IPTC 10320
Tools To Manage Gas/Condensate Reservoirs: Novel Fluid-Property Correlations
Based on Commonly Available Field Data
A.P. Ovalle, M-I Swaco; C.P. Lenn, Schlumberger; and W.D. McCain Jr., Texas A&M U.
Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 21–23 November 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor
Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Certain fluid properties are required for studies related to
management of gas condensate reservoirs or prediction of
condensate reserves. Often these studies must begin before
laboratory data become available or possibly when laboratory
data will not become available. Correlations to estimate
values of these properties have been developed based solely
on commonly available field data.
These properties are (1) the dewpoint pressure of the
reservoir fluid, (2) changes in the specific gravity of the
reservoir gas as reservoir pressure declines, and (3) changes in
the surface yield of condensate as reservoir pressure declines.
No correlations for any of these properties based on field data
have been published.
The field data required are initial producing gas-
condensate ratio from the first stage separator, initial stock-
tank liquid gravity in oAPI, specific gravity of the initial
reservoir gas, reservoir temperature, and selected values of
reservoir pressure.
The dewpoint pressure correlation is based on data of 615
samples of gas condensates with worldwide origins. The other
two correlations are based on 851 lines of constant volume
depletion data from 190 gas condensate samples, also with
worldwide origins.
Introduction
Correlation equations for gas condensates based on readily
available field data have been developed. The correlations can
be used to predict (1) dewpoint pressures, (2) decreases in
surface condensate yields after reservoir pressure has
decreased below dewpoint pressure, and (3) decreases in
reservoir gas specific gravity at reservoir pressures below
dewpoint pressure.
A value of dewpoint pressure is essential data for any
reservoir study. A reasonably accurate estimate of dewpoint
pressure for a specific reservoir fluid is necessary in the
situation in which laboratory data are not available or before
laboratory data are obtained. Laboratory measurements of
dewpoint pressure and other gas properties of 615 gas
condensates with worldwide origins were used to develop a
dewpoint pressure correlation based on (1) initial producing
gas-condensate ratio, (2) initial stock-tank oil gravity, and (3)
specific gravity of the original reservoir gas. This is the first
proposed dewpoint pressure correlation that does not require
some laboratory measured quantity.
Estimation of decreases in producing yields after reservoir
pressure drops below dewpoint pressure are necessary for
accurate prediction of condensate reserves. The reduction in
surface yields can be as much as seventy-five percent during
primary production of a gas condensate. This reduction must
be taken into account in the prediction of ultimate recoveries
of condensate. A surface yield correlation which is a function
of (1) a selected reservoir pressure, (2) initial stock-tank oil
gravity, (3) specific gravity of the original reservoir gas, and
(4) reservoir temperature has been developed. The data set
included laboratory studies of 190 gas condensate samples.
This is the first proposal of a correlation to estimate the
decreases in surface yield offered in the petroleum literature.
Any study requiring properties of the reservoir gas during
depletion must take into account the reduction in specific
gravity of the reservoir gas after reservoir pressure decreases
below the dewpoint pressure of the gas condensate. This
reduction can be as much as fifty percent of original
depending on the specific gravity of the original reservoir gas
and the final reservoir pressure. Data from the same 190
reservoir fluid studies were used to develop a correlation with
which these reductions can be estimated. The independent
variables are (1) a selected value of reservoir pressure, (2)
dewpoint pressure, and (3) the specific gravity of the original
reservoir gas. This, too, is the first correlation of this type
offered in the petroleum literature.
Thus reasonably accurate correlations are available for
predicting useful gas condensate properties with commonly
available field data.
Methodology
Conventional multiple non-linear regression for any variable
requires a functional relationship to be presumed among all
the related variables, i.e., an equation relating the dependent
and independent variables must be invented before starting the
non-linear regression. Due to the inexact nature of the
relationships among petrophysical variables it is not always
possible to identify in advance the correct functional form
among dependent and independent variables. When large
2 IPTC 10320
variations in petrophysical properties are exhibited, parametric
regression often fails or leads to unstable or erroneous results,
especially for multivariate cases.
Thus a non-parametric approach for estimating optimal
transformations of petrophysical data was used to obtain the
maximum correlation between observed variables1. An
iterative procedure involving Alternating Conditional
Expectations, ACE, is an approach that does not require an a
