\newfig{Figures/Table_005_SG_vs_MW_1}{Specific Gravity vs.\ Molecular Weight for EOS Fluid Characterization ``SCN for MWs and SGs.''}
\newfigpage
\newfig{Figures/Gamma_002_LogMoles_1}{Molar Gamma Model of Lab3\_MDT1\_Contaminated C8+ Log Masses. Gamma Shape = 0.76467, Average = 251.59, Bound = 108.63, Origin = 108.63.}
\newfig{Figures/Gamma_003_LogMoles_1}{Molar Gamma Model of Lab3\_MDT1\_Decontaminated C8+ Log Masses. Gamma Shape = 0.76467, Average = 251.59, Bound = 108.63, Origin = 108.63.}
\newfigpage
\newfig{Figures/Gamma_005_LogMoles_1}{Molar Gamma Model of Lab3\_MDT2\_Contaminated C8+ Log Masses. Gamma Shape = 0.76763, Average = 255.67, Bound = 108.11, Origin = 108.11.}
\newfig{Figures/Gamma_006_LogMoles_1}{Molar Gamma Model of Lab3\_MDT2\_Decontaminated C8+ Log Masses. Gamma Shape = 0.76763, Average = 255.67, Bound = 108.11, Origin = 108.11.}
\newfigpage
\newfig{Figures/Gamma_008_LogMoles_1}{Molar Gamma Model of Lab3\_MDT3\_Contaminated C8+ Log Masses. Gamma Shape = 0.7494, Average = 256.21, Bound = 108.41, Origin = 108.41.}
\newfig{Figures/Gamma_009_LogMoles_1}{Molar Gamma Model of Lab3\_MDT3\_Decontaminated C8+ Log Masses. Gamma Shape = 0.7494, Average = 256.21, Bound = 108.41, Origin = 108.41.}
\newfig{Figures/Table_006_SG_vs_MW_1}{Specific Gravity vs.\ Molecular Weight for EOS Fluid Characterization ``SCN EOS.''}
\newfig{Figures/Table_006_TB_vs_MW_1}{Boiling Temperature vs.\ Molecular Weight for EOS Fluid Characterization ``SCN EOS.''}
\newfig{Figures/Table_006_TC_vs_MW_1}{Critical Temperature vs.\ Molecular Weight for EOS Fluid Characterization ``SCN EOS.''}
\newfig{Figures/Table_006_PC_vs_MW_1}{Critical Pressure vs.\ Molecular Weight for EOS Fluid Characterization ``SCN EOS.''}
\newfig{Figures/Table_006_AF_vs_MW_1}{Acentric Factor vs.\ Molecular Weight for EOS Fluid Characterization ``SCN EOS.''}
\newfig{Figures/Table_006_VT_vs_MW_1}{Volume Translation vs.\ Molecular Weight for EOS Fluid Characterization ``SCN EOS.''}
\newfig{Figures/Table_006_ZC_vs_MW_1}{Critical Z-Factor vs.\ Molecular Weight for EOS Fluid Characterization ``SCN EOS.''}
\newfig{Figures/Table_006_VISZ_vs_MW_1}{Viscosity Z-Factor vs.\ Molecular Weight for EOS Fluid Characterization ``SCN EOS.''}
\newfig{Figures/Table_006_LVIS_vs_MW_1}{Liquid Viscosity vs.\ Molecular Weight for EOS Fluid Characterization ``SCN EOS.''}
\newfig{Figures/Table_006_PCHOR_vs_MW_1}{Parachor vs.\ Molecular Weight for EOS Fluid Characterization ``SCN EOS.''}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_005_SATP_vs_WFI_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mass Fraction Injectant for Lab1 Swelling Test.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_005_DEN_vs_WFI_1}{Overall Density vs.\ Mass Fraction Injectant for Lab1 Swelling Test.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_005_LVF_vs_WFI_1}{Liquid Volume Fraction vs.\ Mass Fraction Injectant for Lab1 Swelling Test.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_006_LVIS_vs_MFI_1}{Liquid Phase Viscosity vs.\ Mole Fraction Injectant for Lab1 Viscosity Test.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_007_LVF2_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Volume Fraction, After Removal, vs.\ Pressure for P/V Test on Lab1 0\% Solvent/Oil Mixture.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_008_LVF2_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Volume Fraction, After Removal, vs.\ Pressure for P/V Test on Lab1 23\% Solvent/Oil Mixture.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_009_LVF2_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Volume Fraction, After Removal, vs.\ Pressure for P/V Test on Lab1 54\% Solvent/Oil Mixture.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_010_LVF2_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Volume Fraction, After Removal, vs.\ Pressure for P/V Test on Lab1 61\% Solvent/Oil Mixture.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_011_LVF2_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Volume Fraction, After Removal, vs.\ Pressure for P/V Test on Lab1 65\% Solvent/Oil Mixture.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_012_LVF2_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Volume Fraction, After Removal, vs.\ Pressure for P/V Test on Lab1 78\% Solvent/Oil Mixture.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_016_RV_vs_PRES_1}{Relative Volume vs.\ Pressure for Lab2 Constant Composition Expansion.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_017_LV_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Volume vs.\ Pressure for Lab2 Differential Liberation.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_017_MR_vs_PRES_1}{Cumulative Removal vs.\ Pressure for Lab2 Differential Liberation.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_017_LDEN_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Phase Density vs.\ Pressure for Lab2 Differential Liberation.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_017_LVIS_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Phase Viscosity vs.\ Pressure for Lab2 Differential Liberation.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_017_GZ_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Phase Z-Factor vs.\ Pressure for Lab2 Differential Liberation.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_017_GSG_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Specific Gravity vs.\ Pressure for Lab2 Differential Liberation.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_017_GVIS_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Phase Viscosity vs.\ Pressure for Lab2 Differential Liberation.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_019_DEN_vs_PRES_1}{Overall Density vs.\ Pressure for Lab2 CCE of Surface Sample.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_021_RV_vs_PRES_1}{Relative Volume vs.