ELSEVIER

Journal of Petroleum

Science and Engineering

16 (1996) 275-290

Evaluation of empirically derived PVT properties for Pakistani

crude oils
Mohammed
Department

of Petroleum

Aamir Mahmood, Muhammad Ali Al-Marhoun

Engineering,

King Fahd

Uniuersity

Received 3 February

of Petroleum

1996; accepted

and Minerals,

Dhahran

31261,

*
Saudi Arabia

12 June 1996

Abstract
This study evaluates
the most frequently
used pressure-volume-temperature
(PW) empirical correlations for Pakistani
crude oil samples. The evaluation is performed by using an unpublished data set of 22 bottomhole fluid samples collected
from different locations in Pakistan. Based on statistical error analysis, suitable correlations for field applications are
recommended for estimating bubblepoint pressure, oil formation volume factor (PVF), oil compressibility and oil viscosity.
Keywords:

physical

fluid properties;

PVT tests; correlations;

least-squares

1. Introduction
Provision
of pressure-volume-temperature
(PVT) parameters is a fundamental requirement for
all types of petroleum calculations such as determination of hydrocarbon flowing properties, and design
of fluid handling equipments. More importantly, volumetric estimates necessitate the evaluation of PVT
properties beforehand. The PVT properties can be
obtained from an experimental set-up by using representative samples of the crude oils. However, introduction of a PVT empirical correlation also extends
statistical techniques to estimate the PVT properties
effectively.
For the development of a correlation, geological
and geographical conditions are considered impor-

* Corresponding

author.

0920-4105/96/$15.00
Copyright
PII SO920-4105(96)00042-3

methods;

statistics

tant as due to these conditions the chemical composition of any crude may be specified. It is difficult to
obtain the same accurate results through empirical
correlations for different oil samples having different
physical and chemical characteristics.
Therefore to
account for regional characteristics,
PVT correlations need to be modified for their application. Because of the availability of a wide range of correlations, it is also beneficial to analyze them for a given
set of PVT data belonging to a certain geological
region.
This study examines the existing PVT correlations against a set of PVT data collected from
different locations in Pakistan as shown in Fig. 1. All
of the significant
PVT correlations
reported in
petroleum literature are included in this study. The
validity and statistical accuracy are determined for
these correlations and finally the best suited correlations are recommended for their application to Pakistani crude oils. In addition, this study can be used

0 1996 Elsevier Science All rights reserved

216

of Petroleum Science and Engineering 16 (1996) 275-290

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. AI-Marhoun/Journnl

pressibility, viscosity at and above bubblepoint, and

dead oil viscosity are reviewed in the following
sections.
2. I. Bubblepoint

COAL

as an effective guideline for correlation applications

for all the other oil samples possessing similar compositional characteristics.

2. PVT correlations
The frequently used empirical correlations for the
prediction of bubblepoint pressure, oil FVF at bubblepoint, two-phase FVF, undersaturated
oil com-

Parameter

Number of data points

p,
T
FVF
R,
API
y,
co, (mole%)
N, (mole%)
H , S (mole%)

for oil FVF and bubblepoint

Standing
(1947)
105
130-7000
loo-258
1.024-2.15
20-1425
16.5-63.8
0.59-0.95
< 1.0
0.0
0.0

Lasater
(1958)

pressure

Vazquez and Beggs

(1980)

158
48-5780
82-272

_
3-2905
17.9-51.1
0.57- 1.22
0.0
0.0
0.0

correlations

Standing (1947) p resented a correlation for predicting bubblepoint pressure by correlating reservoir
temperature, solution gas/oil ratio, gas relative density, and oil gravity. The gases in the oil samples
contained CO, as the only non-hydrocarbon.
The
data used for this study were sampled from California oil fields. Lasater (1958) for his correlation
development acquired data without non-hydrocarbon
gases. The oil samples were collected from Canada,
the U.S.A., and South America. The aforesaid correlations were widely acclaimed and utilized for a
considerably
long time until Vazquez and Beggs
(1980) reported their work for bubblepoint pressure
prediction of a gas-saturated
crude. They recommended a bifurcation for evaluating
PVT parameters, and suggested two ranges ( yAp, < 30 and yAp, >
30) of oil samples. Glaso (1980) also presented a
correlation for predicting bubblepoint pressure from
a data set comprising of reservoir temperature, solution gas/oil ratio, gas relative density, and oil gravity. The data for his study mainly belonged to the
North Sea region. He also recommended
a method
for correcting a predicted bubblepoint pressure if a
significant amount of non-hydrocarbon
gases is present along with the associated surface gases. AlMarhoun (1988) published his correlation for deter-

Fig. 1. Location of mineral reserves in Pakistan.

Table 1
Data ranges of existing correlations

pressure

6004
15-6055
15-294
1.028-2.22
O-2199
15.3-59.3
0.511-1.35

Glaso
(1980)
41
165-7142
80-280

1.025-2.58
90-2637
22.3-48.1
0.65- 1.216
_
_
_

Al-Marhoun
(1988)
160
130-3573
74-240
1.032-1.99
26- 1602
19.4-44.6
0.752- 1.36
0.0-16.38
0.0-3.89
O.O- 16.3

Al-Marhoun
(1992)
4012
15-6641
75-300
1.01-2.96
O-3265
9.5-55.9
0.575-2.52

217

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. Al-Marhoun/ Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 16 (1996) 275-290

mining bubblepoint
oil samples.