priori assumption of a functional form; the optimal
transformations are derived solely based on the set of data.
The ACE algorithm provides a method for estimating
optimal transformations for multiple regression that result in a
maximum correlation between a dependent (response) random
variable, y, and multiple independent (predictor) random
variables, x1, x2, …, xm.
A model predicting the value of y from the values x1, x2,
… xm is written in the generic form
y= f −1
(z ) ................................................................(1)
where
m readily measured in the field. However, these data are not
z = ∑ zn ................................................................(2)
n =1
and
z n = f n (x n ) ...............................................................(3)
The functions f1(.), f2(.), …, fm(.) are called variable
transformations yielding the transformed independent
variables z1, z2, …, zm. The function f(.) is the transformation
for the dependent variable. In fact, the main interest is the
inverse: f-1(.), yielding the dependent variable y from the
transformed independent variable z.
Given N observation points, it is desirable to find the best
transformation functions f1(.), f2(.), …, fm(.) and f-1(.), but first
not as algebraic expressions, rather as relationships defined
point-wise. The method of ACE constructs and modifies the
individual transformations to achieve maximum correlation in
the transformed space.
The resulting individual transformations are given in the
form of a point-by-point table. Thus in any subsequent
application (graphical or algebraic) interpolation is needed to
obtain the transformed variables. And interpolation is needed
to apply the inverse transformation to predict y. Obviously,
the smoother the transformation the more justified and
straightforward is the interpolation, therefore some kind of
restriction on smoothness is built into the ACE algorithm.
That is, based on the concept of conditional expectation, the
correlation in transformed space is maximized by iteratively
adjusting the individual transformations subject to a
smoothness condition.
The particular realization of the algorithm, GRACE, used
in this work consists of two parts2. The first provides the
transformations in the form of tables and the second part
allows the user to construct the final algebraic approximations
using curve fitting in a commercial spreadsheet program.
Fortunately, many physically sound problems have rather
simple shapes of the individual transforms and can be well
approximated by low order polynomials.
The statistical measures of the correlations used in this
work are the average relative error, ARE, and average absolute
relative error, AARE, which are defined as follows.
100 N y measured − y calculated
ARE = ∑
N i =1 y measured
................................. (4)
100 N y measured − y calculated
AARE = ∑
N i =1 y measured
.............................. (5)
ARE characterizes the accuracy (bias) and AARE
describes the precision (scatter) of predicted values obtained
with a particular correlation compared with experimental
values.
Surface Separation Calculations
The purpose of this work was to develop correlations which
can be used when laboratory data are not yet available. Thus
the independent variables were limited to those data that are
measured in routine service company laboratory studies but
must be calculated using the compositions of the gas produced
at various reservoir pressures which are measured and
reported as a part of the reservoir fluid study. Thus surface
separation calculations were made for each composition
reported in the 615 laboratory reports3.
Values of equilibrium ratios, K-factors, for the surface
separation calculations were taken from the GPSA
Engineering Data Book4. These equilibrium ratios provide
very accurate separator calculations, especially at the
moderate pressures and low temperatures normally
encountered in surface separation.
This study was based on a three-stage surface separation
with conditions of 1050 psig and 90 oF, 65 psig and oF, and 0
psig and 70 oF. The entire study was repeated with three-stage
separator conditions of 500 psig and 90 oF, 45 psig and 80 oF,
and 0 psig and 70 oF with the resulting coefficients for every
correlation equation within two percent of those from the
original set of separator conditions. Thus the proposed
correlations should be adequate for any reasonable set of
separator conditions.
Prediction of Dewpoint Pressure
The dewpoint pressure correlation equation is based on field
properties measured before the reservoir pressure decreases
below the dewpoint pressure of the reservoir fluid. These
properties are the producing gas-oil ratio from the first
separator, RSP1d, scf/STB, the stock-tank condensate gravity,
o
APId, and the reservoir gas specific gravity, γgRd. The
subscripts ‘d’ indicate that these properties are determined
when the reservoir pressure is still above the dewpoint
pressure of the reservoir fluid and, thus, should be constant.
Producing gas-oil ratio from the first separator was
selected rather than total producing gas-oil ratio as the first
independent variable because the producing gas rates from the
second separator and the stock-tank are seldom measured. In
application of this correlation the reservoir gas specific gravity
IPTC 10320 3

