2003 Mccain Valko

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 37 (2003) 153 169
www.elsevier.com/locate/jpetscieng
Reservoir oil bubblepoint pressures revisited; solution gasoil

ratios and surface gas specific gravities
P.P. Valko, W.D. McCain Jr.*
Harold Vance Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University, 721 Richardson Building, College Station, TX 77843-3116, USA
Received 14 May 2002; accepted 9 October 2002
Abstract
A large number of recently published bubblepoint pressure correlations have been checked against a large, diverse set of
service company fluid property data with worldwide origins. The accuracy of the correlations is dependent on the precision
with which the data are measured. In this work a bubblepoint pressure correlation is proposed which is as accurate as the
data permit.
Certain correlations, for bubblepoint pressure and other fluid properties, require use of stock-tank gas rate and specific
gravity. Since these data are seldom measured in the field, additional correlations are presented in this work, requiring only data
usually available in field operations. These correlations could also have usefulness in estimating stock-tank vent gas rate and
quality for compliance purposes.
D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Oil property correlation; Bubblepoint pressure; Solution gas oil ratio; Surface gas specific gravity; Non-parametric regression
1. Introduction
A large number of correlations for estimation of
bubblepoint pressures of reservoir oils have been
offered in the petroleum engineering literature over
the last few years to go with a handful of correlations published earlier. Many of these new correlations are based on data from a single geographical
area. Most of these correlations were derived using
petroleum service company laboratory fluid property
data.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-979-845-8401; fax: +1-979862-1272.

E-mail address: mccain@spindletop.tamu.edu (W.D. McCain).
The primary goal of this paper is to evaluate these

correlations. For this purpose a large set of service
company data has been assembled. The data set is
truly worldwide with samples from all major producing areas of the world; thus, it permits evaluation of
the necessity of geography-specific correlations. We
are indebted to the several authors listed in Table 2.3
who provided geographical data.
An even more exciting question is whether the
predictive power of such correlations can be significantly improved or whether the known accuracy limit
is inherently determined by the quality of the available
data.
Related to the bubblepoint pressure prediction
from observable field data is the issue of estimating
stock-tank gas rate and specific gravity (shown as RST
0920-4105/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0920-4105(02)00319-4
154
P.P. Valko, W.D. McCain Jr. / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 37 (2003) 153169
Fig. 1.1. Notation for variables.
and cgST in Fig. 1.1) Certain correlations, for bubblepoint pressure and other fluid properties, require
knowledge of these quantities. Since these data are
seldom measured in the field, additional correlations
are presented in this work, requiring only data usually
available in field operations.
An additional and potentially important application
of these new correlations could be in estimating stocktank vent gas rate and quality for compliance purposes.
This paper is organized as follows. The methodology is described in Section 1. Section 2 deals with
various aspects of bubblepoint correlations, evaluation
of published methods, improvement of existing methTable 2.1
The bubblepoint pressure data set has a wide range of values of the
independent variables
Laboratory measurement
(1745 records)
Minimum
Solution gas oil ratio at

bubblepoint, scf/STB
Bubblepoint pressure, psia
Reservoir temperature, jF
Stock-tank oil gravity, jAPI
Separator gas specific gravity
10
82
60
6.0
0.555
Mean
588
2193
185
35.7
0.838
Maximum
2216
6700
342
63.7
1.685
Table 2.2
A comparison of published bubblepoint pressure correlations using
data described in Table 2.1 reveals the more reliable correlations
Predicted bubblepoint pressure
McCain et al. (Eqs. 7 12) (1998)

Velarde et al. (1999)
Labeadi (1990)
Standing* (1947)
Lasater** (1958)
Levitan and Murtha (1999)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
Vazquez and Beggs (1980)
Omar and Todd* (1993)
De Ghetto et al. (1994)
Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994)
Dindoruk and Christman* (2001)
Glaso (1980)
Fashad et al.* (1996)
Al-Marhoun* (1988)
Dokla and Osman* (1992)
Almehaideb* (1997)
Khairy et al.* (1998)
Macary and El Batanoney* (1992)
Hanafy et al.* (1997)
Petrosky and Farshad* (1998)
Yi (2000)
ARE, %
AARE, %
3.5
1.2
0.0
2.1
1.3
4.2
1.4
7.1
5.4
8.6
4.4
0.9
4.8
5.6
8.8
0.3
0.6
4.9
12.6
10.6
17.7
42.4
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.7
13.3
13.9
14.3
14.6
15.5
15.6
15.7
16.1
16.8
17.8
17.8
21.8
22.3
23.1
23.1
28.8
37.7
45.2
*Author restricted the correlation to a specific geographical area.

