Distinguished Author Series

Proper Use of Equations of State for Compositional Reservoir Simulation

Peng Wang, SPE, and Gary A. Pope, SPE, U. of Texas at Austin

Summary Equation-of-state (EOS) compositional reservoir simulation is an accurate and powerful means to model complicated phase and flow behavior involved in the displacement of oil and gas in porous media. The use of EOS simulation becomes even more effective when the process involves solvent injection for miscible or near-miscible displacement of crude oil in reservoirs. The current trend of combining the simulation of reservoirs and surface facilities increases the demand for the use of EOS compositional models. One key to proper use of compositional simulators is development of an EOS for describing the phase behavior of the fluids. This paper is a summary of experiences and developments in the use of EOSs for compositional reservoir simulation studies. The reader is referred to the recent monograph by Whitson and Brul1 for a more complete treatment of the volumetric and phase behavior of petroleum fluids and the use of EOSs to model these fluids. Introduction When the displacement process depends on pressure and fluid composition, an EOS should be used to simulate the equilibrium mass transfer between phases and the pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) behavior of the fluids. PVT laboratory measurements are made on only a small portion of the composition path encountered throughout the displacement, whereas an EOS can be used to predict behavior for the entire composition path and pressure range of the process. Many field development projects have strong composition dependence, such as production from gas/condensate reservoirs, miscible and near-miscible gas injection, or water-alternating-gas injection for enhanced oil recovery. Until very recently, industry practice was to use a black-oil model and/or its modified versions2,3 or a limited-composition reservoir simulator4,5 to approximate the complicated phase behavior. These simplified approaches require less computer time and memory and can provide a quick preliminary evaluation of reservoir performance. However, efforts by industry and universities have led to rapid advancements in parallel-computer hardware and software during the last several years, which have increased simulation efficiency considerably6-9 and now make compositional simulation practical. Also, most of the commercially
Copyright 2001 Society of Petroleum Engineers This is paper SPE 69071. Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptive representations that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by individuals recognized as experts in the area, these articles provide key references to more definitive work and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to inform the general readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engineering.

available EOS compositional simulators and in-house models have been improved significantly in terms of robustness, efficiency, and features. More frequent use of EOS compositional simulators should be expected in the future. However, uncertainties still exist that are associated with the use of an EOS to model petroleum reservoir fluids because of the complicated nature of such fluids and limitations of the most commonly used EOSs. Tuning the adjustable EOS parameters to match experimental fluid PVT data is a common practice. The proper use of EOS models for reservoir applications has been an active research topic since the 1970s. Although significant progress in this area has been made, engineers still face several challenging questions: How many fluid components should be used? How much experimental data and what kind of data are needed to tune an EOS? How good is the predictive power of an EOS that matches all of the experimental data available? What are limitations of the commonly used EOSs for hydrocarbons when the gas or oil contains significant concentrations of components other than hydrocarbons? Which EOS should be used when more than one option is available in a reservoir simulator? Representative-Sample Collection The accuracy of any EOS model depends on the quality of the laboratory PVT data and procedures used to obtain the EOS parameters. The value of the PVT data depends on the quality of the fluid samples. They must be representative of the reservoir fluid. Three common methods are used to sample the reservoir fluid. Downhole Sampling. A sample collector with a capacity of several hundred cubic centimeters is used to obtain a fluid sample from within the wellbore. The downhole flowing pressure at the sampling point must be greater than the saturation pressure of the fluid so that the sample is a single phase. At least three fluid samples should be collected to determine the appropriate fluid sample for the PVT measurements. Wellhead Sampling. A fluid sample can be collected directly from the wellhead. The fluid needs to be in the single-phase region at wellhead flowing conditions. Normally, the sample needs to be taken at a pressure of at least 100 psi greater than the bubblepoint to be valid. Again, taking multiple samples is recommended. Separator Sampling. A fluid sample is obtained by recombining the gas and liquid taken at a surface separator at the measured gas/oil ratio (GOR). Usually, GORs are measured at