\ Pressure for CCE of Lab3\_MDT1\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_021_LS_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Saturation vs.\ Pressure for CCE of Lab3\_MDT1\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_021_LDEN_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Phase Density vs.\ Pressure for CCE of Lab3\_MDT1\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_022_V2_vs_PRES_1}{Volume, After Removal, vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT1\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_022_MR_vs_PRES_1}{Cumulative Removal vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT1\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_022_LVIS_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Phase Viscosity vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT1\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_022_GDEN_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Phase Density vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT1\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_022_GSG_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Specific Gravity vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT1\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_022_GZ_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Phase Z-Factor vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT1\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_024_SATP_vs_RMI_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Relative Moles Injected for Swelling of Lab3\_Surface\_Oil with 23\% C2+ Gas.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_024_LVF_vs_RMI_1}{Liquid Volume Fraction vs.\ Relative Moles Injected for Swelling of Lab3\_Surface\_Oil with 23\% C2+ Gas.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_024_DEN_vs_RMI_1}{Overall Density vs.\ Relative Moles Injected for Swelling of Lab3\_Surface\_Oil with 23\% C2+ Gas.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_024_RV_vs_RMI_1}{Relative Volume vs.\ Relative Moles Injected for Swelling of Lab3\_Surface\_Oil with 23\% C2+ Gas.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_025_RV_vs_PRES_1}{Relative Volume vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 100\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 0\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_025_LS_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Saturation vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 100\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 0\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_025_DEN_vs_PRES_1}{Overall Density vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 100\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 0\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_026_RV_vs_PRES_1}{Relative Volume vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 80\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 20\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_026_LS_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Saturation vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 80\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 20\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_026_DEN_vs_PRES_1}{Overall Density vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 80\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 20\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_027_RV_vs_PRES_1}{Relative Volume vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 60\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 40\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_027_LS_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Saturation vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 60\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 40\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_027_DEN_vs_PRES_1}{Overall Density vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 60\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 40\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_028_RV_vs_PRES_1}{Relative Volume vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 50\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 50\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_028_LS_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Saturation vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 50\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 50\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_028_DEN_vs_PRES_1}{Overall Density vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 50\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 50\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_029_RV_vs_PRES_1}{Relative Volume vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 40\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 60\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_029_LS_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Saturation vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 40\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 60\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_029_DEN_vs_PRES_1}{Overall Density vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 40\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 60\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_030_LS_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Saturation vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 10\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 90\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_030_DEN_vs_PRES_1}{Overall Density vs.\ Pressure for CCE of 10\% Lab3\_Surface\_Oil, 90\% Injectant.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_033_LVF_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Volume Fraction vs.