pressure

2.2. Oil FVF at bubblepoint

based on Middle

pressure

East

correlations

The very first correlation

was developed
by
Standing (1947) utilizing the same data used for his
bubblepoint pressure predication. Vazquez and Beggs
(1980) reported their research recommending
a bifurcation in the data with two ranges of oil API gravity.
Glaso (1980) also published a correlation which was
based on Standings correlation with minor modifications. He used 41 experimentally
determined data
points, mostly from the North Sea region. AlMarhoun (1988) reported his correlation for which
he acquired data from Middle East oil reservoirs.
Al-Marhoun
(1992) updated his correlation by acquiring a large data set of 4012 data points collected
from all over the world. Table 1 shows the data
ranges of the selected correlations discussed above.
2.3. Two-phase

FVF correlations

Standing (1947) reported the first correlation for

predicting
two-phase
FVF
by
correlating
solution/gas
oil ratio, temperature, gas relative density, and oil gravity. Applying the same PVT parameters used by Standing, Glaso (1980) published his
correlation. Al-Marhoun (1988) reported his correlation using a data set collected from Middle East oil
fields.
2.4. Undersaturated

oil compressibility

correlations

The earliest research was conducted by Calhoun

(1947) when he presented a graphical correlation for
determining the isothermal compressibility
of an undersaturated crude oil. Trube (1957) for his graphical
correlation used pseudoreduced pressure and temperature to determine undersaturated oil compressibility.
Vazquez and Beggs (1980) also presented a compressibility correlation using the available reservoir
parameters.

crude oil by using a data set representing U.S. oil

sample only. He used gas-saturated
oil viscosity,
bubblepoint
pressure, and pressure above bubblepoint as the correlating parameters. Vazquez and
Beggs (1980) by using 3593 data points also published their correlation for undersaturated oil viscosity. Khan et al. (1987) published their correlation
based on 75 bottomhole
samples and 1503 data
points obtained from Saudi oil reservoirs. The most
recent correlation reported by Labedi (1992) for light
crude oils is based upon Libyan crude oil data.
2.6. Gas-saturated

oil viscosity correlations

Chew and Connally (1959) presented their work

for predicting change in oil viscosity as a function of
the solution gas/oil ratio. Their data set of 457 data
points covered samples from South America, Canada,
and the U.S.A. Beggs and Robinson (1975) acquired
a large data set to obtain a correlation for predicting
gas-saturated
oil viscosity. Khan et al. (1987) reported their research using 150 data points obtained
from Saudi crude oil samples. For light crude oils,
Labedi (1992) presented his correlation using Libyan
crude oil samples.
2.7. Dead oil viscosity correlations
Beal (1946) reported a correlation by applying
753 data points for his analysis. He correlated oil
gravity, and temperature covering a range of lOO220F. Beggs and Robinson (1975) presented their
correlation using 460 dead oil observations.
Glaso
(1980) also developed a correlation using a temperature range of 50-300F for 26 crude oil samples. Ng
and Egbogah (1983) presented their viscosity correlations by modifying the Beggs and Robinson correlation. Recently, Labedi (1992) has published a correlation for light crude oil sampled from Libyan
reservoirs.
All of the correlations selected for this study are
given in Appendix A.

3. PVT data acquisition

2.5. Undersaturated

for Pakistani

crude oils

oil viscosity correlations

Beal (1946) published his graphical correlations

for determining
the undersaturated
oil viscosity of

PVT reports of 22 bottomhole fluid samples were

acquired from different locations in Pakistan for the
evaluation purpose of this study. This unpublished

278

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. Al-Marhoun/Joumal

Table 2
PVT differential
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
I
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53

T
250
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
245
188
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
248
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
229
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
222
232
232
232
232
232
232
232
232
232
217
217
217

of Petroleum Science and Engineering

16 (1996) 27.5-290

Table 2 (continued)
data with the corresponding

P,

B,,

2885
1680
1415
1215
1015
815
615
415
227
133
15
3280
4197
1725
1515
1315
1115
915
715
515
315
183
113
15
1316
1065
865
665
465
265
163
15
2949
2615
2215
1815
1415
1015
615
298
15
1525
1315
1115
915
715
515
315
185
15
1512
1315
1115

2.916
1.468
1.432
1.404
1.378
1.352
1.322
1.292
1.246
1.214
1.092
1.921
2.365
1.522
1.493
1.465
1.438
1.409
1.380
1.350
1.314
1.278
1.248
1.098
1.375
1.350
I.329
1.306
1.282
1.250
1.227
1.087
1.940
1.844
1.753
1.681
1.610
1.541
1.467
1.386
1.073
1.460
1.43 1
1.403
1.376
1.348
1.320
1.286
I.253
1.097
1.416
1.391
1.363

R,
2249
557
486
433
381
328
273
215
144
96
0
1340
2371
663
603
547
490
432
376
316
251
192
152
0
435
379
335
288
239
182
145
0
1321
1210
1074
937
802
670
506
340
0
550
496
446
395
342
288
228
180
0
512
468
419

%
1.0608
1.1955
1.2468
1.2955
1.3539
1.4272
1.5264
1.6611
1.8583
1.9810
0
1.0713
0.8253
1.3205
1.3692
1.424 1
1.4923
1.5775
1.6801
1.8180
2.0083
2.2297
2.4120
0
I .4030
I .4905
1.5762
1.6918
1.8545
2.0949
2.3000
0
1.2613
1.3003
1.3595
1.4356
1.5338
1.6640
1.8954
2.2520
0
1.3428
1.3898
1.4407
1.5022
1.5808
1.6839
I .8442
2.0370
1.1836
1.2194
1.2671

oil viscosity
API
56.5
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.2
37.2
29.3
39.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
38.5
40.5
40.5
40.5
40.5
40.5
40.5
40.5
40.5
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
29.0
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
41.0
41.0
41.0

values

/_q,

0.318
0.337
0.352
0.367
0.389
0.406
0.430

0.207
0.308
0.320
0.334
0.349
0.364
0.379
0.397
0.438
0.47 1

0.327
0.333
0.34 1
0.350
0.365
0.397
0.416
0.896
0.252
0.263
0.277
0.294
0.314
0.340
0.38 1
0.460
0.589
0.380
0.386
0.394
0.404
0.417
0.435
0.458
0.486
0.748

No.