must be determined with a recombination calculation using
RSP1d, oAPId, and the specific gravity of the first separator gas,
γgSP1d. This calculation procedure is very accurate and should
not be a problem in application of the dewpoint pressure
equation5.
The correlation equations for dewpoint pressure are
ln p d = 8.48 + 0.32239 z + 0.00477 z 2 .......................(6)
where
3 reservoir. Yield is calculated at a particular reservoir pressure,
z = ∑ zn ................................................................(7)
n −1
and
z n = C 0 n + C1n VAR n + C 2 n VAR n ...........................(8)
z
up in the stock tank, seldom builds high enough saturation in
the reservoir to have any effective permeability. So it stays
behind in the reservoir and the resulting decrease in surface
yield is often as much as seventy-five percent of the initial
surface yield.
The surface yield is a function of initial stock-tank oil
gravity, APId, and original reservoir gas specific gravity, γgRd,
both determined while reservoir pressure remains above the
dewpoint pressure of the reservoir fluid. A third independent
variable is reservoir temperature, TR. All three of these
variables are constants for a particular gas condensate
p, where p is a selected reservoir pressure less than dewpoint
pressure. The original reservoir gas specific gravity must be
determined with a recombination calculation as described for
the dewpoint pressure correlation above.
The correlation equations for surface yield are