74 JULY 2001

dewpoint pressure. The sampling well needs to produce fluid steadily for a long enough period of time and at a rate sufficiently high to carry any condensate in the wellbore to the surface. Laboratory PVT Experiments The appropriate PVT experiments are related closely to the processes implemented in the field. The primary purpose of conducting PVT experiments is to generate reliable fluid properties for use in reservoir simulation and the evaluation of the fluid properties. Fig. 1Effects of number of components on phase envelope of an actual gas condensate. The most commonly available PVT experiments are the following. Constant-mass expansion (CME)a series of volume measurements performed on the reservoir fluid at different pressures starting at the saturation pressure. Differential liberation (DL)approximation of fluid-property changes with pressure for oil during a natural depletion. Constant-volume depletion (CVD)approximation of gas/condensate depletion when condensate is immobile. Separator testa Fig. 2Effects of number of components on liquid dropout. series of flashes with the liquid from one flash stock-tank conditions and need to be corrected to separator becoming the feed for the next flash at different conditions. conditions to be consistent with the gas and liquid collected. Swelling testmeasurement of oil-property variation The separator gas and liquid sometimes are recombined to a with the amount of injection gas added. These properties known reservoir bubblepoint pressure rather than to the might include saturation pressure, oil-volume expansion, measured GOR. Occasionally, when separator gas is in short oil viscosity, and oil density. supply, synthetic separator gas made from pure components Multicontact test (forward and backward)simulation can be used to combine with the separator oil or stock-tank of the dynamic phase behavior during a gas-injection oil to provide a synthetic crude oil. Because of difficulties asso- process. The forward process mimics the mixing of rich gas ciated with the accurate measurement of GOR, the downhole at the gas front with the original oil. The backward process or wellhead sampling approach for oil reservoirs is recom- mimics the continuous contact of the injected gas with the mended when conditions are favorable. When large volumes oil left behind the gas front. The experimental data include of oil are required for slim-tube or coreflood experiments, sep- interfacial tension (IFT), viscosity, and gas and oil compoarator sampling may be the only practical alternative. sition at each contact. The minimum miscibility pressure However, for gas condensates, the separator-sampling (MMP) might also be determined from such a test. approach is recommended because liquid condensation Slim-tube testa dynamic phase-behavior test where can occur in the wellbore during the well cleanup, even the injection gas displaces oil from uniform sand or glass though the reservoir pressure remains greater than the beads packed in a small-diameter tube to minimize non75 JULY 2001

Fig. 3Variation in saturation and reservoir pressures with depth for an actual field.

Fig. 4Compositional changes of methane and C7+ with depth.

ideal effects such as fingering. The MMP is determined from the recovery curve. The effluent composition vs. pressure is provided also. Fluid density, molecular weight (MW), IFT, and viscosity are measured in some of the above experiments. Often, the composition (component mole fractions) of the sample fluid is obtained from the compositions of gas and liquid at standard conditions weighted by the GOR. The composition of gas is measured by use of a gas chromatograph. The composition of liquid is obtained by use of either the simulated distillation gas chromatograph if the sample amount is small, or, if a large volume (a few liters) of the sample is available, true-boiling-point distillation. The measurements for oils often provide mass fraction rather than mole fraction. To convert these measurements into mole fractions, the molecular weight of each fraction must be used, which can be measured or computed from a correlation. For gas condensates, the mole fractions of components up to at least C11 should be measured because the component mole fractions often increase with carbon number for components up to C11. For oil reservoirs with a potential for solvent injection, extended compositional analysis might be needed for components up to C30 or even heavier. Mass transfer of these components between the gas and oil dominates the displacement characteristics of miscible or near-miscible floods. However, accurate measurement of such heavy components is not an easy task. Some companies also request that PVT data, primarily CME data, be provided at temperatures different from the reservoir temperature to validate the EOS model. Data from these experiments can be used as input for a black-oil model or to calibrate an EOS for a compositional model. Depending on the simulation model and the field development, only some of these experiments are needed. For a waterflood, the CME, differential liberation, and separator tests are adequate. For gas/condensate reservoirs, CME, CVD, and separator-test data are adequate. These experiments describe the fluid-property change during pressure depletion. For solvent injection, data from the swelling test also are needed. For miscible or near-miscible processes, multicontact and slim-tube tests are needed. Laboratory data from those experiments contain errors. Material-balance calculations can help an engineer evaluate the quality of each data point. If a sufficiently large error is identified in a data point, then it can be excluded
76