54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107

217
217
217
217
217
217
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
188
296
296
296
296
296
296
296
296
296
296
296
296
296
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237
237

P,

915
715
515
315
183
15
1717
1515
1315
1115
915
715
515
315
170
15
2883
2615
2315
2015
1715
1415
1115
815
515
249
152
104
15
4975
4115
3315
2615
1915
1215
615
15
1226
1065
915
765
615
465
315
I83
114
79
15
I295
I I65
1015
865
715
565

B,,,

1.324
1.300
1.278
1.248
1.217
1.088
1.394
1.373
1.354
1.335
1.318
1.298
1.275
1.247
1.215
1.067
2.619
2.475
2.331
2.203
2.092
1.995
1.910
1.832
1.747
1.633
1.599
1.504
1.142
2.713
1.981
1.777
1.658
I.552
1.449
1.351
1.104
1.418
1.401
1.385
1.369
1.35
1.330
1.305
1.275
1.253
1.238
1.090
I .349
1.335
1.318
1.303
1.287
I.268

API

R,
369
316
259
196
145
0
556
509
462
419
378
330
280
225
165
0
1977
1757
1536
1340
1169
1018
884
760
628
470
379
317
0
2496
1458
1074
827
615
407
248
0
470
433
398
362
325
285
241
190
I58
130
0
357
330
299
268
236
202

1.3260
I .4037
1.5126
1.6882
1.8670
1.2595
1.3058
1.3614
1.423 1
1.4938
1.5954
1.73 1 1
1.9298
2.2450
1.407 I
1.4613
1.5337
1.6191
1.7167
1.8277
I .9523
2.095 1
2.281 I
2.5585
2.7812
2.9800
0
1.1545
1.1888
1.4410
1.6839
1.9220
2.5098
3.4445
0
1.5337
I .5922
1.6561
1.7323
1.8241
I .9424
2.0908
2.2778
2.4141
2.5500
0
I .2435
1.2758
1.3184
1.3687
I .4307
1.5137

41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
41.0
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
42.6
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
39.9
31.9
31.9
31.9
31.9
31.9
31.9
31.9
3 1.9
39.4
39.4
39.4
39.4
39.4
39.4
39.4
39.4
39.4
39.4
39.4
39.5
39.5
39.5
39.5
39.5
39.5

0.301
0.310
0.318
0.328
0.338
0.352
0.367
0.386
0.411
0.878
0.222
0.232
0.243
0.254
0.266
0.278
0.292
0.309
0.332
0.365
0.386
0.402
0.769
0.205
0.245
0.275
0.310
0.350
0.405
0.482
0.914
0.330
0.338
0.345
0.356
0.372
0.388
0.4 IO

0.380
0.392
0.406
0.425
0.452
0.485

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. Al-Marhoun/ Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 16 (1996) 275-290
Table 2 (continued)
No.

219

Table 2 (continued)

P,

B oh

R,

API

PO

No.