N VARn C0n C1n C2n ln YSP1 = 3.684 + 0.61967 z + 0.015359 z 2 ................ (9)
1 ln RSP1d 9.8895 -0.87528 -0.01691
2 API d 11.7 -0.29709 0.00151 where
3 γg Rd 3.5202 -2.9145 -0.81744
4

The compositions of the reservoir gas at pressures above z = ∑ zn .............................................................. (10)

n −1
dewpoint pressure from analysis of 615 gas condensate and
samples were used in the development of the dewpoint
pressure correlation. Table 1 gives the statistics of these z n = C 0 n + C1n VARn + C 2 n VARn2 + C3n VARn3 + C 4 n VARn4 (11)
results indicating that the full range of possible reservoir and
n VARn C0n C1n C2n C3n C4n
surface conditions and properties are included in the 1 ln p 20.809 -6.7095 0.5136 0.0 0.0
independent variables. 2 API d 11.175 1.2965 0.042311 -0.0005438 2.4889x10-6
The average relative error, ARE, for this correlation 3 γg Rd -13.365 27.652 -18.598 4.3658 0.0
4 TR -1.5309 0.0058453 1.4035x10-6 0.0 0.0
compared with the data used to develop it is 0.0% and average
absolute relative error, AARE, is 9.0%. A comparison of The data used to develop this correlation consisted of 190
measured dewpoint pressure with dewpoint pressures laboratory studies with 851 constant volume depletion steps.
calculated with the new correlation is given in Fig. 1. The lowest pressure used from the depletion data was 1100
All other published dewpoint pressure correlations require psig. Table 2 shows the statistics of the data set. Essentially
some laboratory measured independent variable, either the full range of expected reservoir conditions and fluid
complete compositions or just properties of the heptanes plus compositions are covered.
fraction. However, Marruffo, et al., provided a correlation Fig. 2 gives a comparison between measured values of
equation for prediction of the composition of the heptanes plus yield and calculated results from equations 9-11. The ARE for
fraction which is needed in their dewpoint pressure this correlation is 0.0% and the AARE is 19.9%. The
correlation6. Apparently Marruffo, et al., intended their relatively large value of AARE is due to the definition of yield
dewpoint pressure correlation to apply only to gas condensates based on first stage gas production rate. If the definition of
from Eastern Venezuela. Application of the Marruffo, et al., yield had been based on total surface gas the AARE would not
correlations to the data of this work, as described in Table 1, be as large, however the correlation would not be useful
resulted in an ARE of 7.8% and an AARE of 24.9%. because the second-stage and stock-tank gas production rates
are not usually measured.
Prediction of Surface Yields as Reservoir Pressure No other correlations for prediction of changes in surface
Declines Below Dewpoint Pressure yield with decreases in reservoir pressure have been proposed
Surface yield is defined in this work as volume of stock-tank in publications.
oil condensate divided by volume of first separator gas,
STB/MMscf. The symbol is YSP1; the subscript ‘SP1’ Prediction of Changes in Reservoir Gas Specific
indicates that only the gas from the first-stage separator is Gravities as Reservoir Pressure Declines Less Than
included. This is because the gas rates from the second-stage Dewpoint Pressure
separator and stock-tank are seldom measured. YSP1 is the All gas properties needed in gas reservoir calculations can be
reciprocal of RSP1, scf/STB, multiplied by one million. determined given the specific gravity of the reservoir gas. For
Surface yield declines significantly when reservoir instance, values of gas deviation factor, z-factor, which are
pressure decreases below the dewpoint pressure of the used to calculate values of reservoir gas density and reservoir
reservoir fluid due to condensation of liquid in the reservoir. gas viscosity depend on reservoir gas specific gravity7,8,9,10. If
This so-called retrograde liquid, which would otherwise end
4 IPTC 10320
required, values of two-phase gas deviation factor, z2PH,
maybe obtained with a correlation equation which requires
reservoir gas specific gravity as input11,7.
The specific gravity of the gas in a gas condensate
reservoir decreases by as much as fifty percent as condensate
is released from the gas into the reservoir as reservoir pressure
declines. This decrease will have a significant effect on
reservoir gas properties discussed above.
The dependent variable in this correlation is the ratio of
the specific gravity at some reservoir pressure, γgR, to the
specific gravity of the original reservoir gas, γgRd. The
independent variables are the ratio of the pressure of interest
to the dewpoint pressure and the specific gravity of the
original reservoir gas, γgRd.
So the dependent variable is
γ gR
γ gRd = ..............................................................(12)
γ gRd
And the independent variables are
p used. Under these conditions the reasonable values of ARE
pr = ..............................................................(13)
pd
and γgRd.
The correlation for reservoir gas specific gravity is
γ g Rr = 0.81805 + 0.12085 z − 0.00851z 2 .................(14)
where
z = ∑ Zn
2
..............................................................(15)
n =1
and
z n = C0 n + C1n VARn + C 2 n VARn2 + C3n VARn3 + C 4 n VARn4 (16)
N VARn C0n C1n C2n
1 pr -0.92913 2.1688 -2.73343
2 γg Rd -19.79538 84.86958 -120.65049
The data described in Table 2 were used in developing
this correlation. There were 851 lines of data from the
constant volume depletions for 190 different laboratory fluid
property studies. Fig. 3 gives a comparison of the input data
and the calculated results using this correlation. The ARE for
this correlation is 0.0 % and the AARE is 4.43 %; excellent
results.
No other correlations for prediction of changes in
reservoir gas specific gravity as reservoir pressure declines
have been proposed in publication.
Prediction of Composition of the Heptanes Plus
Fraction of the Original Reservoir Fluid
Another correlation that might be of interest provides an
estimate of the composition of the heptanes plus fraction of
the original reservoir gas using the initial producing gas-
condensate ratio, Rd. In this case R is the total surface gas;
again the subscript d indicates a property measured while the
reservoir pressure is above the dewpoint pressure of the
reservoir gas. Fig. 4 shows that the underlying relationship
between composition of heptanes plus in percent and initial
producing gas-condensate ratio, Rd is a power function.
⎛ Rd ⎞
−0.86391
C 7 + ,% = ⎜ ⎟ ....................................... (17)
⎝ 64137.6 ⎠
The data set is based on 862 gas condensate samples with
worldwide origins. The statistics given in Table 3 show that
the full range of gas condensates are represented.
Comparison of input data and calculated results for this
data set with Equation 17 are given in Fig. 5.
The ARE for this correlation is 0.33 % and the AARE
6.23 %. The number of stages in the surface processing that
produced this data has not been standardized, there are as
many as four-stage and as few as one-stage separations
represented in the data set, and the surface conditions were
also not standardized, various pressures and temperatures were
and AARE give further validation that the previous three
correlations can be applied for any reasonable set of surface
conditions.
Marruffo, et al., obtained a similar power-function
correlation equation using a much smaller set of data with
origins in Eastern Venezuela which has approximately the
same ARE and AARE based on the set of data described in
Table 36.
Application to Borehole Dynamics
The use of the novel correlations for the management of gas
condensate reservoirs can be extended to the estimate of
surface yield from a downhole value of gas-condensate ratio,
CGR, measured, for instance, by production logging, PL,
tools. The correlations can therefore be used to make a
comparison between downhole and surface rates in gas-
condensate wells. The comparison between downhole and
C3n C4n surface rates is often carried out as part of the production log
2.74921 0.0 interpretation process and gives confidence in the logging
70.96942 -15.24672
answers. In oil, water and gas flows the formation volume
factors (Bo, Bw, Bg) and solution gas ratios (Rs, Rw) values are
all that are needed to perform downhole to surface
comparisons (and vice versa). The equations used in this
process are as follows:
Downhole to surface rate conversion:
Surface Oil Volume (Q os ) = Q od /B o ............................ (18)
Surface Water Volume (Q ws ) = Q wd /B w ................. (19)
Surface Gas Volume (Q gs ) = Q gd /B g + Q os R so + Q ws R sw (20)
Surface to downhole rate conversion:
Downhole Oil Volume (Q od ) = Q os B o ......................... (21)
Downhole Water Volume (Q wd ) = Q ws B w ................... (22)
(
DownholeGas Volume(Qgd ) = Qgs - QosR s - QwsR sw Bg .. (23) )
IPTC 10320 5