Fig. 5Variation in bottomhole and stock-tank densities with depth.

from the EOS match. Such a calculation can be performed on PVT experiments that release gases, which include the DL, CVD, and separator tests. A material-balance calculation on CVD data can provide oil molar density and saturation at each pressure stage. Dewpoint pressure, highpressure composition, molecular weight, and viscosity are difficult to measure accurately. Accurate measurement of molecular weight is important to convert laboratory data to molar units used in EOS calculations. For a reservoir showing significant compositional variations, several fluid samples at different depths or locations might be needed to validate the EOS model for the entire field. EOS Development for Reservoir Fluids Usually, petroleum-reservoir fluids contain several hundred distinct components, which makes it impossible to model the fluids rigorously as a mixture of these pure components. Therefore, pseudocomponents are used in EOS models, especially for the heavier components. The most widely used EOS models are cubic in volume, so only these cubic EOSs are discussed in this paper. This type of EOS is computationally efficient and does a good job of predicting phase behavior of petroleum fluids over wide ranges of pressure and temperature. During simulations with an EOS compositional model, two families of chemical compounds represent a reservoir fluid: individual chemical compounds with well-defined physical properties and several groups of

JULY 2001

heavy components (pseudocomponents) that are identified by use of a single carbon number. An EOS requires the critical temperature (Tc), critical pressure (Pc), and acentric factor () for each component. However, the physical properties available for the heavy groups usually are only the mole fraction, MW, and specific gravity (SG). The critical properties of the heavy pseudocomponents are difficult, if not impossible, to obtain experimentally. Therefore, a bridge is needed between the measurable properties and the parameters in an EOS. A practical number of components to use in large compositional reservoir simulations typically is between 6 and 15. The EOS still needs to represent the behavior of the fluids with an acceptable accuracy even when limited in the number of components. The critical volume and parachor of these components also are needed for the calculation of viscosity and interfacial tension. Therefore, the following steps usually are involved. 1. Develop pseudocomponents for the heavy fraction. a. Split the heavy fraction into many pseudocomponents by use of a distribution function that honors the measured MW and SG.1,10-13 The MW and SG of each split pseudocomponent are obtained. b. Estimate the Tc, Pc, and for these split pseudocomponents by use of an empirical correlation.10,11,14 c. Lump these split pseudocomponents into a few groups. d. Compute the Tc, Pc, and for these lumped groups by use of mixing rules. 2. Validate this EOS model against experimental PVT data and determine if tuning of the EOS parameters is needed. 3. Tune the EOS parameters. a. Select suitable experimental data to tune the EOS. b. Choose the adjustable EOS parameters that will be used to match these data. c. Perform tuning by use of an optimization technique. 4. Evaluate the predictive capability of this EOS model. It appears that Step 1 is independent of the EOS model used. However, a lumping scheme that uses K-values15 does require a specific EOS to provide the K-values. It should be added that, because of the cost associated with PVT-data collection and the time required to develop the EOS model, it is wise to justify both the purpose and importance of the effort. Number of Pseudocomponents The following guidelines can be used to select the number of pseudocomponents. 1. At least two, often three or more, pseudocomponents are needed for the C7+ fraction. Also, the intermediate components between C2 and C6 can be grouped into two pseudocomponents unless surface separation requires detailed knowledge about them. 2. Injection-gas properties need to be modeled accurately. 3. To adequately describe mass transfer between phases for vaporized- and condensed-gas drives and their combined processes, more intermediate components (C5 through C15) may be required. 4. For processes involving surface natural-gas liquid and liquefied petroleum gas extraction, explicit representation of these components in the EOS model may be required unless a scheme is used to delump the production stream at the surface for these components.16
78