**Not valid for jAPI < 18j.
ods, discussion of data quality, and investigation of

the geographical factor. Sections 3 and 4 present new
correlations for solution gas oil ratio and weighted
average surface gas specific gravity.
155
A model predicting the value of y from the values

of x1, x2,. . .xm is written in the generic form
y f 1 z
where z
m
X
zn
and
zn fn xn
n1
1 1
2. Statistical methods
This work systematically uses a relatively novel
technique to reveal the underlying statistical relationships among variables corrupted by random error. The
method of alternating conditional expectations (ACE)
developed by Breiman and Friedman (1985)as
other similar non-parametric statistical regression
methodsis intended to alleviate the main drawback
of parametric regression, i.e., the mismatch of assumed model structure and the actual data. In nonparametric regression a-priori knowledge of the functional relationship between the dependent variable y
and independent variables, x1, x2,. . .xm, is not required. In fact, one of the main results of non-parametric regression is determination of the actual form
of this relationship.
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 its inverse: f 1(), yielding the
dependent variable y from the transformed dependent
variable z.
Given N observation points, we wish 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 alternating conditional expectations
(ACE) constructs and modifies the individual transformations to achieve maximum correlation in the
Calculated bubblepoint pressure, psia
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
Measured bubblepoint pressure, psia
Fig. 2.1. Calculated bubblepoint pressures from Eq. (2-1) compare well with measured bubblepoint pressures (1745 data records).
156
transformed space.
Graphically this means that the
P
plot of z m
n1 fn xn against zV = f( y measured )
should be as near to the 45j straight line as
possible. The resulting individual transformations
are given in the form of a point-by-point plot
and/or table, thus in any subsequent application
(graphical or algebraic) interpolation needed to
obtain the transformed variables and to apply the
inverse transformation to predict y. Obviously, the
smoother the transformation the more justified and
straightforward the interpolation is; therefore, some
kind of restriction on smoothness is built into the
ACE algorithm. In other words, 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
(Xue et al., 1997), used here consists of two parts. The
first part 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 transformations, and can be
well approximated, for instance, by low order polynomials.
Data reconciliation is a well-known statistical procedure, see for instance Liebman et al. (1992), Crowe
(1996), Weiss et al. (1996) and Vachhani et al. (2001).
GRACE also has an option to reconcile the
observed data set to the gleaned-out underlying statistical dependency. The option provides reconciled
values for all the observations by suggesting slight
changes in the observed values. The adjustment is
done such that in transformed space the reconciled
observations follow the 45j straight line perfectly,
while the overall change in each observed value is
kept to a minimum (Xue et al., 1997). The plot of
adjusted versus observed variable offers a deeper
insight into the effect of measurement noise and/or
the possibility of a hidden variable.
Fig. 2.2. The bubblepoint pressure correlation, Eq. (2-1), is reliable (regarding unbiasedness ) across the spectrum of reservoir temperatures.
Statistical measures of correlations used throughout the paper are:

Average relative error, ARE, % :
ARE
N
100 X
ycalculated ymeasured
N i1
ymeasured
1 2
157
more correct) to consider any presented correlation as

a relationship between dimensionless quantities,
where the reference values are; for pressure 1 psi,
for solution gas oil ratio 1 scf/STB, for temperature 1
jF (with offset at 0 jF), and for oil gravity 1j API.
With such interpretation in mind, even lnpb (the
natural logarithm of dimensionless bubblepoint pressure) can be easily understood.
Average absolute relative error, AARE, % :

3. Bubblepoint pressures

N
100 X
ycalculated ymeasured
AARE

N i1
ymeasured
1 3
ARE characterizes the accuracy (bias) and AARE

describes the precision (scatter) of predicted values
obtained from a particular correlation. All correlations
are presented for the variables measured in the units
indicated in the Nomenclature. It is also possible (and
A large number of correlations for estimating

bubblepoint pressures of reservoir oils have been
offered in the petroleum engineering literature over
the last few years to go with a handful of correlations published earlier. Many of these new correlations are based on data from a single geographical
area. Most of these correlations were derived using
laboratory fluid property data reported by service
companies.
Average Absolute Relative Error, AARE, in calculated Pb, %
25
20
15
10
This work
Standing
Glaso
Lasater
Labedi
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Reservoir Temperature, oF
Fig. 2.3. The bubblepoint pressure correlation, Eq. (2-1), is reliable (regarding scatter) across the spectrum of reservoir temperatures.
158
3.1. Evaluation of published correlations
3.2. Improvement of existing correlations
A large set of service company fluid property data