The downhle volumes, represented by the subscript d, are These correlations have application in the analysis of
measured at the pressure and temperature of the production production logging as well as in reservoir engineering.
logging tool. The formation volume factors and solution gas-
oil ratios in the equations are estimated at the same Nomenclature
temperature and pressure. ARE = Average Relative Error, Eq. 4
This comparison is much harder to perform in gas- AARE = Average Absolute Relative Error.
condensate wells due to the retrograde phase behavior. Any Eq. 5
such conversion process should not involve the use of APId = gravity of stock-tank liquid, oAPI,
equations of state which require hard to find input parameters determined when p≥pd
and ideally should be driven by the availability of readily Bg = gas formation volume factor, bbl/scf
found parameters such as those that may be obtained from the Bo = oil formation volume factor,
gas sales report. bbl/STB
The process to perform a downhole to surface rate Bw = water formatioin volume factor,
comparison using the new correlations is as follows: bbl/STB
a. Obtain the (1) initial producing gas-condensate ratio, C0n, C1n, C2n, C3n, C4n = coefficients in the transform
(2) specific gravity of the gas from the primary equations for variable zn
separator (initial), and (3) the gravity of the stock- C7+ = composition of heptanes plus, mole
tank liquid (initial). These data can be from either %
initial production tests or early production (sales fn(xn) = variable transform yielding the
data). transformed independent variable zn
b. If the data from (1) above are from production (sales) f-1(z) = inverse transform function of the
records also obtain the operating pressure and dependent variable z
operating temperature of the primary separator. p = reservoir pressure, psia
c. Use Gold, McCain, Jennings equations5 to calculate pd = dewpoint pressure, psia
the specific gravity of the reservoir gas at reservoir pr = reservoir pressure divided by
pressures at and above the dewpoint. dewpoint pressure of initial reservoir
d. Estimate the dewpoint pressure of the reservoir gas gas, Eq. 13
using Eq. 6, Eq. 7 and Eq. 8. Qos = surface oil volume, STB/day
e. If the downhole pressure measured with production Qws = surface water volume, STB/day
logging toolstring is above the estimated dewpoint Qgs = surface gas volume, scf/day
pressure from the step d above, the surface gas- Qod = downhole oil volume, bbl//day
condensate ratio is estimated to be the same as the Qwd = downhole water volume, bbl/day
initial producing gas-condensate ratio obtained in Qgd = downhole gas volume, bbl/day
step a. Rs = solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB
f. If the downhole pressure measured with the PL tool Rsw = solution gas-water ratio, scf/STB
is below the estimated dewpoint pressure from Rd = producing gas-condensate ratio, total
calculations in step d (the usual situation), the surface surface gas, scf/STB, at p≥pd
yield YSP1, is estimated using Eq. 9, Eq. 10 and Eq. RSP1d = producing gas-condensate ratio,
11. scf/STB, of first separator at p≥pd
TR = reservoir temperature, oF
Therefore the newly developed correlations can be used for VARn = independent variable n
production log interpretation in gas-condensate wells. It is xn = independent variable n
important that the PL toolstring has the necessary sensors to y = generic dependent variable, Eq. 1
measure the downhole gas and liquid flowrates with sufficient ymeasured = measured value of dependent
accuracy, such as described by Rounce, et al.12. variable (used to create correlation)
ycalculated = calculated value of dependent
Conclusions variable (calculated with correlation
The three correlations presented above, dewpoint pressure, equation)
surface yield, and reservoir gas specific gravity, can be used YSP1 = surface yield, STB/MMscf,
with confidence. All three have negligible bias, i.e., ARE calculated with gas rate from first
equal 0.0, and have scatter, i.e., random error, about the same separator
as experimentally measured values of the same properties. z = the sum of transforms of the
The forth correlation, heptanes plus composition, was independent variables
presented primarily to illustrate that the previous correlations zn = transformed independent variable n
can be used with confidence for various reasonable separator γgR = reservoir gas specific gravity at p<pd
situations. However, if needed, this correlation can be used γgRd = reservoir gas specific gravity at p≥pd
with confidence due to the large data set used in its γgRr = specific gravity of reservoir gas at
preparation and the conformation by the Eastern Venezuela p<pd divided by specific gravity of
correlation of Marruffo, et al.6. reservoir gas at p≥pd, Eq. 12
6 IPTC 10320