A recent practice in the industry17 is to start with more components (e.g., 15 to 20), then successively reduce the number of components until the EOS loses its acceptable representation of the measured PVT data. Often, this process requires extended analysis of fluid composition during the laboratory tests and targets complicated solvent-injection displacements. Figs. 1 and 2 show typical effects of the number of components on phase envelope and liquid dropout of gas condensates. Tuning EOS Parameters As discussed in the previous section, a link is needed between the measurable properties, such as MW and SG, and the EOS parameters, such as Tc, Pc, and for the heavy groups. Often, such a link is provided in the form of empirical correlations, which inevitably involve some uncertainties. Additionally, the well-defined compounds used to generalize the parameters of the original cubic EOS are usually lighter than C15.18,19 Extension of the EOS to heavier components existing in the petroleum fluids relies on the extrapolation of the EOS parameters. The vapor pressure and the conditions at the critical point have been used to develop two-parameter cubic EOSs, while the volumetric properties typically are not used. As a result, a fixed critical compressibility factor (0.303 for the Peng-Robinson EOS and 0.333 for the Soave EOS) is used. Therefore, these EOSs are not expected to provide accurate estimates of density, especially for the liquid phase or when a large fraction of heavy components is in the mixture. To improve the accuracy of the liquid-density predictions, a volume-shift parameter was added to two-parameter cubic EOSs.20,21 Three-parameter cubic EOSs, such as that developed by Patel and Teja22 also can be used to improve volumetric accuracy, but these EOSs commonly are not used in reservoir simulators. Because of these uncertainties and others not discussed here, even with the good fluid-characterization procedures available today, EOS predictions often are found to differ, sometimes significantly, from the experimental data. Therefore, tuning the EOS by adjusting some of the input parameters to the experimental data is required. Tuning the heavy-group properties that relate to EOS parameters requires the following. Selection of tuning parameters and the ranges in which the selected parameters may vary. Selection of experimental data for matching the tuned EOS parameters. Judgment regarding the predictive capability of the tuned EOS model. Tuning-Parameter Selection. It is not practical to measure the parameters Tc, Pc, and for pseudocomponents. However, three indirect parameters (MW, SG, and true boiling point) for each heavy group are measurable. The Tc, Pc, and values for each pseudocomponent can be determined from these indirect parameters by use of empirical correlations. Alternatively, some correlations use carbon numbers for this purpose. The volume-shift parameter, c, also is available for tuning. Thus, seven parameters are available for each heavy group, three direct and four indirect. Binary interaction coefficients also can be considered as tuning parameters, but should be used with extreme caution as discussed below.

JULY 2001

The direct parameters are functions of the indirect parameters. For example, can be determined once the MW, SG, and true boiling point are available. Hence, tuning of all these parameters by use of a regression program may break the internal consistency among them and result in a substantial loss of predictive power of the EOS. A reasonable guideline is to tune as few parameters as possible and as little as possible to achieve an acceptable match with the data while still maintaining internal consistency among the parameters. Matched-Data Selection. A reliable EOS requires a good description of both phase volumes and phase mole amounts. Accurate phase volumes are needed to predict phase saturation, which directly relates to phase relative permeability. Therefore, the matched data need to include both phase volumes and mole amounts. Normally, the CVD test reports the following data at each depletion pressure. Dewpoint pressure and liquid dropout. Composition, Z-factor, and moles of the gas removed from the PVT cell. MW and SG of the heavy end for the gas phase. From the CVD data, material- and volume-balance calculations can be performed for valuable properties. These properties are the K-values of all components, molar volumes of both gas and oil, and mole and volume fractions of the oil phase. The swelling test and multicontact experiments also should be matched for solvent-injection processes. IFT data should be considered because of the strong dependency of the relative permeabilities on IFT at low IFTs, such as close to a critical point.23 The slim-tube test is a measure of the dynamic phase behavior included in the swelling and multicontact tests. MMP or minimum miscibility enrichment (MME) data can be included because an analytical approach for computing the MMP or MME with an EOS has been proposed.24,25 Tuning Heavy-Group Properties. Many procedures for tuning the EOS parameters to match the experimental PVT data have been reported.12,26-30 As described in the previous section, the number of possible adjustable parameters is large, which gives the tuning process a high rate of success in terms of matching the data. However, the accuracy and predictive power of the tuned EOS model still remains uncertain. Experience suggests that the following procedure often leads to a good EOS model. 1. Evaluate the reliability of the available PVT data. 2. Group the measured PVT data into phase-equilibrium data (saturation pressures and K-values) molar and volumetric data (molar and volume fractions, and molar volumes), MW-related data (mass density), and other data such as viscosity and IFT. The surface separator and stocktank data, if any, might be grouped together. 3. Predict PVT data by use of the initial EOS with all zero binary interaction coefficients between hydrocarbon components. 4. Identify the major source of the EOS errors in terms of the data type described in Step 2. 5. Match the measured PVT data in a stepwise manner. After each step, perform a PVT calculation by use of the modified model for all the available data to determine the need for continuation or termination of the tuning process.

a. For gas injection processes, fit the PVT data of the injection gas, if available. The Peng-Robinson EOS can satisfactorily predict the PVT properties of pure carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogen, so do not adjust their physical properties during the EOS tuning process. b. Fit saturation points, K-values of the key components, phase molar fractions, phase molar volumes, gas moles removed, and Z-factors by sequentially tuning the critical properties of the heavy pseudocomponents. Some swelling test and multicontact data also can be added here if the EOS predictions do not differ significantly from the measured data. c. Match the liquid dropout data for gas condensates and all other volumetric properties by adjusting the volumeshift parameters of the components. In practice, sometimes one EOS model must be used for the reservoir fluid and a different EOS model used for the surface fluid. d. Refine the EOS model by tuning the MWs of the heavy pseudocomponents to improve the match of properties, such as mass densities, that are related to MW. e. Repeat Steps b through d until consistent results are obtained. f. Match other data such as viscosity and IFT data. Adjustment of the component critical volumes is used to match the viscosity data for both gas and oil. The parameters of the viscosity correlation can be adjusted if such an option is available in the software. To fit the measured IFT data, tune the component parachors. 6. Test the EOS against the swelling test, multicontact, and slim-tube data. The match to these data might be improved by adjusting the binary interaction coefficients between nonhydrocarbons and hydrocarbons and between light hydrocarbons (methane and ethane) and the heavy pseudocomponents. 7. Evaluate the predictive capability of the tuned model. During each step of the tuning, it is crucial to maintain the adjusted parameters within reasonable physical limits and with a monotonically increasing or decreasing trend with carbon number. As the carbon number increases, the critical temperature and acentric factor increase, while the critical pressure decreases. When several samples are collected at various depths or from wells with different compositions, the reference fluid should be the one whose PVT data are more complete and of better quality. An EOS model for the reference fluid is then developed first. The tuned model is next applied to predict the PVT properties at other depths or locations. The MW of the heavy groups can be adjusted to match the measured fluid compositions. Figs. 3 to 5 show an example of the use of this approach for a reservoir that exhibits large changes in fluid composition with depth. The regression process for tuning EOS parameters to measured PVT data requires specific software. Some of that software provides a sensitivity matrix, which helps the user assess the effect of adjusted variables on the PVT properties of the fluid. Remarks The saturation pressures and K-values are sensitive to the binary interaction coefficients, so it has become common practice to tune them to fit these data.31 As noted by Pedersen et al.,10,11 this practice might not always be good, even though it is sometimes effective. In fact, experience
79

JULY 2001

shows that an acceptable match can result without adjusting binary interaction coefficients of the hydrocarbons if the EOS model includes some pseudocomponents that are heavy enough. The Gaussian quadrature method32 for lumping meets this requirement compared with other popular lumping schemes. The volume-shift technique moves the bubblepoint curve of a pure component, usually to the left, to match the saturation liquid density. Then, a linear mixing rule is used to compute the volume-shift parameter for a mixture. Use of this property does not affect the calculation of saturation pressures and phase molar amounts, but it does affect the properties computed with the molar or mass densities, such as viscosity and IFT. This parameter also affects multiple flashes if the input to each flash is a function of the phase volumes from the previous flashes. It should be noted that this parameter bears an empirical nature in both its definition and its extension to a mixture. To maintain a physically acceptable density, it is suggested that the volume-shift parameter be limited to within the range . . .(1)

ferent phases flow at different velocities in the direction that leads to a decrease in the flow potential of each phase, the equilibrium between phases changes with time. To achieve this new equilibrium, mass transfer of these components between phases needs to take place constantly. An EOS is used to solve this equilibrium part of the equations governing the multiphase and multicomponent flow at a given pressure and overall composition. After the solution of the equilibrium equations is reached, the EOS provides the number of phases, phase molar and mass densities, phase saturations, and the composition of each phase. Subsequently, phase viscosities and interfacial tension between phases can be determined by use of correlations. Future Trends This paper has treated the proper use of traditional cubic EOSs for compositional reservoir simulation. It is worth noting that many improved EOSs have been developed in recent years. Orbey and Sandler34 and Sandler35 discuss and illustrate some of these developments. In particular, they show how liquid-activity-coefficient models can be used with new mixing rules in the EOS formalism. Such models greatly improve the accuracy of calculations for mixtures containing polar components, such as water, as well as greatly increase the predictive power of the EOS. These new mixing rules can be combined easily with familiar cubic EOSs, such as the Peng-Robinson EOS. Software for volumetric and phase-behavior calculations that use the Wong-Sandler approach are readily available. It seems likely that such improvements will gradually be incorporated into at least some compositional reservoir simulators. JPT Nomenclature cilower= lower bound of the volume-shift parameter for component i ciupper= upper bound of the volume-shift parameter for component i Mi= molecular weight for component i Pc,i= critical pressure for component i R= universal gas constant Tc,i= critical temperature for component i vc,i= critical molar volume for component i Zc,i= critical compressibility for component i i= specific gravity for component i = acentric factor a= an EOS constant b= an EOS constant Superscripts EOS= property computed from an EOS t= property after tuning u= properties before tuning References
11. Whitson, C.H. and Brul, M.R.: Phase Behavior, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (2000) 20. 12. Todd, M.R. and Longstaff, W.J.: The Development, Testing, and Application of a Numerical Simulator for Predicting Miscible Flood Performance, JPT (July 1972) 874; Trans., AIME 253. 13. Fayers, F et al.: Use of the Four-Component Todd and .J. Longstaff Method as an Upscaling Technique in Simulating Gas Injection Projects, paper SPE 59340 presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 35 April. 80 JULY 2001

Linking the EOS compositional reservoir simulation with the surface-facility simulation to optimize the field development plan is now feasible.16 Usually, the surface simulation demands the use of a large number of components (e.g., 15 to 20) which is far more than that typically used in full-field reservoir simulations. To compensate for this need and also to make the reservoir simulation affordable, it is natural to delump or expand the production stream from the reservoir model that used pseudocomponents into the surface model, which requires many components. To make the delumping possible and unique,33 it is necessary to use the concept of the three-equation flash that requires zero binary interaction coefficients. To approximate this process, small binary interaction coefficients can be used. For this purpose, it is better to limit the value or not to use the binary interaction coefficients during the EOS development. Coats and Smart26 proposed tuning the parameters a and b of the Peng-Robinson EOS. This method has been used widely in the petroleum industry. It is easy to show that this procedure is somewhat equivalent to tuning Tc and Pc as follows. , . . . . . . . . . .(2)

Changes in the parameters a and b should be bounded to guarantee a monotonic increase of Tc and a monotonic decrease of Pc as the carbon number increases, but this condition is often violated when a and b are tuned. Although tuning a and b for carbon dioxide and methane can be very effective in improving the match, it is much better to tune the critical properties directly rather than a and b for the heavy components. Link Between EOS-PVT and Compositional Simulation Reservoir simulators are built on the basis of mass or molar balances of each component. Such a balance is assumed at any moment during the fluid flow. Because dif80

14. Tang, D.E. and Zick, A.A.: A New Limited Compositional Reservoir Simulator, paper SPE 25255 presented at the 1993 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, New Orleans, 28 February3 March. 15. Jerauld, G.R.: A Case Study in Scaleup for Multicontact Miscible Hydrocarbon Gas Injection, paper SPE 39626 presented at the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1922 April. 16. Wang, P et al.: A Fully Implicit Parallel EOS Compositional . Simulator for Large Scale Reservoir Simulation, paper SPE 51885 presented at the 1999 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, 1417 February. 17. Dogru, A.H.: Megacell Reservoir Simulation, JPT (May 2000) 54. 18. Abate, J., Wang, P and Sepehrnoori, K.: Parallel Composi., tion Reservoir Simulation on Clusters of PCs, The Intl. J. High Performance Computing Applications (Spring 2001) Vol. 15, No. 1. 19. Shiralkar, G.S. et al.: Falcon: A Production Quality Distribution Memory Reservoir Simulator, SPEREE (October 1998) 400. 10. Pedersen, K.S., Thomassen, P and Fredenslund, A.: Char., acterization of Gas Condensate Mixtures, paper presented at the 1988 AIChE Spring National Meeting, New Orleans, 1619 March. 11. Pedersen, K.S., Fredenslund, A., and Thomassen, P Proper.: ties of Oils and Natural Gases, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas (1989). 12. Whitson, C.H., Anderson, T.F and Soreide, I.: C7+ Charac., terization of Related Equilibrium Fluids Using the Gamma Distribution, paper presented at the 1988 AIChE Spring National Meeting, New Orleans, 1619 March. 13. Khan, S.A., Pope, G.A., and Sepehrnoori, K.: Fluid Characterization of Three-Phase CO2/Oil Mixtures, paper SPE/DOE 24130 presented at the 1992 SPE/DOE Eighth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 2224 April. 14. Twu, C.H.: An Internally Consistent Correlation for Predicting the Critical Properties and Molecular Weights of Petroleum and Coal-Tar Liquids, Fluid Phase Equilibria (1984) 16, 137. 15. Newly, T.M.J. and Merrill, R.C.: Pseudocomponent Selection for Compositional Simulation, SPERE (November 1991) 490; Trans., AIME, 291. 16. Barker, J.W. and Leibovici, C.F Delumping Compositional .: Reservoir Simulation Results: Theory and Applications, paper SPE 51896 presented at the 1999 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, 1417 February. 17. Jerauld, G.R.: Timing of Miscible Hydrocarbon Gas Injection After Waterflooding, paper SPE 59341 presented at the 2000 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 35 April. 18. Peng, D.-Y. and Robinson, D.B.: A New Two-Constant Equation of State, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fund. (1976) 15, 5964. 19. Soave, G.: Equilibrium Constants From a Modified RedlichKwong Equation of State, Chem. Eng. Sci., 27 (1972) 1197. 20. Peneloux, A., Rauzy, E., and Freze, R.: A Consistent Correction for Redlich-Kwong-Soave Volumes, Fluid Phase Equilibria (1982) 8, 723. 21. Jhaverl, B.S. and Youngren, G.K.: Three-Parameter Modification of the Peng-Robinson Equation of State to Improve Volumetric Predictions, SPERE (August 1988) 1033. 22. Patel, N.C. and Teja, A.S.: A New Cubic Equation of State for Fluids and Fluid Mixtures, Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 37, No. 3 (1982) 463. 23. Pope, G.A. et al.: Modeling Relative Permeability Effects in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs With a New Trapping Model, SPEREE (April 2000) 171. 81 JULY 2001

