Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Measured fluid properties from four reservoirs are used to
compare property prediction results using an equation of state
(EOS) method and different PVT correlations available in the
literature. These fluid properties include oil bubble point pressure, oil formation volume factor, solution gas-oil ratio, gas formation volume factor, and gas and oil viscosities. It is shown
that with properly characterized EOS analysis, even without the
use of regression, one can match all the measured property values better than by using correlations. It is noted that one correlation can generally predict one or more of the parameters better
than the other correlations. However, no one correlation can
match all measured data consistently.
Introduction
PVT properties such as oil bubble point pressure, oil formation
volume factor, solution gas-oil ratio, gas formation volume factor,
and gas and oil viscosities are required for reservoir studies.
However, they are not always available or only an incomplete
data set may be available. Hence, engineers have to use either an
equation of state (EOS) method or a set of correlations to complete the data set to conduct the particular study.
The literature has many comparative studies of equations of
state(1, 2) and many papers on correlations for calculating PVT
properties(3-7). In this paper we compare results from one EOS
analysis to a number of available correlations. The EOS used in
this study is the Peng-Robinson EOS (PREOS), from a commercially available PVT package. The PREOS originally contained
two parameters that represent the attractive pressure term and the
thermal repulsive term respectively. To improve the volumetric
phase behaviour prediction accuracy, a third parameter is usually
added (PRF shifting factor). The PREOS is a semi-empirical
equation, requiring some PVT property data to determine these
parameters before one can use it for property predictions.
PVT correlations are typically developed for fluid properties(37) in a geographic region, such as for California, Alaska, the Gulf
of Mexico, and the Middle East, by fitting available regional data.
The first set of correlations was derived by Standing(3) in 1942 for
California oils and gases. The basic assumption was that the bubble point pressure is a function of dissolved gas-oil ratio, gravity
of dissolved gas, density of stock-tank oil, and temperature. Later,
other correlations were obtained by regression to very similar
equations but using different data sets since the crudes from different reservoirs or regions have different properties. Therefore,
these correlations may not be applicable to oils other than those
used in deriving the regression. Furthermore, no one correlation
44
Summary of Correlations
The correlation equations used in this study are listed in Table
1 and the authors names, together with the corresponding literature citations, are given in the references. They are grouped into
two sets, one for gas phase(3, 9-14) and one for oil phase(3-7, 15-26)
properties. The first two columns of Table 1, the Pb and Bob at Pb,
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology
Standing
Wichart & Aziz
Dranchuk & Abou-Kassem
Lee et al.
Al-Marhoun
Glaso
Dokla & Osman
Labedi
Lasater
Vasquez & Beggs
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
Majeed & Salman
Beal
Beggs & Robinson
Chew & Connally
Pb
Basic
Bob
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rs
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N1
88
14
14
70
0.865
39
69
31
655
62
0.906
38.2
72
38
689
295
0.841
40
133
49
2,034
215
0.832
38.9
133
70
3,041
19
1.124
33.8
51
26
414
15
0.851
32.1
63
38
414
401
1.185
47.9
146
104
4,516
438
0.998
53.4
154
66
4,240
9,460
1.247
0.881
7,943
1.211
1.02
35,198
1.9573
0.32
29,261
1.6301
0.37
2,599
1.093
3.04
3,585
1.088
3.69
27,579
2.542
0.104
28,655
2.903
0.101
Additional Information
Bubble point pressure (kPa)
Oil FVF at Pb (m3/sm3)
Oil viscosity at Pb (cp)
are routinely used in reservoir studies. Both Pb and Bob are also
the basic fluid properties and the starting point of calculation for
both EOS and correlation predictions.
these oil phase properties. In the literature, most correlations provide the Pb, Bob, Bo, and Rs parameters as a group and the oil viscosity is treated separately.
The basic form of different correlations for oil phase properties
are derived from Standings(3) initial equation as follows:
Pb = f Rs , g , o , TR
) .........................................................................(2)
Therefore, the required data for input to all correlations are Rs,
g, o, and TR and a specified range of pressure. The first three
parameters, Rs, g, and o, are referred to either separator or stock
tank conditions for all correlations.
