 psia, and temperatures up to 340oF where:
Sweet natural gas with average absolute relative error of 0.86%.
Natural gas containing carbon dioxide and/or hydrogen sulfide (up to EqH2S
55%) with average absolute relative error of 3.868%.
[5]
All the correlations are recommended for predicting the water content of sweet
gases at the conditions discussed in this work. These correlations are used at low
concentrations of carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide up to 10%.
54
[6]
The effect of hydrogen sulfide concentration on amount of water

content is greater than effect of carbon dioxide concentration.
7.2
[1]
RECOMMENDATIONS
More experimental data are required to study the effect of hydrogen sulfide and
carbon dioxide on water content at high pressures and temperatures.
[2]
Extension of this work should be done to study the effect of salt content on the
calculations of water content in natural gas.
[3]
The developed model should be tested for different compositions of natural gas
to study the effect of gas composition on water content calculations.
55
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
A. Chapoy, A. H. Mohammadi, A. Chareton, B. Tohidi, and D. Richon,

Measurement and Modeling of Gas Solubility and Literature Review of the
Properties for the Hydrogen sulfideWater System, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol.
43, No. 20, 2005, pp. 1802.
J. J Carroll, Natural Gas Hydrates, Gulf Professional Publishing, Elsevier
Science, New York, USA, 2003, pp. 232-253.
J. J. Carroll, The Water Content of Acid Gas and Sour Gas from 100 to 220F
and Pressures to 10,000 psia, Gas Liquids Engineering Ltd., Texas, USA, Nov.
2002.
Experimental Measurement and Phase Behavior Modeling of Hydrogen
SulfideWater Binary System, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 44, No. 19, 2005,
pp. 7567-7574
Measurement and Modeling of Gas Solubility and Literature Review of the
Properties for the Carbon DioxideWater System, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol.
43, No. 7, 2004, pp. 1794-1802.
V. Ganapathy, Compute Dew Point of Acid Gases, Hydrocarbon Processing,
Feb. 1993, pp.93-98.
J. Otakar, and M. Lee, Particulate Probe Answers Water Content Questions for
Alabama Gas Pipeline, Oil & Gas Journal, Sep. 2000, pp. 68-73.
E. D. Sloan, Natural Gas Hydrates, JPT, Dec. 1991, pp. 1414-141.
R. A. Wattenbarger and L. John, Gas Reservoir Engineering, Society of
Petroleum Engineers, TX, USA, 1996.
A. Ismail, W. D. Monnery and W. Y. Svrcek, Model Predicts Equilibrium Water
Content of High-Pressure Acid Gases, Oil & Gas Journal, Jul. 2005, pp. 48-54.
E. D. Douglas, Determination of Water Vapor and Hydrocarbon Dew Point in
Natural Gas, Proceeding of International School of Hydrocarbon Measurement,
Houston, Texas, USA, 1991, pp. 476-477.
Engineering Data Book, Vol. I & II, 12th ed., FPS, Gas Processors Suppliers
Association, Tulsa, 2004.
F. M. Kazim, Quickly Calculate of the Water Content of Natural Gas ,
Hydrocarbon Processing, Mar. 1996, pp. 105-108.
J. N. Robinson, R.G. Moore, R. A. Heidemann, Estimation of Water Content of
Sour Natural Gases, SPE J., Aug. 1977, pp. 281.
J. M. Campbell, Gas Conditioning and Processing , Vol. I & II, 8th ed.,
Campbell Petroleum Series, Oklahoma, USA, 2004.
D. l. Katz and R. Kobayashi, Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering , McGraw
- Hill, New York, USA, 1959.
A. B. Maria, and M. Graciela, Evaluation of Hydrate Formation and Inhibition
Using Equations of State, Petroleum Engineer International, Jan.1999, pp. 6570.
S. Sharma, and J. M. Campbell, Predict Natural Gas Water Content with Total
Gas Usage, Oil & Gas Journal, Aug. 1969, pp. 136-137.
W. R. Behr, Correlation Eases Absorber Equilibrium Line Calculations for
TEG Natural Gas Dehydration, Oil & Gas Journal, Nov. 1983, pp. 96-98.
Y. F. Makogon, Hydrates of Hydrocarbons, Penn Well Publishing Company,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 1997.
56
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
M. A. Clark, Experimentally Obtained Saturated Water Content Phase