\ Pressure for CCE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_033_RV_vs_PRES_1}{Relative Volume vs.\ Pressure for CCE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_033_LDEN_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Phase Density vs.\ Pressure for CCE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_034_MR_vs_PRES_1}{Cumulative Removal vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 92.2 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_034_LDEN_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Phase Density vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 92.2 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_034_LV_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Volume vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 92.2 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_034_LVIS_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Phase Viscosity vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 92.2 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_034_GDEN_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Phase Density vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 92.2 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_034_GSG_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Specific Gravity vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 92.2 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_034_GZ_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Phase Z-Factor vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 92.2 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_034_GVIS_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Phase Viscosity vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 92.2 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_034_Y-C1_vs_PRES_1}{Gas C1 Mole Fraction vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 92.2 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_034_Y-C2_vs_PRES_1}{Gas C2 Mole Fraction vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 92.2 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_034_Y-C3_vs_PRES_1}{Gas C3 Mole Fraction vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 92.2 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_034_Y-C4+_vs_PRES_1}{Gas C4+ Mole Fraction vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 92.2 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_035_MR_vs_PRES_1}{Cumulative Removal vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 70 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_035_LDEN_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Phase Density vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 70 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_035_LV_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Volume vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 70 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_035_LVIS_vs_PRES_1}{Liquid Phase Viscosity vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 70 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_035_GDEN_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Phase Density vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 70 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_035_GSG_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Specific Gravity vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 70 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_035_GZ_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Phase Z-Factor vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 70 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_035_GVIS_vs_PRES_1}{Gas Phase Viscosity vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 70 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_035_Y-C1_vs_PRES_1}{Gas C1 Mole Fraction vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 70 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_035_Y-C2_vs_PRES_1}{Gas C2 Mole Fraction vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 70 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_035_Y-C3_vs_PRES_1}{Gas C3 Mole Fraction vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 70 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_035_Y-C4+_vs_PRES_1}{Gas C4+ Mole Fraction vs.\ Pressure for DLE of Lab3\_MDT2\_Oil at 70 C.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_037_DEPTH_vs_PRES_1}{Depth vs.\ Pressure for Damped Isothermal Segregation from Averaged Sample.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_037_DEPTH_vs_SATP_1}{Depth vs.\ Saturation Pressure for Damped Isothermal Segregation from Averaged Sample.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_037_DEPTH_vs_DEN_1}{Depth vs.\ Overall Density for Damped Isothermal Segregation from Averaged Sample.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_037_DEPTH_vs_VIS_1}{Depth vs.\ Viscosity for Damped Isothermal Segregation from Averaged Sample.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_037_DEPTH_vs_ZWT-C1_1}{Depth vs.\ Overall C1 Mass Fraction for Damped Isothermal Segregation from Averaged Sample.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_037_DEPTH_vs_ZWT-C2-C5_1}{Depth vs.\ Overall C2-C5 Mass Fraction for Damped Isothermal Segregation from Averaged Sample.}
\newfig{Figures/Expt_037_DEPTH_vs_ZWT-C6+_1}{Depth vs.\ Overall C6+ Mass Fraction for Damped Isothermal Segregation from Averaged Sample.}
\newfigpage
\newfigpage