Subscripts
d = at the dewpoint
g = gas
n = identifies an independent variable
r = “reduced”, i.e., variable divided by
value of variable at dewpoint
R = reservoir
SP1 = first stage separator
2PH = two-phase in reservoir

References
1. Breiman, L. and Friedman, J. H.: “Estimating Optimal
Transformations for Multiple Regression and Correlation,”
Journal of American Statistical Association (September 1985)
580-619.
2. Xue, G., Datta-Gupta, A., Valko, P. P. and Blasingame, T. A.:
“Optimal Transformations for Multiple Regression: Application
to Permeability Estimation from Well Logs,” SPE Formation
Evaluation (June 1997) 85-93.
3. McCain, W. D., Jr.: The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, 2nd Ed.,
PennWell Books, Tulsa (1990) 374-385.
4. Engineering Data Book, Vol. II, Gas Processors Suppliers
Association, Tulsa (1987) 25-1 – 25-112.
5. Gold, D. K., McCain, W. D., Jr. and Jennings, J. W.: "An
Improved Method of the Determination of the Reservoir-Gas
Specific Gravity for Retrograde Gases," Journal of Petroleum
Technology (July 1989) 41, 747-752; Trans., AIME, 287.
6. Marruffo, I, Maita, J., Him, J. and Rojas, G.: “Statistical
Forecast Models to Determine Retrograde Dew Pressure and C7+
Percentage of Gas Condensates on Basis of Production Test
Data of Eastern Venezuelan Reservoirs,” paper SPE 69393
presented at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Buenos Aires, 25-28 March 2001.
7. Piper, L. D., McCain, W. D., Jr., and Corredor, J. H.:
"Compressibility Factors for Naturally Occurring Petroleum
Gases," Gas Reservoir Engineering, Reprint Series, SPE,
Richardson, TX (1999) 52, 23-33.
8. Hall, K. R. and Yarborough, L.: “A new equation of state for Z-
factor calculations,” Oil and Gas Journal (June 18, 1973) 82-92.
9. Standing, M. B. and Katz, D. L.: “Density of Natural Gases,”
Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 140-149.
10. Lee, A. L., Gonzalez, M. H. and Eakin, B. E.: “The Viscosity of
Natural Gases,” Journal of Petroleum Technology (Aug. 1966)
997-1000.
11. Rayes, D. G., Piper, L. D., McCain, W. D., Jr., and Poston, S.
W.: "Two-Phase Compressibility Factors for Retrograde
Gases," SPE Formation Evaluation (March 1992) 87-92; Trans.,
AIME, 293.
12. Rounce, J., Lenn, C., and Catala, G. “Pinpointing Fluid Entries
in Producing Wells” paper SPE 53249 presented at the SPE
Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 20–23 February 1999.
IPTC 10320 7