has been assembled. The data set is truly worldwide
with samples from all major producing areas of the
world. The wide range of values of the variables in
this data set, described in Table 2.1, span virtually all
the values to be expected in new discoveries/developments. Note that the fluid types vary from heavy oil to
volatile oil range.
Bubblepoint pressures calculated with many of the
published correlations using the measured values of
independent variables were compared with the laboratory-measured bubblepoint pressures. The results of
this comparison are given in Table 2.2 arranged in the
order of increasing average absolute relative error
(AARE). None of the correlations shown in Table
2.2 was derived using the full data set of Table 2.1;
however, many were prepared using subsets of this
data set.
With the thought that a correlation of improved

accuracy could be derived, the best four correlations
from Table 2.2 were refitted to the entire data set.
Standing (1947) deduced the form of his equation
using graphical methods. Velarde et al. (1999) used a
modification of the Standing (1947) equation originally proposed by Petrosky and Farshad (1998);
Labeadi (1990) used the Standing (1947) technique
and deduced new values for the slope and intercept.
The coefficients of the Standing (1947), Velarde et al.
(1999) and Labeadi (1990) equations were recalculated using nonlinear least-squares minimization. In
these cases the improvements in the predictions of
bubble point pressure were marginal.
There was some improvement in bubblepoint pressure prediction using the GRACE technique (first
used for this purpose in McCain et al., 1998, Eq.
(7 12)) when the coefficients were determined using
Average Relative Error, ARE, in calculated Pb, %
20
10
This work
Standing
Glaso
Lasater
-10
Labedi
-20
500
1000
1500
2000
Solution gas-oil ratio at Pb, scf/STB
Fig. 2.4. The bubblepoint pressure correlation, Eq. (2-1), is reliable (regarding unbiasedness) across the spectrum of solution gas oil ratios at
the bubblepoint, Rsb.
the full data set. The new equations for estimating

bubblepoint pressure are given below.
lnpb 7:475 0:713 z 0:0075 z2
z
4
X
zn
and
where
zn C0n C1n VARn
n1
C2n VAR2n C3n VAR3n

n VAR C0
1
2
3
4
lnRsb 5.48
API
1.27
cgSP
4.51
0.7835
TR
2 1
C1
C2
C3
0.0378
0.0449
10.84
6.23 10 3
0.281
4.36 10 4
8.39
1.22 10 5
0.0206
4.76 10 6
2.34
1.03 10 8
The average relative error (ARE) is 0.0 %, and the

average absolute relative error (AARE) is 10.9 %. Fig.
2.1 shows that there is no bias and the precision is
adequate.
The relative errors cited above and given in
Table 2.2 pertain to the entire data set. The reli-
159
ability of correlations across the spectrum of the

independent variables is also important. The data set
was sorted by reservoir temperature and partitioned
into 16 subsets of approximately equal size. The
accuracy of Eq. (2-1) as well as several of the more
popular correlations were tested with these subsets.
Figs. 2.2 and 2.3 show AREs and AAREs for five
of the correlations. The results obtained with Eq. (21) stay constantly near zero ARE and consistently
have the lowest AARE. Figs. 2.4 and 2.5 show the
same results for the data set partitioned into 16
equal subsets by solution gas oil ratio at the
bubblepoint. Figs. 2.6 and 2.7 show that the bubblepoint pressure correlation of this study is reliable
when the data set is partitioned by stock-tank oil
gravity, jAPI.
3.3. Universal versus geographical correlations
The petroleum industry has long debated whether
fluid property correlations should be universal or
Fig. 2.5. The bubblepoint pressure correlation, Eq. (2-1), is reliable (regarding scatter) across the spectrum of solution gas oil ratios at the
bubblepoint, Rsb.
160
Fig. 2.6. The bubblepoint pressure correlation, Eq. (2-1), is reliable (regarding unbiasedness) across the spectrum of stock-tank oil gravities.
based on data from a single geographical area. Several

of the geographically based correlations listed in Table
2.2 fit the full data set fairly well even though they
were developed with data sets limited in both size and
range. This implies that a well-done correlation does
not have to apply to a single geographical area.
The bubblepoint pressure correlation of this study
was tested against those subsets of the Table 2.1 data
set which could be identified by geographical area.
The results are in Table 2.3. The AAREs are approximately the same for the correlation worldwide or by
geographical regions. Thus, it appears that geographical correlations are unnecessary and that a universal
correlation is adequate. Al-Shammasi (1999) arrived
at the same conclusion.
3.4. Evaluation of the data used for developing the
correlations
An AARE of almost 11% for a correlation to
predict values of such an important property as
bubblepoint pressure is disturbingly high. Can some