\newfig{Figures/Env_001_P_vs_T_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Temperature, P-T Diagram for Lab1\_Recombined\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Env_001_LogP_vs_T_1}{Log of Saturation Pressure vs.\ Temperature, P-T Diagram for Lab1\_Recombined\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Env_002_P_vs_Xi_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mole Fraction Injectant at 96 C, P-X Diagram for Lab1\_Recombined\_Oil,  with Lab1\_Swelling\_Gas at 96 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_002_P_vs_Wi_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mass Fraction Injectant at 96 C, P-X Diagram for Lab1\_Recombined\_Oil,  with Lab1\_Swelling\_Gas at 96 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_002_LogP_vs_Xi_1}{Log of Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mole Fraction Injectant at 96 C, P-X Diagram for Lab1\_Recombined\_Oil,  with Lab1\_Swelling\_Gas at 96 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_002_LogP_vs_LogXf_1}{Log of Saturation Pressure vs.\ Log of Mole Fraction Feed at 96 C, P-X Diagram for Lab1\_Recombined\_Oil,  with Lab1\_Swelling\_Gas at 96 C .}
\newfigpage
\newfig{Figures/Env_003_P_vs_T_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Temperature, P-T Diagram for Lab2\_Slimtube\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Env_003_LogP_vs_T_1}{Log of Saturation Pressure vs.\ Temperature, P-T Diagram for Lab2\_Slimtube\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Env_004_P_vs_Xi_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mole Fraction Injectant at 95.5556 C, P-X Diagram for Lab2\_Slimtube\_Oil,  with Lab2\_Slimtube\_Gas at 95.6 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_004_P_vs_Wi_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mass Fraction Injectant at 95.5556 C, P-X Diagram for Lab2\_Slimtube\_Oil,  with Lab2\_Slimtube\_Gas at 95.6 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_004_LogP_vs_Xi_1}{Log of Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mole Fraction Injectant at 95.5556 C, P-X Diagram for Lab2\_Slimtube\_Oil,  with Lab2\_Slimtube\_Gas at 95.6 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_004_LogP_vs_LogXf_1}{Log of Saturation Pressure vs.\ Log of Mole Fraction Feed at 95.5556 C, P-X Diagram for Lab2\_Slimtube\_Oil,  with Lab2\_Slimtube\_Gas at 95.6 C .}
\newfigpage
\newfig{Figures/Env_005_P_vs_T_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Temperature, P-T Diagram for Lab3\_Surface\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Env_005_LogP_vs_T_1}{Log of Saturation Pressure vs.\ Temperature, P-T Diagram for Lab3\_Surface\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Env_006_P_vs_Xi_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mole Fraction Injectant at 95.5 C, P-X Diagram for Lab3\_Surface\_Oil,  with Lab3\_Swelling\_Gas at 95.5 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_006_P_vs_Wi_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mass Fraction Injectant at 95.5 C, P-X Diagram for Lab3\_Surface\_Oil,  with Lab3\_Swelling\_Gas at 95.5 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_006_LogP_vs_Xi_1}{Log of Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mole Fraction Injectant at 95.5 C, P-X Diagram for Lab3\_Surface\_Oil,  with Lab3\_Swelling\_Gas at 95.5 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_006_LogP_vs_LogXf_1}{Log of Saturation Pressure vs.\ Log of Mole Fraction Feed at 95.5 C, P-X Diagram for Lab3\_Surface\_Oil,  with Lab3\_Swelling\_Gas at 95.5 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_007_P_vs_T_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Temperature, P-T Diagram for Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Env_007_LogP_vs_T_1}{Log of Saturation Pressure vs.\ Temperature, P-T Diagram for Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil.}
\newfig{Figures/Env_008_P_vs_Xi_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mole Fraction Injectant at 93.4 C, P-X Diagram for Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil,  with Lab3\_Swelling\_Gas at 93.4 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_008_P_vs_Wi_1}{Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mass Fraction Injectant at 93.4 C, P-X Diagram for Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil,  with Lab3\_Swelling\_Gas at 93.4 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_008_LogP_vs_Xi_1}{Log of Saturation Pressure vs.\ Mole Fraction Injectant at 93.4 C, P-X Diagram for Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil,  with Lab3\_Swelling\_Gas at 93.4 C .}
\newfig{Figures/Env_008_LogP_vs_LogXf_1}{Log of Saturation Pressure vs.\ Log of Mole Fraction Feed at 93.4 C, P-X Diagram for Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil,  with Lab3\_Swelling\_Gas at 93.4 C .}
\newfigpage
\newfig{Figures/BOT_001_Rs_vs_P_1}{Rs vs.\ Saturation Pressure, Black Oil Tables from Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil at 93.5 C, Using Three-Stage Separation Process.}
\newfig{Figures/BOT_001_Bo_vs_P_1}{Bo vs.\ Saturation Pressure, Black Oil Tables from Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil at 93.5 C, Using Three-Stage Separation Process.}
\newfig{Figures/BOT_001_Rv_vs_P_1}{Rv vs.\ Saturation Pressure, Black Oil Tables from Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil at 93.5 C, Using Three-Stage Separation Process.}
\newfig{Figures/BOT_001_Bgi_vs_P_1}{1/Bg vs.\ Saturation Pressure, Black Oil Tables from Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil at 93.5 C, Using Three-Stage Separation Process.}
\newfig{Figures/BOT_001_Vis_vs_P_1}{Viscosity vs.\ Saturation Pressure, Black Oil Tables from Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil at 93.5 C, Using Three-Stage Separation Process.}
\newfig{Figures/BOT_001_Den_vs_P_1}{Density vs.\ Saturation Pressure, Black Oil Tables from Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil at 93.5 C, Using Three-Stage Separation Process.}
\newfig{Figures/BOT_001_R_vs_P_1}{Rs and 1/Rv vs.\ Saturation Pressure, Black Oil Tables from Predicted\_3350\_m\_Oil at 93.5 C, Using Three-Stage Separation Process.}