Behavior and Density of Acid Gas Mixtures, M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, July 1999.
A. T. Haridy, Kh. A. Abdel Fattah, M. Awad and F. Kenawy, New Model
Estimates Water Content in Saturated Natural Gas, Oil & Gas Journal, Apr.
2002, pp. 50-53.
J. J. McKetta, Jr. Wehe and D. L. Katz, Phase Equilibra in the MethaneButane-Water System, Ind. Eng. Chem., Vol. 40, 1948, pp. 853.
W. D. McCain, The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, 2nd Ed., Penn Well
Publishing Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 1990.
R. H. Olds and B. H. Sage, Composition of the Dew Point of Methane Water
System, Ind. Eng. Chem., Vol. 34, No. 10, Oct. 1942, pp. 1223-1227.
W. Skinner, The Water Content of Natural Gas at Low Temperatures, M.Sc.
Thesis, University of Oklahoma, Norman, 1948.
C. R. Dodson and M. B. Standing, Pressure- Volume- Temperature and
Solubility Relations for Natural Gas Water Mixtures, API Drill. Prod. Practice,
1944, pp. 173.
R.N. Maddox, L. L. Lilly, M. Moshfeghian, and E. Elizondo, Estimating Water
Content of Sour Natural Gas Mixtures, Laurance Reid Gas Conditioning
Conference, Norman, OK, Mar. 1988.
J. N. Robinson and G. Wichert Charts Estimate H2O Content of Sour Gases,
Oil & Gas Journal, Feb. 1978, pp. 76-78.
G. Wichert and E. Wichert, Chart Estimates Water Content of Sour Natural
Gas, Oil & Gas Journal, Mar 1993, pp. 61-64.
G. Wichert, and E. Wichert, New Charts Provide Accurate Estimates Water
Content of Sour Natural Gas, Oil & Gas Journal, Oct. 2003, pp. 64-66.
B. Biukachek-quoted in Y. Makogon,Hydrates of Natural Gas, Tulsa, Penn
Well Publishing Company, 1981, pp. 105-108.
J. Bukacek quoted in W.D. McCain, The Properties of Petroleum Fluids,
2nd ed., Penn Well Books, Tulsa, OK, 1990.
E. D. Sloan, Clathrate Hydrate of Natural Gases, 2nd ed., Marcel Dekker Inc.,
New York, USA, 1998.
K. Song, and R. Kobayashi, Measurement and Interpretation of the Water
Content of a Methane-Propane Mixture in the Gaseous State in Equilibrium with
Hydrate, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol. 21, No. 4, 1982, pp. 391-395.
Y. Ning, H. Zhang, and G. Zhou, Mathematical Simulation and Program for
Water Content Chart of Natural Gas Chem. Eng. Oil Gas 29, 2000, pp. 75-77.
B. Guo and A. Ghalambor, Natural Gas Engineering Handbook, Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, USA, 2005.
M.A. Clark and E. Wichert, Designing an Optimized Injection Strategy for
Acid Gas Disposal without Dehydration, Proceedings Annual Convention Gas
Processors Association, Calgary Univ., 1998, pp. 49-56.
M. A. Al-Marhoun, PVT Correlations for Middle East Crude Oils, JPT, May
1988, pp. 650.
R. L. Burden, and J. D. Faires, Numerical Analysis, 5th ed., PWS Kent
Publishing Company, Boston, USA, 1993, pp. 437-449.
N. R. Draper, Applied Regression Analysis, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New
York, USA, 1981.
57
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
M. A. AL-Tolaiby and G. Jamieson, Determination of Moisture Content of