other correlating equation and/or technique produce
an improved correlation? The answer lies in examination of the data used to develop the correlations.
Virtually all the published bubblepoint pressure
correlations, including this study, used fluid property
data from oilfield service companies. The quality of
these data is not research grade. This is not meant to
denigrate the service companies. These companies
use laboratory equipment and procedures designed to
provide data with precision adequate for the engineering calculations for which the data are gathered
and at a reasonable cost to the customer.
An interesting feature of the GRACE software is
the option to adjust the values of all the observed
independent and dependent variables simultaneously,
such that the adjusted set perfectly fits the correlation, i.e., the ARE and AARE are both zero, while
each observed value is changed a minimum amount.
This process is called data reconciliation. The average relative adjustments, necessary to zero the rela-
161
Fig. 2.7. The bubblepoint pressure correlation, Eq. (2-1), is reliable (regarding scatter) across the spectrum of stock-tank oil gravities.
tive errors for the full data set are given in Table 2.4.
The amount of adjustment indicated is an averaged
measure of the precision with which that variable
was measured/controlled during the laboratory procedure. The extremely low values of average necessary adjustment (bias) show that the measurement
errors in the data are randomly distributed, i.e. there
is virtually no bias. The average absolute relative
adjustment for each variable is well within the

precision to be expected in the laboratory procedures.
Figs. 2.8 2.12 show the relationships between
the laboratory measured values and the adjusted
values for each of the five variables. Those plots
do not have the usual meaning of calculated versus
Table 2.3
The bubblepoint pressure correlation of this study can be used in
various geographical areas with adequate accuracy
Table 2.4
The extremely low values of the average relative adjustments (ARA)
indicate random scatter and the average absolute relative adjustments, (AARA) are reasonable
Geographical area
Variable
Worldwide
Middle-East, Al-Marhoun (1988)
North Sea, Glaso (1980)
Egypt, Hanafy (1999)
Malaysia, Omar and Todd (1993)
USA, Katz (1942)
Predicted bubblepoint pressure

Number of
data records
AARE, %
1745
157
17
125
93
53
10.9
9.8
11.1
12.2
11.8
12.2
Adjustment in observed data required

to achieve perfect correlation
ARA, %
Temperature, jF
0.1
0.0
Separator gas specific gravity 0.0
Solution gas oil ratio
0.3
at pb, scf/STB
Bubblepoint pressure, psia 0.2
ARAA, %
4.0
1.9
1.4
2.5
5.5
162
400
Reservoir temperature, Adjusted, F
ARA: -0.1 %
AARA: 4.0 %
300
200
100
0
0
100
200
300
400
Reservoir temperature, Measured, F
Fig. 2.8. Reservoir temperatures adjusted to satisfy a perfect correlation compared with original measured reservoir temperatures.
measured, rather the distance of a data point from

the 45j line indicates the amount of adjustment
necessary for the data point to satisfy the correlation
exactly. The positions of the points on these five

plots show the randomness and minimal amount of
the adjustments.
Fig. 2.9. Stock-tank oil gravities adjusted to satisfy a perfect correlation compared with original measured stock-tank oil gravities.
163
1.8
ARA: 0.0 %
AARA: 1.4 %
Separator specific gas gravity, Adjusted
1.6
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Separator specific gas gravity, Measured
1.6
1.8
Fig. 2.10. Separator gas specific gravities adjusted to satisfy a perfect correlation compared with original measured separator gas specific
gravities.
Solution gas-oil ratio at Pb, Adjusted, scf/STB
10000
ARA 0.0 %
AARA 1.8 %
1000
100
10
10
100
1000
Solution gas-oil ratio at Pb, Measured, scf/STB
10000
Fig. 2.11. Solution gas oil ratios adjusted to satisfy a perfect correlation compared with original measured solution gas oil ratios.
164
10000
Bubblepoint pressure, psia, Adjusted
ARA -0.2 %
AARA 5.5 %
1000
100
10
10
100
1000
10000
Bubblepoint pressure, psia, Measured
Fig. 2.12. Bubblepoint pressures adjusted to satisfy a perfect correlation compared with original measured bubblepoint pressures.
The importance of the information displayed

in Table 2.4 and Figs. 2.8 2.12 is that the larger
than convenient AARE of the bubblepoint correlation is not due to the special form of the equation or the technique of data fitting, but stems
from the quality of the data used to derive the
correlation. Further attempts to develop bubblepoint
pressure correlations would be futile unless a
comparable amount of research quality data is
collected.
4. Solution gas oil ratios from field data

Many reservoir fluid property correlations require
a value of solution gas oil ratio at the bubblepoint
as one of the input variables. Values of this property
can be obtained from field data as the sum of the
producing gas oil ratios from the separator and
stock-tank as shown in Eq. (3-1). This is illustrated
in Fig. 1.1
Rsb RSP RST
3 1
Eq. (3-1) is valid only if RSP and RST are measured

while the reservoir pressure is above the bubblepoint
pressure of the reservoir oil.
The separator gas production rate and stock-tank
oil production rate are nearly always measured since
they are normally sales products. Thus, RSP is
usually known with some accuracy. Unfortunately
the gas rate from the stock-tank is seldom measured
as this gas is usually vented. The stock-tank vent
gas ratio, RST, can contribute as much as 20% of
Table 3.1
Separator/stock-tank data set has a wide range of values of the
independent variables
Laboratory measurement
(881 records)
Minimum Mean
Separator pressure, psig

12
Separator temperature, jF
35
6.0
Separator gas oil ratio, scf/STB
8
Stock-tank gas oil ratio, scf/STB 2
Surface gas specific gravity
0.566
Separator gas specific gravity
0.561
Stock-tank gas specific gravity
0.581
Maximum
130
950
92
194
36.2
56.8
559
1817
70
527
0.879
1.292
0.837
1.237
1.256
1.598
Rsb depending primarily on separator conditions.

Thus, a correlation for RST, based on readily available field data, is required to determine Rsb from
field data.
Eq. (3-2) was developed using the GRACE technique with a data set from 898 laboratory reservoir
fluid studies. Information about this data set may be
found in Table 3.1.
lnRST 3:955 0:83 z 0:024 z2 0:075 z3
where
3
X
zn
and
n1
zn C0n C1n VARn C2n VAR2n
3 2
VAR
C0
C1
C2
1
2
3
lnpSP
lnTSP
API
8.005
1.224
1.587
2.7
0.5
0.0441
0.161
0
2.29 10 5
165
Table 3.2
Average errors in estimates of Rsb for this study are within expected
experimental error
Correlation
ARE, %
AARE, %
Eqs. (3-2) and (3-1)

Rollins et al. (1990)
Eq. (3-3)
Eq. (3-4)
0.0
9.9
0.0
14.1
5.2
11.8
9.9
14.1
Fig. 3.1 shows the solution gas oil ratios at

bubblepoint pressure, Rsb, calculated with Eqs. (3-2)
and (3-1) compared with measured values from the
data set. The average error and average absolute error
for this correlation are given in Table 3.2 along with
the same measures for a previously published correlation, Rollins et al. (1990).
The procedure of estimating the solution gas oil
ratio at the bubblepoint, Rsb, using Eqs. (3-2) and
(3-1) retains its accuracy across the range of separator conditions. The data set was partitioned into
three subsets according to separator pressure; less
than 50 psig, between 50 and 100 psig, and over 100
Fig. 3.1. Total surface gas oil ratios, calculated with Eqs. (3-1) and (3-2) compare favorably with measured surface gas oil ratios (881 data
points).
166
Table 3.3
The Rsb prediction is consistent across the data set
Data set
Number of
points, N
ARE, %
AARE, %
All data
PSP V 50 psig
50 psig < PSP V
100 psig
PSP > 100 psig
TSP V 80 jF
TSP > 80 jF
RSP V 300 scf/STB
300 scf/STB < RSP V
700 scf/STB
RSP > 700 scf/STB
881
359
291
0.0
0.4
1.9
5.2
4.3
5.0
231
472
409
294
287
3.0
1.0
1.2
1.3
0.8
6.9
5.3
5.1
9.6
3.8
300
0.5
2.1
dure. As shown in Table 3.2, ignoring the stocktank gas causes an error of almost 14% with the
data set of Table 3.1. Notice that this error is
always biased negative, i.e. the estimate of Rsb is
always low.
5. Weighted average specific gravities of surface

gases
Most fluid property correlations are based on use
of the separator gas specific gravity. This property is
usually measured accurately since it is required in the
process of metering the separator gas production
rates. However, a few methods of estimating fluid
properties require values of the weighted average
specific gravity of the surface gases as defined in
Eq. (4-1).
psig. The data set was also partitioned into two

subsets according to separator temperature with 75
jF as the dividing line and three subsets on separator gas oil ratio. Table 3.3 shows that the procedure
has approximately the same accuracy in these eight
subsets.
Eqs. (3-2) and (3-1) and also the Rollins et al.
(1990) correlation require knowledge of separator
temperature and pressure. The users of fluid property
correlations may not know the separator conditions. In
this instance, Eq. (3-3) can be used. Eq. (3-3) was
derived from the same data set, Table 3.1, using
simple statistical methods.
Rsb 1:1618 RSP
cg
4 1
The McCain and Hill (1995) equation for oil

formation volume factors and the Glaso (1980) correlations of bubblepoint pressure and oil formation
volume factor at the bubblepoint are two examples
of fluid property estimates that require this weighted
average property.
Unfortunately the specific gravity of the stock-tank
gas is seldom measured in the field. A correlation is
required if this property is to be used in other
calculations. The correlation, given as Eq. (4-2), was
developed using the GRACE procedure.
3 3
Statistical measures for Eq. (3-3) with the data set

used in its development are given in Table 3.2.
Ignoring the stock-tank gas, RST is illustrated with
Eq. (3-4)
Rsb RSP
cgSP RSP cgST RST

RSP RST
cST 1:219 0:198 z 0:0845 z2

0:03 z3 0:003 z4
3 4
where
5
X
zn
n1
and
This is not recommended; it is given here to

show the possible error caused by such a proce-
zn C0n C1n VARn C2n VAR2n

C3n VAR3n C4n VAR4n
4 2
VAR
C0
C1
C2
C3
C4
1
2
3
4
5
lnpSP
lnRSP
API
cgSP
TSP
17.275
0.3354
3.705
155.52
2.085
7.9597
0.3346
0.4273
629.61
7.097 10 2
1.1013
0.1956
1.818 10 2
957.38
9.859 10 4
2.7735 10 2
3.4374 10 2
3.459 10 4
647.57
6.312 10 6
3.2287 10 3
2.08 10 3
2.505 10 6
163.26
1.4 10 8
Table 4.1
Average errors in estimates of surface gas specific gravity are well
within expected experimental error
Correlation
ARE, %
AARE, %
Eqs. (4-2),
(3-2) and (4-1)
Eq. (4-3)
Eq. (4-4)
0.7
2.2
0.0
6.2
3.8
6.2
lated and measured weighted average surface gas

specific gravities.
Eq. (4-2) require values of separator temperature
and separator pressure. Occasionally the users of fluid
property correlations will not have knowledge of
separator conditions. In this case, Eq. (4-3) can be
used to estimate the weighted average surface gas
specific gravity (Table 4.2).
cg 1:066cgSP
The data set described in Table 3.1 was used to

create this correlation, however, only 626 data points
could be used since the stock-tank gas specific gravity
was not measured in a number of the laboratory
studies.
Values cgST from Eq. (4-2) and values of RST
from correlation Eq. (3-2) are used in Eq. (4-1) to
estimate the weighted average specific gravity of the
surface gases. The errors in the calculated values of
weighted average surface gas specific gravities as
compared with measured values are given in Table
4.1. Fig. 4.1 shows the relationship between calcu-
167
4 3
This equation was developed with the data illustrated in Table 3.1 using a simple statistical method.
Average errors for the use of Eq. (4-3) along with
average errors associated with using the separator gas
specific gravity as a substitute for weighted average
surface gas specific gravity, Eq. (4-4), are given in
Table 4.1.
cg cgSP
4 4
Table 4.1 shows that ignoring the stock-tank gas

specific gravity, i.e. Eq. (4-4), always results in
Fig. 4.1. Weighted average surface gas specific gravities, calculated with Eqs. (4-2), (3-2), and (4-1) compare favorably with measured weighted
average surface gas specific gravities (618 data points).
168
Table 4.2
The surface gas specific gravity estimates are consistent across the
data set
Data set
Number
of points, N
ARE, %
AARE, %
All data
PSP V 50 psig
50 psig < PSP V
100 psig
PSP>100 psig
TSP V 80 jF
TSP>80 jF
RSP V 300 scf/STB
300 scf/STB < RSP V
700 scf/STB
RSP>700 scf/STB
618
274
245
0.7
0.6
1.2
2.2
1.9
2.4
99
389
229
170
205
0.4
0.2
1.4
1.5
0.5
2.4
2.0
2.5
3.7
2.1
243
0.3
1.3
negative error; the estimated value of cg is always

low.
6. Conclusions
(1) The use of Eq. (2-1) will result in reasonable
estimates of bubblepoint pressure.
(2) The 10% AARE of Eq. (2-1) cannot be improved
significantly. Given the precision with which the
input data are measured, an AARE of 10% or more
is to be expected. Further attempts at improving
the AARE of a bubblepoint correlation using data
of this quality will be futile.
(3) Generally, correlations based on data sets limited
to a specific geographical area are not necessary. A
carefully prepared universal correlation gives
adequate results.
(4) The use of Eqs. (3-2) and (3-1) to convert the field
measured separator gas oil ratio, RSP, into solution gas oil ratio at the bubblepoint, Rsb, results
in values of Rsb which are as accurate as routinely
measured in the laboratory.
(5) The use of Eq. (3-3) to estimate solution gas oil
ratio at the bubblepoint from separator gas oil
ratio data when separator conditions are not known
is adequate for engineering calculations and is
certainly preferred to ignoring the stock-tank gas
oil ratio.
(6) The use of Eqs. (4-2), (3-2) and (4-1) to estimate
weighted average surface gas specific gravity re-
sults in an accuracy approaching laboratory measurement.

(7) The use of Eq. (4-3) to estimate weighted average
surface gas specific gravity when separator conditions are not known gives reasonable results and
is much preferred to ignoring the effect of stocktank gas specific gravity.
Nomenclature
ARA
average relative adjustment, %
AARA average absolute relative adjustment, %
ARE
average relative error, %
AARE average absolute relative error, %
bubblepont pressure, psia
pb
pR
reservoir pressure, psia
pSP
separator pressure, psia
pST
stock-tank pressure, psia
Rsb
solution gas oil ratio at bubblepoint, scf/
STB
RSP
gas oil ratio, separator, scf/STB
RST
gas oil ratio, stock-tank, scf/STB
API
stock-tank oil gravity, jAPI
cgSP
separator gas specific gravity (air = 1)
cgST
stock-tank gas specific gravity (air = 1)
cg
weighted average surface gas specific gravity
(air = 1)
TR
reservoir temperature, jF
TSP
separator temperature, jF
TST
stock-tank temperature, jF
x
independent variable
y
dependent variable
z
sum of transformed independent variables
zV
transformed dependent variable
References
Al-Marhoun, M.A., 1988. PVT correlations for middle east crude
oils. JPT (May), 650 666.
Almehaideb, R.A., 1997. Improved PVT correlations for UAE
crude oils. Paper SPE 37691 Presented at the Middle East Oil
Conference and Exhibition, Bahrein, Mar. 17 20.
Al-Shammasi, A.A., 1999. Bubble point pressure and oil formation
volume factor correlations. Paper SPE 53185 Presented at the
SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrein, Feb. 20 23.
Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H., 1985. Estimating optimal transformations for multiple regression and correlation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.
(September), 580 619.
Crowe, C.M., 1996. Data reconciliationprogress and challenges.
J. Process Control 6 (2 3), 89 98.
De Ghetto, G., Paone, F., Villa, M., 1994. Reliability analysis on
PVT correlations. Paper SPE 28904 Presented at the European
Petroleum Conference, London, Oct. 25 27.
Dindoruk, B., Christman, P.G., 2001. PVT properties and viscosity
correlations for Gulf of Mexico oils. Paper SPE 71633 Presented
at the SPE ATCE, New Orleans, Sep. 3 Oct. 2.
Dokla, M.E., Osman, M.E., 1992. Correlation of PVT properties for
UAE crudes. SPEFE (March), 41 46.
Fashad, F., LeBlanc, J.L., Gruber, J.D., Osorio, J.G., 1966. Empirical PVT correlations for Colombian crude oils. Paper SPE
36105 Presented at the Fourth Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain, Apr. 23 26.
Glaso, O., 1980. Generalized pressure volume temperature correlations. JPT (May), 785 795.
Hanafy, H.H., 1999. Developing New PVT Correlations for Egyptian Crude Oils. MS thesis, Al-Azhar Univ., Cairo, Egypt.
Hanafy, H.H., Macary, S.M., El-Nady, Y.M., Bayomi, A.A., Batanony, M.H., 1997. A new approach for predicting the crude oil
properties. Paper SPE 37439 Presented at the SPE Production
Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Mar. 9 11.
Kartoatmodjo, T., Schmidt, Z., 1994. Large data bank improves
crude physical property correlations. Oil Gas J. (July), 51 55.
Katz, D.L., 1942. Predicting of the shrinkage of crude oils. Drilling
and production practice. API, 13 147.
Khairy, M., El-Tayeb, S., Hamdallah, M., 1998. PVT correlations
developed for Egyptian crudes. Oil Gas J. (May 4), 114 116.
Labeadi, R.M., 1990. Use of production data to estimate the saturation pressure, solution gas and chemical composition of reservoir fluids. Paper SPE 21164 Presented at the SPE Latin
American Petroleum Conference, Rio-de-Jainero, Oct. 14 19.
Lasater, J.A., 1958. Bubble-point pressure correlation. Trans. AIME
213, 379 381.
Levitan, L.L., Murtha, M., 1999. New correlations estimate Pb,
FVF. Oil Gas J. (Mar.), 70 76.
Liebman, M.J., Edgar, T.F., Lasdon, L.S., 1992. Efficient data
reconciliation and estimation for dynamic processes using nonlinear programming techniques. Comput. Chem. Eng. 16,
963 986.
Macary, S.M., El-Batanoney, M.H., 1992. Derivation of PVT correlations for the Gulf of Suez crude oils. EGPC 11th Pet. Exp.
and Prod. Conference.
169
McCain Jr., W.D., Hill, N.C., 1995. Correlations for liquid densities
and evolved gas specific gravities for black oils during pressure
depletion. Paper SPE 30773 Presented at the ATCE, Dallas, Oct.
22 25.
McCain Jr., W.D., Soto, R.B., Valko, P.P., Blasingame, T.A., 1998.
Correlation of bubblepoint pressures for reservoir oilsa comparative study. Paper SPE 51086 Presented at the SPE Eastern
Regional Conference and Exhibition, Pittsburgh, Nov. 9 11.
Omar, M.I., Todd, A.C., 1993. Development of a modified black oil
correlation for Malaysian crudes. Paper SPE 25338 Presented at
the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Singapore, Feb.
8 10.
Petrosky, G.E., Farshad, F.F., 1998. Pressure volume temperature
correlations for Gulf of Mexico crude oils. SPEREE (Oct.),
416 420.
Rollins, J.B., McCain Jr., W.D., Creager, J.T., 1990. Estimation of
the solution GOR of black oils. JPT (Jan.), 92 94.
Standing, M.B., 1947. A pressure volume temperature correlation for mixtures of California oils and gases. Drilling and production practice. API, 275 287.
Vachhani, P., Rengaswamy, R., Venkatasubramanian, V., 2001. A
framework for integrating diagnostic knowledge with nonlinear
optimization for data reconciliation and parameter estimation in
dynamic systems. Chem. Eng. Sci. 56 (6), 2133 2148.
Vasquez, M.E., Beggs, H.D., 1980. Correlations for fluid physical
property prediction. JPT (June), 968 970.
Velarde, J., Blasingame, T.A., McCain Jr., W.D., 1999. Correlation
of black oil properties at pressures below bubble point pressurea new approach. J. Can. Pet. Technol., Spec. Ed. 38
(13), 62 68.
Weiss, G.H., Romagnoli, J.A., Islam, K.A., 1996. Data reconciliationan industrial case study. Comput. Chem. Eng. 20 (12),
1441 1449.
Xue, G., Datta-Gupta, A., Valko, P., Blasingame, T.A., 1997.
Optimal transformations for multiple regression, application
to permeability estimation from well logs. SPEFE (June),
85 93.
Yi, X., 2000. Using wellhead sampling data to predict reservoir
saturation pressure. Paper SPE 59700 Presented at the SPE
Permian Basin Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland,
Mar. 21 23.

2003 Mccain Valko

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2003 Mccain Valko

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 37 (2003) 153 169

Reservoir oil bubblepoint pressures revisited; solution gasoil

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-979-845-8401; fax: +1-979862-1272.

The primary goal of this paper is to evaluate these

Fig. 1.1. Notation for variables.

Solution gas oil ratio at

McCain et al. (Eqs. 7 12) (1998)

*Author restricted the correlation to a specific geographical area.

ods, discussion of data quality, and investigation of

A model predicting the value of y from the values

Calculated bubblepoint pressure, psia

Measured bubblepoint pressure, psia

the final algebraic approximations using curve fitting

Statistical measures of correlations used throughout the paper are:

more correct) to consider any presented correlation as

Average absolute relative error, AARE, % :

ARE characterizes the accuracy (bias) and AARE

A large number of correlations for estimating

Average Absolute Relative Error, AARE, in calculated Pb, %

3.1. Evaluation of published correlations

3.2. Improvement of existing correlations

A large set of service company fluid property data

With the thought that a correlation of improved

Average Relative Error, ARE, in calculated Pb, %

Solution gas-oil ratio at Pb, scf/STB

the full data set. The new equations for estimating

zn C0n C1n VARn

C2n VAR2n C3n VAR3n

The average relative error (ARE) is 0.0 %, and the

ability of correlations across the spectrum of the

based on data from a single geographical area. Several

bubblepoint pressure is disturbingly high. Can some

adjustment for each variable is well within the

Predicted bubblepoint pressure

Adjustment in observed data required

Reservoir temperature, Adjusted, F

Reservoir temperature, Measured, F

measured, rather the distance of a data point from

exactly. The positions of the points on these five

Separator specific gas gravity, Adjusted

Solution gas-oil ratio at Pb, Adjusted, scf/STB

Bubblepoint pressure, psia, Adjusted

Bubblepoint pressure, psia, Measured

The importance of the information displayed

4. Solution gas oil ratios from field data

Rsb RSP RST

Eq. (3-1) is valid only if RSP and RST are measured

Separator pressure, psig

Rsb depending primarily on separator conditions.

zn C0n C1n VARn C2n VAR2n

Eqs. (3-2) and (3-1)

Fig. 3.1 shows the solution gas oil ratios at

5. Weighted average specific gravities of surface

psig. The data set was also partitioned into two

The McCain and Hill (1995) equation for oil

Statistical measures for Eq. (3-3) with the data set

cgSP RSP cgST RST

cST 1:219 0:198 z 0:0845 z2

This is not recommended; it is given here to

zn C0n C1n VARn C2n VAR2n

lated and measured weighted average surface gas

The data set described in Table 3.1 was used to

Table 4.1 shows that ignoring the stock-tank gas

negative error; the estimated value of cg is always