p,

&,b

r,

API

p,,

108

237

415

1.248

166

1.628 1

39.5

0.533

162

244

1569

1.456

542

1.3248

37.5

0.290

109

237

265

1.225

126

1.7897

39.5

0.587

163

244

1315

1.423

474

1.3929

37.5

0.299

110

237

162

1.200

92

1.9700

39.5

0.636

164

244

1115

1.398

423

1.4575

37.5

0.306

111

237

15

1.099

39.5

0.742

165

244

915

1.371

371

1.5385

37.5

0.318

112

254

1475

1.804

885

1.6334

42.2

0.232

166

244

715

1.344

318

1.6421

31.5

0.331

113

254

1315

1.771

821

1.6891

42.2

0.238

167

244

515

1.313

261

1.7871

37.5

0.347

114

254

1115

1.730

744

1.7673

42.2

0.245

168

244

315

1.217

199

1.9937

37.5

0.372

115

254

915

1.685

666

1.8614

42.2

0.256

169

244

187

1.241

147

2.2090

37.5

0.391

116

254

715

1.639

588

1.9736

42.2

0.264

170

244

15

1.091

37.5

0.787

117

254

515

1.588

505

2.1152

42.2

0.280

171

182

1098

1.312

373

1.3044

42.1

118

254

315

1.523

411

2.2987

42.2

0.299

172

182

915

1.296

335

1.3583

42.1

119

254

195

1.461

333

2.4650

42.2

0.318

173

182

715

1.278

295

1.4276

42.1

120

254

135

1.411

276

2.5868

42.2

0.327

174

182

515

1.258

250

1.5269

42.1

121

254

95

1.351

213

2.7080

42.2

0.341

175

182

315

1.235

192

1.7078

42.1

122

254

15

1.104

42.2

0.605

176

182

185

1.213

151

1.8870

42.1

123

246

1737

1.524

635

1.3362

38.8

0.372

177

182

15

1.068

42.1
39.2

124

246

1515

1.491

561

1.3907

38.8

0.384

178

255

1242

1.553

565

1.1224

125

246

1315

1.463

515

1.4422

38.8

0.403

179

255

1015

1.527

512

1.8103

39.2

126

246

1115

1.436

468

1.4985

38.8

0.422

180

255

815

1.501

462

1.9093

39.2

127

246

915

1.410

414

1.5786

38.8

0.444

181

255

615

1.473

410

2.0323

39.2

128

246

715

1.383

360

1.6812

38.8

0.470

182

255

415

1.441

351

2.2019

39.2

129

246

515

1.353

302

1.8202

38.8

0.503

183

255

245

1.405

294

2.3952

39.2

130

246

315

1.319

240

2.01

38.8

0.543

184

255

160

1.378

257

2.5310

39.2

131

246

172

1.280

181

2.2408

38.8

0.582

185

255

15

1.110

39.2

132

246

100

1.247

141

2.4280

38.8

133

246

15

1.094

38.8

134

255

1455

1.503

586

1.4828

38.1

135

255

1215

1.467

517

1.5577

38.1

136

255

1015

1.436

458

1.6374

38.1

137

255

815

1.407

403

1.7274

38.1

138

255

615

1.373

342

1.8473

38.1

139

255

415

1.335

280

1.997 1

38.1

140

255

245

1.286

204

2.2229

38.1

141

255

145

1.249

156

2.4090

38.1

142

255

15

1.098

38.1

143

248

1482

1.511

582

1.4361

38.1

0.291

144

248

1265

1.476

519

1.5069

38.1

0.296

145

248

1065

1.449

466

1.5795

38.1

0.304

146

248

865

1.421

413

1.6682

38.1

0.317

147

248

665

1.392

360

1.7782

38.1

0.343

148

248

465

1.358

302

1.9308

38.1

0.366

149

248

265

1.312

230

2.1583

38.1

0.423

150

248

155

1.276

180

2.3420

38.1

0.479

Table 3

151

248

15

1.094

38.1

0.814

Data ranges of Pakistani crude oils

152

252

1460

1.821

936

1.6433

43.8

0.240

153

252

1265

1.777

1.7173

Parameter

850

43.8

0.248

154

252

1065

1.733

768

1.8015

43.8

0.255

155

252

865

1.685

683

1.9050

43.8

0.264

156

252

665

1.637

601

2.0267

43.8

0.272

157

252

465

1.584

517

2.1753

43.8

0.283

158

252

265

1.514

416

2.3873

43.8

0.298

159

252

170

1.459

341

2.5466

43.8

0.307

160

252

115

1.404

278

2.6880

43.8

0.313

161

252

15

1.106

43.8

0.581

data set consists of 166 data points for evaluating

bubblepoint
pressure and oil FVF at bubblepoint
pressure correlations. These data points are the results of standard differential
liberation tests conducted on bottomhole
fluid samples collected directly form oilfields. Table 2 shows the differential
data set in detail, whereas Table 3 depicts the composition and statistical analysis of the Pakistani crude
data. The number of data points used for oil compressibility,
two-phase FVF, oil viscosity (above,
and at bubblepoint pressure), and the dead oil viscos-

FVF@P,

Range

Parameter

1.20-2.916

Y0

19-4915

&b

R,

92-2496

PO

Range
0.753-0.882
0.25-0.38
0.206-0.548

API

29.0-56.5

C0

lo-5-10m4
1115-6029

2
N, (mole%)

0.23-1.4
0.51-1.54

182-296

CT (mole%)

30.99-55.76

P > P,
T
7,

0.825-3.445

0.581-1.589

280

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. Al-Marhoun/Journal

of Petroleum Science and Engineering

ered an effective
of the correlation
The following
mine the accuracy

ity correlations are 246, 352, 104, 16 and 16, respectively.

In general, this data set covers a wide range of
bubblepoint pressure, oil FVF, solution gas/oil ratio,
and gas relative density values; whereas the temperature and oil gravity belong to relatively higher values
attributed to regional trends prevailing in Pakistani
crude oils. This comprehensive
data bank offers a
good opportunity for further studies in this area.

tool for determining the suitability

for heavy, medium, or light oil.
statistical means are used to deterof correlations to be evaluated.

4.1. Average percent

relatiue error (Er)

The average percent relative error is an identification of relative deviation of the predicted value from
the experimental value in percent and is defined by:
E, =

4. Evaluation

16 (1996) 275-290

procedure

-!-5
Izd

(1)

Ei

i=l

where

Statistical and graphical error analyses are the

criteria adopted for the evaluation
in this study.
Existing
PVT correlations
are applied to the acquired data set and a comprehensive error analysis is
performed based on a comparison of the predicted
value with the original experimental
value. For an
in-depth analysis of the accuracy of the correlations
tested, error analysis based on different ranges of oil
API gravity is also carried out graphically. An error
analysis based on oil API gravity ranges is consid-

x 100

E, =

(i=1,2,

4.2. Average

absolute percent

relative error (Ea)

The average absolute percent relative error indicates the relative absolute deviation of the predicted

60.00

5
40.00

2
a

4
a

30.00

P
0
3b

20.00

k
10.00
+

0.00

API434
(16)

34cAP1~38
(17)

Al-Marhoun

66

38cAPk42
68)

API>42
(35)

Ranges of oil API gravity

(with corresponding data points)
Fig. 2. Statistical

accuracy

of bubblepoint

(2)

The lower the value the more equally distributed

is the error between positive and negative values.

70.00

F
m

. . . . n)

pressure

correlation

grouped

by oil API gravity.

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 16 (1996) 275-290
Table 4
Statistical

accuracy

Correlation
Standing (1947)
Lasater (1958)
Vazquez and
Beggs (1980)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Marhoun
(1988)

of bubblepoint

cent relative errors. The minimum and maximum

values are determined to show the range of error for
each correlation and are expressed as:

pressure correlations

E,
-43.5
-20.61
-52.07

49.18
31.31
55.31

0.43
0.04
0.16

391.05
273.65
403.99

68.37
49.36
70.30

-24.82
27.97

32.08
31.50

0.04
0.30

247.00
81.96

45.64
20.24

i=

(4)

I Ej I

Emin = $n
1

and

(5)

E max = r&xlEil
i=

value from the experimental

values in percent. A
lower value implies a better correlation. It is expressed as:

'd

(s)

The standard deviation is a measure of dispersion

of predicted errors by a correlation, and it is expressed as:

i=l

absolute percent

4.4. Standard deviation

(3)

4.3. Minimum and maximum

tive errors (Emi, and E,,,,,

rela-

(6)

S=

Both the minimum and maximum values are determined by analyzing the calculated absolute per-

A lower value implies a smaller degree of scatter

around the average calculated errors.