Table 1 – Data and calculation results from 615 reservoir gas dewpoint compositions used in
developing the dewpoint pressure correlation, Eqs. 6-8

Minimum Mean Maximum

Reservoir Temperature (F) 93 266.7 348
Dewpoint Pressure (psia) 1,870 5,093 10,980
Specific Gravity of Dewpoint Reservoir Gas 0.609 0.95 1.623
Gas-Liquid Ratio of First Separator Calculated using
2,289 21,253 113,346
Dewpoint Gas Composition (scf/STB)
Stock Tank Condensate Gravity Calculated using
35.6 55.1 76.5
Dewpoint Gas Composition (°API)

Table 2 – Data and calculation results from 851 constant volume depletion steps used in developing
the surface yield correlation, Eqs. 9-11

Minimum Mean Maximum

Reservoir Temperature (F) 126 247.1 348
Pressure (psia) 1,114.7 3,083.3 9,014.7
Specific Gravity of Dewpoint Reservoir Gas 0.643 1.044 1.568
Yield Based on First Separator Gas Production
8.34 51.55 247.46
(STB/MMscf)
Yield Based on First Separator Gas Production
Calculated using Dewpoint Gas Composition 17.95 144.66 417.60
(STB/MMscf)
Stock-tank Condensate Gravity Calculated using
37.8 53.8 76.5
Dewpoint Gas Composition (°API)

Table 3 – Data and used in developing the correlation for composition of heptanes, plus, mole
percent, Eq. 17, 862 lines of data

Variable Minimum Mean Median Maximum

Total Producing Gas/Condensate ratio (scf/STB) 3,151 29,937 11,696 977,312
Composition of Heptanes, Plus (mole %) 0.11 4.96 4.4 12.95
8 IPTC 10320

12,000

10,000

8,000
pd calculated

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
pd Measured

Fig. 1 – Comparison of measured and calculated values of dewpoint pressure indicates the accuracy and precision of the new
dewpoint pressure correlation, Eqs. 6 through 8, 615 data points

300

250

200
YSP1 Calculated

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

YSP1 Measured

Fig. 2 – Comparison of measured and calculated values of surface yield indicates the accuracy and precision of the new
surface yield correlation, Eqs. 9 through 11, 851 data points
IPTC 10320 9

1.1

1.0

0.9
γgRr Calculated

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
γgRr Measured

Fig. 3 – Comparison of measured and calculated values of reservoir gas specific gravity indicates the accuracy and precision
of the new correlation, Eqs. 14 through 16, 851 data points

1000000

100000
Rd, scf/STB

10000

1000
0 1 10 100
Heptanes Plus in Reservoir Fluid, mole %

Fig. 4 – Data for Eq. 17 showing underlying power function, 862 data points
10 IPTC 10320

14

12
Calculated Composition C7+

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Measured Composition C7+

Fig. 5 – Comparison of measured and calculated values of heptanes plus composition indicates the accuracy and precision of
the new correlation, Eq. 17, 862 data points