N1
88
14
14
62
7,943
8,368
7,964
9,055
9,408
9,091
7,804
8,877
8,470
295
35,198
35,250
37,594
36,362
27,078
31,438
32,289
40,396
43,686
215
29,261
29,396
30,221
30,084
21,645
29,098
29,272
32,278
34,279
19
2,599
2,430
2,544
2,252
3,462
2,978
2,404
2,987
2,743
15
3,585
3,778
2,943
2,680
3,759
4,209
2,770
3,441
3,035
401
27,579
20,706
30,218
30,470
22,655
24,050
24,064
32,467
36,581
438
28,655
30,080
35,299
35,523
29,850
27,445
28,818
38,364
41,739
N1
88
14
14
1.247
1.242
1.229
1.206
1.212
1.331
1.256
1.236
1.211
1.229
1.215
1.191
1.202
1.256
1.236
1.223
1.957
1.932
2.079
1.999
2.106
2.079
2.309
1.988
1.630
1.711
1.781
1.732
1.825
1.869
1.771
1.754
1.093
1.080
1.079
1.062
1.029
1.115
1.092
1.086
1.088
1.079
1.074
1.055
1.044
1.094
1.094
1.085
2.542
2.508
2.816
2.588
2.930
2.550
2.904
2.572
2.903
2.746
3.033
2.735
3.210
2.822
3.400
2.866
1.199
1.295
1.183
1.185
1.922
1.957
1.524
1.767
1.083
1.079
1.077
1.071
2.317
2.532
2.587
3.550
1
N1
(sm3/sm3)
Measured GOR
70
Measured Value
9,460
1. Al-Marhoun correlation
1.76
2. Standing Correlation
-7.17
3. Glaso Correlation
7.67
4. Dokla & Osman correlation
13.23
5. Labedi correlation
-6.51
6. Lasater correlation
-7.66
7. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
3.18
8. Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
2.07
correlation
Acceptable (within 10%)
All but 4
Best match
1
July 2000, Volume 39, No. 7
88
14
14
62
7,943
5.36
0.27
14.01
18.44
14.46
-1.75
11.77
6.64
295
35,198
0.15
6.81
3.31
-23.07
-10.68
-8.26
14.77
24.12
215
29,261
0.46
3.28
2.81
-26.03
-0.56
0.04
10.31
17.15
19
2,599
-6.50
-2.12
-13.36
33.21
14.58
-7.50
14.92
5.51
15
3,585
5.38
-17.91
-25.24
4.84
17.39
-22.75
-4.03
-15.34
401
27,579
-24.92
9.57
10.48
-17.85
-12.80
-12.75
17.72
32.64
438
28,655
4.97
23.19
23.97
4.17
-4.22
0.57
33.88
45.66
1, 2,6,8
2
1,4,7
7
2
2
1, 4,5,6
6
1,2,6,8
2
1, 2, 3, 6 1,2,3,5,6
1
6
47
Measured Value
1. Al-Marhoun correlation
2. Standing correlation
3. Glaso correlation
4. Dokla & Osman correlation
5. Labedi correlation
6. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
7. Kartoatmodj & Schmidt
correlation
8. Majeed & Salman correlation
9. EOS
Acceptable (within 10%)
Best match
N1
88
14
14
1.247
-0.41
-1.43
-3.27
-2.78
6.72
0.75
-0.86
1.211
1.49
0.34
-1.61
-0.72
3.70
2.03
0.99
1.957
-1.30
6.23
2.11
7.62
6.19
17.98
1.58
1.630
4.96
9.28
6.27
11.94
14.67
8.64
7.60
1.093
-1.18
-1.28
-2.81
-5.88
2.02
-0.08
-0.68
1.088
-0.79
-1.27
-3.03
-4.09
0.57
0.52
-0.25
2.542
-1.33
10.78
1.82
15.25
0.31
14.22
1.18
2.903
-5.39
4.48
-5.77
10.57
-2.80
17.12
-1.26
-3.85
3.85
all
1
-2.31
-2.15
all
2
-1.82
-0.02
all but 6
9
-0.95
-1.28
all
6
-1.03
-1.56
all
7
-6.52
8.40
all but 4,5
1
-8.84
-10.90
-0.39
22.29
all but 2,4,6 1,2,3,5,7
5
7
results with the measured values for the same four reservoirs. The
results show that Rs values at or above Pb dominate the trend
below Pb. That is, if one can match Rs values at or above Pb then
one can match the Rs values below Pb. Hence only the Rs values at
or above Pb are summarized in Table 7 and then the calculated per
cent errors are tabulated in Table 8. From Table 8, the following
observations are made:
1. The error ranges from 0.17 to 40%. The worst match is for
Reservoirs 3 and 4. Reservoir 3 is a low Rs fluid; the measured values ranged from 15 to 19 sm3/sm3. Reservoir 4 had
the measurement problem and thus comparison is not valid.
2. The EOS is not within acceptable range for two wells, well
#2 of Reservoir 3 and well #14 of Reservoir 4.
3. Labedis correlation predicts the Rs values within acceptable
range for all reservoir fluids (i.e., the error ranged from 0.17
to 6.52%). But, because Labedis correlation uses separator
properties, the Rs values must be interpolated between separator and stock tank conditions(28) (i.e., Rs = 0 at stock tank
conditions).