15.00

+
+

10.00

Standmg

Vaz RBegg

++-

N-Marhoun 88

Al-Marhoun 92

5.00

0.00

I
API<34
(16)

I
34<APk38
(17)

I
38cAPk42
(98)

I
API>42
(35)

Ranges of API gravity

(with corresponding
data points)

Fig. 3. Statistical

accuracy

281

of oil FVF at bubblepoint

pressure correlation

grouped by oil API gravity.

282

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. Al-Marhoun/Journal

of Petroleum Science and Engineering

5. Results and comparison

Table 5
Statistical

accuracy

Correlation

16 (19961275-290

of oil FVF at bubblepoint

pressure correlation

E,

E,

E mln

Em

1.39
12.84

2.31
12.84

0.05
5.99

7.96
24.83

2.36
4.37

3.65
2.27
0.76

3.88
2.34
1.23

0.08
0.01
0.01

12.78
13.0
9.09

2.23
2.55
1.54

Average absolute relative error is an important

indicator of the accuracy of an empirical model. It is
used here as a comparative criterion for testing the
accuracy of existing correlations. After applying the
existing correlations to the acquired data set, results
in the form of average absolute relative error, average percent relative error, minimum and maximum
absolute percent relative error, and standard deviation are summarized in Tables 4-10. Another effective comparison of correlations is performed through
graphical representation of errors as a function of oil
API gravity ranges. Figs. 2-8 represent correlation
errors for four oil API gravity ranges.

gravity; whereas the maximum error is obtained for a

higher gravity range of 42 oil API gravity and above
as depicted by Fig. 2.

5. I. Bubblepoint

5.2. Oil FVF at bubblepoint

pressure

Standing ( 1947)
Vazquez and
Beggs (1980)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Marhoun (1988)
Al-Marhoun (1992)

correlations

3
m
w
b
5
al
.z
g
P
al
4
E
z
k%
P
F
Q

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

Standmg

Glaso

-+-

Al-Marhoun

VW

API434
(40)

34<AP1<38
(29)

38<AP1<42
(200)

API>42
(83)

Ranges of oil API gravity

(with corresponding
data points)

Fig. 4. Statistical

accuracy

of two-phase

correlations

Al-Marhoun (1992) exhibited a significantly uniform error for all oil API gravity ranges as shown in
Fig. 3. Corresponding to the least error obtained for
this correlation, a least value of standard deviation is

Lasater (1958) together with Al-Marhoun (1988)

showed least errors for the data used as shown in
Table 4. The least error of all the tested correlations
is obtained for a medium range of 34-38 oil API

25.00

pressure

FVF correlation

grouped by oil API gravity.

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

Table 6
Statistical

accuracy

Correlation
Standing (1947)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Marhoun

of two-phase

Table 7
Statistical
tions

FVF correlations

E,

E,

E m,n

E,,x

-5.42
- 2.94
22.07

8.23
6.37
22.07

0.06
0.05
3.94

26.59
19.48
39.36

8.50
7.46
7.01

Correlation
Calhoun ( 1947)
Vazquez and
Beggs (1980)
Trube (1957)

(1988, 1992)

shown in Table 5. This is also supported by Petrosky

and Farshad (1993) when they showed that AlMarhoun (1988) obtained better accuracy for Gulf of
Mexico data.
5.3. Two-phase

FVF correlations

Glaso (1980) obtained reasonable result with a

least error as shown in Table 6. However, this
correlation overestimates
the predicted value compared to the experimental
value. Fig. 4 shows the
same trend of errors for Standing (1947) and Glaso
(1980) for all oil API gravity ranges.

45.00

40.00

35.00

30.00

25.00

D
8

20.00

E
k

15.00

10.00

g
m
Y
b
5
LZ
Z
1
e!
4a,

accuracy

of undersaturated

oil compressibility

11.01
-8.31

15.95
31.37

0.22
0.38

71.26
158.93

18.98
37.62

- 19.31

41.0

0.19

180.88

46.67

5.4. Undersaturated

oil compressibility

accuracy

34cAPlc38
38<AP1<42
(139)
(22)
Ranges of oil API gravity

of undersaturated

correlations

Calhoun (1947) showed a good harmony with the

data used, but this correlation tends to underestimate
the predicted compressibility value as shown in Table
7. This correlation gives least error for the medium
oil API gravity range of 34-38, as shown in Fig. 5.
This result is also favored by Sutton and Farshad
(1990) through their research conducted on Gulf of
Mexico data.

API>42
(60)

(with corresponding data points)

Fig. 5. Statistical

correla-

E,

API<34
(25)

283

16 (1996) 275-290

oil compressibility

correlation

grouped by oil API gravity

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. Al-Marhoun/Joumal

284
Table 8
Statistical

accuracy

of undersaturated

Correlation
Beal ( 1946)
Vaaquez and
Beggs (1980)
Khan et al. (1987)
Labedi (1992)

oil viscosity

of Petroleum Science and Engineering

Table 9
Statistical

correlation

of gas saturated

Correlation

E,

E,

Em,,

Em

- 2.94
- 14.01

4.52
14.15

0.03
0.08

14.89
46.39

4.71
12.54

Beggs and
Robinson (1975)
Chew and

-7.61
-5.82

7.91
7.45

0.10
0.02

26.59
47.56

6.64
8.98

Connally (1959)
Khan et al. (I 987)
Labedi (1992)