Sour Hydrocarbons in Upstream Petroleum Production Using Gas
Chromatography, Saudi Aramco Journal of Technology, summer 1997, pp. 4551.
A. Bahram and M. C. John, Solubility of Gaseous Hydrocarbon Mixtures in
Water, SPE J., Vol. 253, Feb. 1972, pp. 21-27.
P. T. Leinonen, D. Mackay and C. R. Phillips, A Correlation for the Solubility
of Hydrocarbons in Water, The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering,
Vol. 49, Apr. 1971, pp. 288-290.
E. D. Sloan, F. Khoury and R. Kobayashi Water Content of Methane Gas in
Equilibrium with Hydrates, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., Vol. 15, No. 4, ,1976,
pp. 318-323
K. Song and R. Kobayashi, Water Content of CO2 in Equilibrium With Liquid
Water and/or Hydrates, SPE Formation Evaluation, Dec. 1987, pp. 500-508.
58
APPENDIX [A]
Table 39: Gas Composition of the Studied Cases
Case No.
CO2
H2S
C1
Ref.
0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.554 27,32,44,61
11.00% 0.00%
89.00% 0.660 12,17,27,30
20.00% 0.00%
80.00% 0.747 12,17,27,30
0.00% 11.00% 89.00% 0.622 12,17,27,30
0.00% 20.00% 80.00% 0.679 12,17,27,30
0.00% 30.00% 70.00% 0.741 12,17,27,30
10.00% 80.00% 10.00% 1.149 12,17,27,30
60.00% 10.00% 30.00% 1.196 12,17,27,30

A Prediction of Water Content in Sour NG

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Prediction of Water Content in Sour NG

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

KING SAUD UNIVERSITY

Final Research Report No. 28/426

A PREDICTION OF WATER CONTENT IN SOUR

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

McKetta and Wehe Correlation

Katz Chart Correlation

Robinson et al. Correlation

Gordon and Wichert Correlation

CHAPTER 3: NEW EMPIRICAL MODEL FOR ESTIMATING WATER

NEW EMPIRICAL MODEL

ACID GAS CORRECTION FACTOR

CHAPTER 4: STATISTICAL ERROR ANALYSIS

AVERAGE PERCENT RELATIVE ERROR

AVERAGE ABSOLUTE PERCENT RELATIVE ERROR

MINIMUM/MAXIMUM ABSOLUTE PERCENT RELATIVE

CHAPTER 5: COMPUTER PROGRAMS

CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

SWEET NATURAL GAS

NATURAL GAS CONTAINING HYDROGEN SULFIDE

NATURAL GAS CONTAINING BOTH CARBON DIOXIDE

AND HYDROGEN SULFIDE

The accuracy of estimating water content of natural gas is extremely important

In this research, common correlations used for estimating water content of

Components of Typical Natural Gases

Values of the Correlation Coefficients in Equation 1

Values of the Coefficients in Equation 6

Values of Constants in Equation 9

Values of the Constants Used in Equations 11 and 12

Values of the Constants in Equation 13

Values of the Constants in Equations 15 and 16

Values of the Constants in Equation 18

Values of the Constants in Equation 19

Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 1 at Temperature = 100 F

Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 1 at Temperature = 160 F

Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 1 at Temperature = 280 F

Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 1 at Temperature = 220 F

Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 1 at Temperature = 340 F

Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 1 at Temperatures from

16 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 2 at Temperature = 100 F

18 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 2 at Temperature = 160 F

19 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 3 at Temperature = 100 F

20 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 3 at Temperature = 130 F

21 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 3 at Temperature = 160 F

22 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 3 at Temperatures from

23 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 3 at Temperatures from

24 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 4 at Temperature T=130 F

25 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 4 at Temperature =160 F

26 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 5 at Temperature =130 F

27 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 5 at Temperature =160 F

and Pressures from 925 psia to 1514 psia

29 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 4 at Temperatures from

30 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 5 at Temperatures from

31 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 7 at Temperature 100 F and

32 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 7 at Temperature 225 F and

33 Comparison of Water for Case No. 7 at Temperature 350 F and

34 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 8 at Temperature100 F

35 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 8 at Temperature 225F and

36 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 8 at Temperature 350 F

37 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 7 of Temperatures from

38 Comparison of Water Content for Case No. 8 of Temperatures from

Typical Diagram for Water Content Vs. Pressure

Typical Diagram for Water Content Vs. Temperature