4. Standings correlation also predicts Rs very well. It only
failed for the last three wells and two of these were from
(sm3/sm3)
Measured GOR
1. Lasater correlation
2. Standing correlation
3. Glaso correlation
4. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
5. Labedi correlation
6. Kartoatmodj & Schmidt
correlation
7. EOS
N1
88
14
14
70
60
75
63
66
69
70
62
49
61
54
54
62
57
295
356
273
282
251
296
290
215
230
206
207
191
215
180
19
13
20
22
16
20
18
15
12
19
20
16
16
18
401
528
353
343
324
394
289
438
460
363
344
330
467
309
67
57
274
201
15
14
419
381
1
N1
1. Lasater correlation
-14.09
2. Standing correlation
7.23
3. Glaso correlation
-9.08
4. Vasquez & Beggs correlation -5.37
5. Labedi correlation
-1.14
6. Kartoatmodj & Schmidt
0.49
correlation
7. EOS
-3.57
Acceptable (within 10%)
All but 1
Best match
6
48
88
14
14
-19.74
-0.33
-12.49
-12.37
0.74
-6.79
20.67
-7.44
-4.46
-14.93
0.17
-1.81
7.19
-3.80
-3.74
-11.00
0.24
-15.89
-33.56
2.44
12.91
-15.21
2.29
-5.70
-19.14
25.29
28.92
5.00
2.51
19.98
31.78
-12.01
-14.34
-19.11
-1.66
-27.91
5.05
-17.15
-21.52
-24.76
6.52
-29.50
-6.39
1,2,3,5,7
2
-23.15
2, 5, 6
2
-9.30
4,5,7
5
4.53
5,7
5
-13.00
5
5
-6.94
2,5,6,7
2
-7.12
2,3,5,6,7
5
Bo Values Below Pb
The results of Bo values below Pb are more complicated, as
shown in Figure 4. In this case, Bob is not the dominant factor as
in the Rs case. The results presented in Figure 4 show the following features:
1. The EOS consistently predicts the trend and values very well
compared to the measured values for all reservoirs.
2. The Glaso correlation calculated Bo values below Pb are very
scattered and inconsistent. That is, the trend varies from one
reservoir to another.
3. For Reservoir 1, the results from three correlations, AlMarhoun, Glaso, and Labedi, show that the B o values
increase as pressure decreases below Pb. A similar trend was
observed for some wells of Reservoirs 2 and 3 using the
Glaso and Al-Marhoun correlations.
50
13.
14.
15.
16.
Acknowledgement
17.
18.
NOMENCLATURE
19.
B
C
T
P
yi
xi
zi
Vf
Z
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Subscripts
b
c
d
g
i
o
r
R
pc
pr
p
sc
sep
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
bubble point
critical properties
dead oil
gas phase
composition of component
oil phase
reservoir conditions
absolute temperature
pseudo-critical
pseudo-reduced
separator conditions
standard conditions
separator conditions
REFERENCES
1. PERSCHKE, D.R., CHANG, Y., POPE, G.A., and SEPEHRNOORI,
K., Comparison of Phase Behaviour Algorithms for an Equation of
State Compositional Simulator; SPE 19443, 1989.
2. AHMED, T.H., Comparative Study of Eight Equations of State for
Predicting Hydrocarbon Volumetric Phase Behaviour; SPE
Reservoir Engineering, February 1988.
3. STANDING, M.B., A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for
Mixtures of California Oils and Gases; API, 1942.
4. OSTERMANN, R.D., EHLIG-ECONOMIDES, C.A., and
OWOLABI, O.O., Correlations for the Reservoir Fluid Properties of
Alaskan Crudes; SPE 11703, 1983.
5. SUTTON, R.P. and FARSHAD, F., Evaluation of Empirically
Derived PVT Properties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils; SPE
Reservoir Engineering, February 1990.
6. LABEDI, R., Use of Production Data to Estimate the Saturation
Pressure, Solution GOR, and Chemical Composition of Reservoir
Fluids; SPE 21164, 1990.
7. AL-MARHOUN, M.A., PVT Correlations for Middle East Crude
Oils; Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988.
8. WU, R.S. and FISH, R.M., C7+ Characterization for Fluid Properties
Predictions; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, July
August, 1988.
9. STANDING, K.B. and KATZ, D.L., Density of Natural Gas; Trans.
AIME, 140, 1942.
10. SUTTON, R.P., Compressibility Factors for High Molecular Weight
Reservoir Gas; SPE 14265, 1985.
11. DRANCHUK, P.M. and ABOU-KASSEM, J.H., Calculation of Z
Factors for Natural Gases Using Equations of State; Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, July September 1975.
12. WICHERT, E. and AZIZ, K., Compressibility Factor of Sour
July 2000, Volume 39, No. 7
26.
27.
28.
Authors Biographies
Ray Wu is currently a senior engineer with
Teknica Overseas Ltd. Before joining
Teknica, he was involved in oil recovery
research, both conventional and thermal,
with a major oil company. He received an
M.A.Sc. in 1972 from the University of
Windsor, Ontario and a Ph.D. in 1976 from
the University of Alberta, both in mechanical engineering. Dr. Wu is a member of
APEGGA, the Petroleum Society, and the
SPE.
Lothar Rosenegger is currently engineering manager with Teknica Overseas Ltd.
and has 26 years of diverse petroleum engineering experience, both domestic and
international. He received B.Eng. and
M.Eng. degrees in mechanical engineering
from McGill University in 1971 and 1973
and an MBA from University of Calgary in
1980. Mr. Rosenegger is a member of
APEGGA, the Petroleum Society, and the
SPE.
51