5.5. Undersaturated

oil viscosity

correlation

E,

E.,

Em

-24.43

26.71

2.56

Em
57.16

21.70

-3.41

12.21

1.27

25.31

13.62

- 18.60
-29.65

29.92
37.53

1.19
I .56

64.80
268.98

30.81
70.04

oil viscosity correlations

Beal (1946) showed better results than the other

correlations tested. Table 8 shows a least standard
deviation value for this correlation. This correlation
is best suited to a low oil API gravity as shown in
Fig. 6. Prediction by Labedi (1992) is also reasonable for a high oil API gravity range. All of the
correlations unanimously overestimated the viscosity
values.
5.6. Gus-saturated

accuracy

16 (1996) 275-290

oil ciscosiv

corresponding least scatter. This correlation is equally

good for all oil API gravity ranges as shown in Fig.
7. With the exception of Labedi (1992) all correlations showed least error for high oil API gravity
ranges but overestimated the viscosity values.
5.7. Dead oil viscosity correlations

correlations

The Glaso (1980) correlation is found relatively

better for gravity higher than 34 oil API gravity as
shown in Fig. 8. All of the correlations obtained

Chew and Connally (1959) is the best among

others as shown in Table 9 with a least error and a

Khan eta1

5a,

12 00

5
0
a,
$b

8.00

4 00

API<34
(13)

34cAPlc38
(14)

38<AP1<42
(57)

API>42
(20)

Ranges of oil API gravity

(with corresponding
data points)

Fig. 6. Statistical

accuracy

of undersaturated

oil viscosity correlation

grouped by oil API gravity

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

Table 10
Statistical accuracy
Correlation
Beal (1946)
Beggs and
Robinson (1975)
Glaso (1980)
Ng and
Egbogah ( 1983)
Labedi ( 1992)

of dead oil viscosity

E,

Em,,

23.15
- 23.58

27.76
25.08

10.73
1.59

57.24
61.28

19.59
17.42

- 1.39
-56.45

14.36
56.45

0.24
26.35

56.03
122.49

20.47
29.02

-85.40

85.40

22.35

268.55

71.55

Em

large errors for low oil API gravity. Except Beal

( 1946) all of the correlations overestimated dead oil
viscosity values as shown in Table 10.

6. Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn by this
evaluation study.
(1) Although high errors are generally obtained
for the prediction of bubblepoint pressure, the error

g
m
%
b6
al
.z
m
-F
a,
s
5
B

175.00

150.00

125.00

100.00

75.00

50.00

25.00

-.-

Beggs & RobInson

Chew & Connally

Khan et al

I-

8
k;

0.00

API<34
(2)

34<APl<38
(2)

38<AP1<42
(9)

API>42
(3)

Ranges of oil API gravity

(with corresponding data points)

Fig. 7. Statistical

accuracy

of gas-saturated

285

obtained was extremely

high in this case. This
stresses the need of a new bubblepoint
pressure
correlation representing the chemical and geological
difference of this region. Both Lasater (1958) and
Al-Marhoun (1988) showed nearly equal errors but
the latter exhibited a least standard deviation. Any
one of these correlations may be used for Pakistani
crude oils.
(2) For oil FVF correlations at bubblepoint pressure, all of the selected correlations showed a good
degree of harmony towards the data used. All of the
correlations underestimated FVF values, i.e. the predicted value is less than the actual experimental
value. Due to its least error and least standard deviation Al-Marhoun (1992) correlation is recommended
for this type of PVT data. This correlation is also
favored as it covers the same range of oil FVF,
bubblepoint pressure, and temperature found in the
Pakistani crude oil data.
(3) For two-phase FVF, all of the correlations are
best applicable to the medium range of oil API
gravity. Glaso (1980) is recommended for crude oil
having this type of characteristics.

correlations

E,

16 (1996) 275-290

oil viscosity correlation

grouped by oil API gravity.

286

M.A. Mahmmd,

M.A. Al-Murhoun

/.loumal

of Petroleum

Science and Engineering

16 (1996) 275-290

250.00

t-

E
a,
a,

.z

150.00 -

P
al

Glaso

Ng & Egbogah

5
4

100.00

50.00

%
c
$

0.00
API<34

34<AP1<38

(2)

(2)

38<AP1<42
(9)

API>42
(3)

Ranges of oil API gravity

(with corresponding
data points)

Fig. 8. Statistical

accuracy

of dead oil viscosity correlatiun

(4) Most of the compressibility

correlations are
good for medium and low oil API gravity ranges and
showed large errors towards light oils. The evaluation process shows that Calhoun (1947) is a better
choice than the other correlations.
(5) Most of the correlations for viscosity above
bubblepoint
pressure are good for heavy oils and
exhibit large error for medium ranges of oil API
gravity. Beal (1946) is recommended
for the oil
samples used, as it gives the least error and least
scatter. This correlation is also suitable due to its
comparable range of pressure above bubblepoint with
the data used.
(6) Most of the viscosity correlations at bubblepoint pressure performed better for heavy oils. Chew
and Connally (1959) is recommended the best correlation as it gives least error for all oil API ranges.
(7) All of the dead oil viscosity correlations are
found relatively more accurate for medium to high
oil API gravity ranges. Based on a least error analysis, Glaso (1980) is recommended
for application.
This correlation is suitable also as its temperature

grouped by oil API gravity.

range matches with that of the samples used for this

study.
(8) In conjunction with the standard error analysis, an error analysis based on oil API gravity ranges
proved to be an effective tool for determining the
suitability of the correlation for heavy, medium, or
light oil. Thus, this type of analysis is strongly
recommended
for all evaluation studies of this nature.

