This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Submitted to Jose Alvarez

Group Members:

Samaneh Sadeghi Richard Ugwu Nyamgerel Burenmend Niaz Hussain

SUMMARY OF THE WORKFLOW The objective for our project is to select different hydrocarbon properties for the correlations that have already been performed, select the datasets for heavy oil/bitumen and use the dataset for these properties to check the efficiency, applicability, reliability and drawbacks for different correlations. Search engine “ONE PETRO” from the library database of UAlberta was utilized to find the correlations. All the publications used in the study are from Society of Petroleum Engineers publications which includes both modern and old work. Key words used to access different papers of our interest are PVT Analysis, Viscosity Correlations, Formation Volume Factor Correlations, Bubble Point Pressure Correlations, Standing’s Correlations and heavy oil, bitumen correlations. After initially scrutinizing papers, checking the available data, quality of papers and discussion in group we decided to focus on four different parameters from hydrocarbon properties. Every property has been assessed by different correlations. The properties that our project focuses on are. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) PREDICTION OF HEAVY OIL VISCOSITY (Samaneh Sadeghi) CORRELATION OF VISCOSITY AND SOLUTION GOR FOR GAS-FREE ATHABASCA BITUMEN (Richard Ugwu) FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR (Nyamgerel burenmend) BUBBLE POINT PRESSURE CORREALTION(Niaz Hussain)

Datasets from different publications have been utilized to check the applicability and reliability of the correlations that we choose to work on. Comparisons of these correlations have been performed and mean values of different types of errors have been calculated to support the results. Graphs have also been sketched to get firsthand quick information about the results as well.

PREDICTION OF HEAVY OIL VISCOSITY Abstract The evaluation of viscosity of dead oil is an important step in the design of various operations in oilfield and refineries. Correlations can be used to estimate fluid viscosity and can provide a useful method to provide the reservoir engineer with preliminary values for reservoir calculations. Trevor Bennison in 1998 developed a new correlation to identify an alternative correlation of viscosity. There are number of correlations for the estimation of fluid viscosity based on measured fluid properties. These correlations can be divided into three categories: dead oil viscosity (μod), bubble-point viscosity (μob) and undersaturated oil viscosity (μo). Introduction In overall, the correlations use oil density and temperature to determine μod. Beal’s correlation was developed in 1946 using data obtained from California crude oil [1, 2]. It is still widely used throughout the oil industry and is considered to be fairly accurate. