Converting from Pound to Barrels 1

[moswitch]

Below I have two scenarios, both expressing a volume in cubic feet to pounds then expressing the pounds in barrels of oil equivalent, or something like that.

Volume of Crude spilled = 400 ft^3 in five mins
Crude density 58 lbs/ft^3

Is the Pounds to barrels conversion then 23,200/(58*5.61504424778761)??

*******************************************************
Volume of LPG (Gas State) spilled = 4000 ft^3 per 7 mins
LPG(Gas State)density @ 1014.7 psia is 10.54 lbs/ft^3.

NOTE: At standard condition Density of LPG (gas state) around .1530

Is the Pounds to barrels conversion then 42,160/(10.54*5.61504424778761)??

NOTE the factor 5.61504424778761 comes from

http://www.mechengcalculations.com/jmm/uni01.html

Refer to the Density portion of the site. As a result multiplying my density times this factor should tell me how many pounds I have per barrel.

 

[zdas04]

Seems like you did the density twice. How about unit analysis?

mass = 400ft^3 * 58 lbm/ft^3 = 23,200 lbm
Vol = 400ft^3 * 7.481 gal/ft^3 *bbl/42 gal = 400 ft^3 *bbl/5.615 ft^3 = 71.243 bbl (notice that the mass doesn't play here)

The 5.615 number is volume to volume, nothing to do with mass or density. 1 bbl=5.615 ft^3.

You stated the density in the pressurized case as a gas? I'm pretty sure the "L" is liquified. You need that density to get to a spilled mass, then using the STP density you can calculate the SCF that was vaporized. Just a guess, but it seems like it would be 16/18 * 63.4 lbm/ft^3 or 55.5 lbm/ft^3.

David

David

 

[moswitch]

It seems I posted this topic in the wrong forum please reply to my question in "Piping & fluid mechanics engineering"

by the way thanks zdas04

 

[moswitch]

Okay so we're back here again.

It seems the formula in my orig post produces the same results as the ones which I've received, which is a good thing. I guess the problem I have now is that the gaseous state of my Highly Volatile Liquid is producing high bbls amount. I'm attempting to model a spill from a full line rupture for LPG, 3 mins at liquid phase and 7 mins at gaseous phase. I would like to express both results in bbls so I can bring both sums together.

 

[zdas04]

The most commonly accepted way to add a liquid volume to a gaseous volume in the Oil & Gas industry is BOE (barrel oil energy equivilant). To do this you get your LNG to SCF (4 MaCF * 10.54 lbm/ft^3 / 0.153 lbm/ft^3 = 271.9 MSCF), the HHV of methane is 1010 BTU/SCF (1.01 MMBTU/MSCF) so:

BOE = 271.9 MSCF * 1.01 MMBTU/MSCF * BOE/5.8 MMBTU = 47.3 bbl Oil Energy Equivilent

Is that close to your answer?

You can also do a mass to mass comparison:

LNG = 4000 ft^3 * 10.54 lbm/ft^3 = 42,160 lbm
Oil = 400 ft^3 * 58 lbm/ft^3 = 23,200 lbm

As you can see this is a very different number (LNG is 40% of the energy or 64% of the mass). Either answer is "right", but they both require serious qualifications.

David

 

[racookpe1978]

I'm glad I play with simple steam, condensate, river water, clean cooling water, and cooling oil problems ....

 

[moswitch]

Thanks for the feed back. I will look further into the BOE conversions. Question I have other HVL products I'm attempting to model how do I acquire the HHV for them? By the way what is HHV? zdas04 in your last post does MaCF stand for Thousand Actual Cubic Feet, is so how did you get from from 4000 cubic feet to Thousand Actual Cubic Feet?

Thanks in advance

 

[zdas04]

Last question first: divide by 1,000. I went from aCF to MaCF so it is simply shifting a decimal point. When I went from MaCF to MSCF the conversion is volume flow rate tims rho(current) / rho(target) . Since you had density at both pressurized and atmospheric conditions and it is probably safe to use the atmospheric density as a reasonable approximation of STP, the conversion was easy.

HHV is "Higher Heating Value" or "Gross Heating Value" which is a conversion from a volume at standard conditrions to an amount of usable heat. If you are going to be doing much of this kind of work I would highly recommend buying the GPSA Field Data Book which just has a wealth of that kind of information.

David

 

[moswitch]

Thanks David I believe you've pointed me in the right direction. Also, regarding going from aCF to MaCF I should have known that was the case but after looking at my model for so long my mind goes to mush :=). Thanks again.