7. Notation

*lh =
B, =
C0 =
E;, =
Ei =
E, =

oil FVF
at bubblepoint
pressure,
RB/STB (m3/m3>
two-phase FVF below bubblepoint pressure, RB/STB (m3/m3>
undersaturated oil compressibility,
psi
(kPa- >
average absolute percent relative error
percent relative error
average percent relative error

M.A. Mahmood, MA. Al-Marhoun/Journal

log =
Ifp:

log10
number of data points
pressure, psi &Pa)
bubblepoint pressure, psi &Pa)
solution
gas/oil
ratio,
SCF/STB
(m3/m3>
standard deviation
temperature, F (K)
variable representing a PVT parameter
stock tank oil gravity, API
gas relative density (air = 1)
oil relative density (water = 1)
bubble point oil relative density (water
= 1)
dead oil viscosity, CP
gas-saturated oil viscosity, CP
undersaturated oil viscosity, CP

P, =
R, =
S=
T=
x=
YAPI

Yg =
%

%b

pod

&b

of Fetroleum Science and Engineering

CL, =

I6 (1996) 275-290

287

the data for this research. We are also grateful to the

Department of Petroleum Engineering at King Fahd
University
of Petroleum
and Minerals,
Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia, for its excellent research and computing facilities, made available for this study.

Appendix A. Existing PVT correlations

The PVT correlations
given below.
A.1. Bubblepoint
A.l.l.

evaluated

pressure

in this study are

correlations

Standing (1947)

(A-1)

P, = 18( Rs/y,)0~8310y~
where

Subscripts:

Y, = 0.00091T - 0.0125yAp,

c=
critical
pr =
pseudoreduced
est =
estimated
from the
correlation
exp =
experimental
value

A.1.2. Lasater (1958) I

Yp= (R,,379.3),[(

RJ379.3)

+ (35Oy,,M,)]
(A-2a)

(A-2b)

[(Pt-)(Tf460)]/y,

A.1.3. Vazquez and Beggs (1980)

p, = {(~,Rs~y,)~~l~c~~~PI/~~+~~~~l}1C2

8. SI metric conversion

(A-3)

for yAp, I 30:

factors

C, = 27.64
API
bbl
CP
F
psi
R
scf/bbl

141.5/(131.5
+ API)
bbl X1.589837.
10-l
CP x 1.0. 1o-3 a
(F - 32)/1.8
psi X 6.894757
R/1.8
scf/bbl X 1.801175 . 10-l

a Conversion

=
=
=
=

g/cm3
m3
Pa s
C
= kPa
=K
= std m3/m3

c, = 1.0937
C, = 11.172
for y > 30:
C, = 56.06
c, = 1.187
c, = 10.393

is exact.
A.1.4. Glaso (1980)

Acknowledgements
We thank the management of Oil and Gas Development Corporation (OGDC, Pakistan) for providing

P,=

10.I 7669t

1.7447 log A$-0.3021X(log

Refer to the figures presented

Np$
(A-4)

in the original

work.

288

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. Al-Marhoun/

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

where
Np,

16 (19961 275-290

where
(~,/yg)"~~'670.17'

yO

989

M = R$ $6 ~7
with

A. I .5. Al-Marhoun

(I 988)
3

P, = 5.38088 x IO--R;
x

cT+

b, =0.4970

0 715082

-1.X77840

y8

3.143700
x

b, = 0.862963

x lo-

b, = 0.182594

x lop

b, = 0.318099

x 1O-5

460~l.326570
(A-5)

A.2. Oil FVF at bubblepoint

pressure

b, = 0.74239
A.2.1. Standing (1947)

b, = 0.323294

B,, = 0.9759

b, = - 1.20204

+ 12 x lo-{

R,(yg,y,)05

+ I .25T)
A.2.5. Al-Marhoun

(A-6)

(1992)

B,, = 1 +a, Rs + eq~g/XJ

A.2.2. Vazquez and Beggs (1980)

+a3&(T-60)(1

B, = 1 +

+ a4(T-

Cl&

w--60)(Th/Y..)

WdT-

(A-7)

W(YA,,/Y,)

- xy,)

60)

(A-10)

where
a, = 0.177342

X 1O-

C, = 4.677 x IO-

az = 0.220163

IO-

c, = 1.751 x 10-j

a3 = 4.292580

10ph

C, = - 1.8106 x 10-g

a4 = 0.528707

lo-

for ys

fory,,,

30:

> 30:
A.3. Two-phase

C, = 4.67 x lop4

FVF

A.3. I. Standing (1947)

c2 = 1.1 x 1o-5

B =

c, = 1.337 x lo-

10~5.262-474/(-

1?.22+logC,)

(A-l 1)

where
A.2.3. Glaso fI980)
B,,

1 +

C, = R,T sypo.3y~?

(C, = 2.9 X 10-.00027R~)

]~[-6.58511+2.913291o&N,-0.276X3(logN,)']

(A-8)

A.3.2. Glaso (1980)

B =

where

N, = R,( y,/y,)05h2

1o[X.l)135X 10m'+O

47257log

(A-12)

+ 0.968T
where

A.2.4. Al-Marhoun

f 1988)

B,, = b, + b,(T+460)

+ b,M+

G,+O.l735l(logG,)~]

b,M*

(A-9) ,

c = 2.9 x 10-O W027R.~

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. Al-Marhoun/

A.3.3. Al-Marhoun
B, = 0.314693

(1988)

x lo-Ft2

(A-13)

A.6

~0.644516
s

-1.079340

0.724874
%

(T

460)2oo6210

A.4. Undersaturated

oil uiscosi9

A.6.1. Chew and Connally (1959)

(Yo

2.18

a = 0.20 + 0.80 X 10~0~0008R~

b = 0.43 + 0.57 x 10-0.00072R~
(A-14)

10-4Yg %)/B,,

(A-21)

=4t%d)b

where

oil compressibility

A.4. I. Calhoun * (1947)

=

Gas-saturated

p-O.761910

p ob

-%b

289

x 10-4F,

where
F =

16 (1996) 275-290

where

+ 0.106253

+ 0.188830

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

A.6.2. Beggs and Robinson

(197.5)

A.4.2. Trube * (19.57)

TPr= ( T + 460) /T,

(A-15a)

Ppr = P/P,

(A15-b)

c, = $/PC

(A-l%)

&b

=a(

(A-22)

kd>

where

a = 10.715( R, + 100)-515
b = 5.44( R, + 150) -338

A.4.3. Vazquez and Beggs (1980)

c, = [ - 1433.0 + 5R, = 17.2T+ 12.61 yApI] /105P

AS.

Undersaturated

A.6.3. Labedi (1992)

118O.Oy,
(A-16)

~,b =

10[2.344-0.03542y,p,]p0.6447
od

/P:.426

(A-23)

A.6.4. Khan et al. (1987)

oil viscosiry

A.S.1. Beal (1946)

/%b

o.09fi/[3/&+?5(1

%,I

(A-24)

where
X (0.024p;f

+ 0.038pu,o;6)

(A-17)

A.5.2. Vazquez and Beggs (1980)

& =

k%b(

/b)

A.7. Dead oil uiscosity

(A-18)

where
m = 2.6P.87

0, = (T + 460),460

A.7.1. Beal (1946)

pod = [0.32 + (1.8 X 107)/y,4,:3]

1()[(-3.9x10-5)P-5.0]

x [360/(~+

A.5.3. Khan et al. (1987)

/.L~= pnb exp[9.6

kb

M[(

/b)

(A-19)

a =

1()~0.43+@.33/Y*,,)l

A.7.2. Beggs and Robinson

-

(A-25)

where

X 10-5( P - P,)]

A.5.4. Labedi (1992)

E.c,=

200)]

(A-20)

pod

=lox-1

(1975)
(A-26)

290

M.A. Mahmood, M.A. Al-Marhoun/

Journal

of Petroleum Science and Engineering 16 (1996) 275-290

where
x=

ye-1.163

X(Y=

loz,

Z = 3.0324 - O.O2023y,,,)

A.7.3. Glaso (1980)

/_huod
= (3.141 x 100)T-3.444
[IO 313(logT)-36

(log

A.7.4. Ng and Egbogah

log[log(

,uJ]

4471

YAPI >

(A-27)

(1983)

= 1.8653 - 0.025086yAp,
- 0.56441 log T

(A-28)

A.7.5. Labedi (1992)

E-L,d= 109.224/( y,4,:03~0 6739)

(A-29)

References
Al-Marhoun, M.A., 1988. PVT correlations for Middle East crude
oils. J. Pet. Technol., 40(5): 650-666.
Al-Marhoun, M.A., 1992. New correlations for formation volume
factors of oil and gas mixtures. .I. Can Pet. Technol., 31(3):
22-26.
Beal, C., 1946. The viscosity of air, water, natural gas, crude oil
and its associated gases at oil field temperature and pressures.
Trans. AIME (Am. Inst. Min. Metall.), 165: 94-112.

Beggs, H.D. and Robinson, J.R., 1975. Estimating the viscosity of

crude oil system. J. Pet. Technol., 9: 1140-l 149.
Calhoun, Jr., J.C., 1947. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK, p.35.
Chew, J. and Connally, Jr., C.A., 1959. A viscosity correlation for
gas-saturated crude oils. Trans. AIME (Am. Inst. Min. Metall.),
216: 23-25.
Glaso, O., 1980. Generalized pressure-volumeetemperature
correlations. J. Pet. Technol., 32(5): 7855795.
Khan, S.A., Al-Marhoun, M.A., Duffuaa, S.O. and Abu-Khamsin,
S.A., 1987. Viscosity correlations for Saudi Arabian crude
oils. Presented at the 5th Sot. Pet. Eng. Middle East Oil Show,
Bahrain, Mar. 7-10, 1987, Pap. SPE 15720.
Labedi, R., 1992. Improved correlations for predicting the viscosity of light crudes. J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 8: 221-234.
Lasater, J.A., 1958. Bubble point pressure correlation.
Trans.
AIME (Am. Inst. Min. Metall.), 213: 379-381.
Ng, J.T.H. and Egbogah, E.O., 1983. An improved temperatureviscosity correlation for a crude oil system. Presented at the
Pet. Sot., Can. Inst. Min. Metall., Annu. Tech. Meet., Banff,
Alta., May 10-13, 1983, Pap. CIM 83-34-32.
Petrosky, Jr., G.E. and Farshad, F.F., 1993. Pressure-volumetemperature correlation for the Gulf of Mexico. Presented at
68th Sot. Pet. Eng. Annu. Tech. Conf., Houston, TX, Oct.
3-6, 1993, Pap. SPE 26644.
Standing, M.B., 1947. A pressure-volume-temperature
correlation for mixtures of California oils and gases. In: Drilling and
Production Practice. Am. Pet. Inst., Tulsa, OK, pp. 275-287.
Sutton, R.P. and Farshad, F.F., 1990. Evaluation of empirically
derived PVT properties for Gulf of Mexico crude oils. Sot.
Pet. Eng. Reservoir Eng. (Feb.), pp. 79-86.
Trube, A.S.. 1957. Compressibility
of undersaturated hydrocarbon
reservoir fluids. Trans. AIME (Am. Inst. Min. Metall.), 210:
341-344.
Vazquer, M.E. and Beggs, H.D., 1980. Correlations
for fluid
physical property prediction. J. Pet. Technol., 32(6): 968-970.