24. Jessen, K. et al.: Calculation of MMP paper presented at Intl. , Conference on Production of Reservoir Fluids in Frontier Conditions, Rueil-Malmaison, France (45 December 1997). 25. Wang, Y. and Orr, F Calculation of Minimum Miscibili.M.: ty Pressure, paper SPE 39683 presented at the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1922 April. 26. Coats, K.H. and Smart, G.T.: Application of a RegressionBased EOS PVT Program to Laboratory Data, SPERE (May 1986) 277. 27. Agarwai, R.K., Li, Y.-K., and Nghiem, L.: A Regression Technique With Dynamic Parameter Selection for Phase-Behavior Matching, SPERE (February 1990) 115. 28. Merrill, R.C., Hartman, K.J., and Creek, J.L.: A Comparison of Equation of State Tuning Methods, paper SPE 28589 presented at the 1994 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2528 September. 29. Joergensen, M. and Stenby, E.: Optimization of Pseudocomponent Selection for Compositional Studies of Reservoir Fluids, paper SPE 30789 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 2225 October. 30. Liu, K.: Fully Automatic Procedure for Efficient Reservoir Fluid Characterization, paper SPE 56744 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 36 October. 31. Slot-Petersen, C.: A Systematic and Consistent Approach To Determine Binary Interaction Coefficients for the PengRobinson Equation of State, SPERE (November 1989) 488. 32. Behrens, R.A. and Sandler, S.I.: The Use of Semicontinuous Description to Model the C7+ Fraction in Equation of State Calculations, SPERE (August 1988) 1041. 33. Leibovici, C.F Barker, J.W., and Wache, D.: A Method for ., Delumping the Results of a Compositional Reservoir Simulation, paper SPE 49068 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 2730 September. 34. Orbey, H. and Sandler, S.I.: Modeling Vapor-Liquid Equilibria: Cubic Equations of State and Their Mixing Rules, Cambridge U. Press, New York City (1998). 35. Sandler, S.I.: Chemical and Engineering Thermodynamics, third edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York City (1999). Peng Wang is a reservoir simulation engineer at DeGolyer and MacNaughton. His areas of interest include reservoir simulation, equation-of-state development, enhanced oil-recovery processes, and well deliverability for gas condensates. Previously, Wang was with the Elf Geoscience Research Center in London and the U. of Texas at Austin. He holds a BS degree in chemical engineering from Tsinghua U., Beijing, an MS degree in petroleum engineering from Petroleum U. of China, Beijing, and a PhD degree in chemical engineering from Technical U. of Denmark. Gary A. Pope is director of the Center for Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at U. of Texas at Austin. His areas of interest include enhanced oil recovery, reservoir engineering, fluid flow in porous media, numerical simulation, phase behavior and fluid properties, water-soluble polymers, surfactants, surfactant-enhanced aquifer remediation, characterization of nonaqueous-phase liquids in groundwater, and the use of tracers for characterization of aquifers. Previously, Pope was with the U. of Texas and Shell Development Co. He holds a BS degree in chemical engineering from Oklahoma State U. and a PhD degree from Rice U. Pope has received the SPE Distinguished Achievement Award (1996), SPE Distinguished Member Award (1995), and the SPE Reservoir Engineering Award (1991). 81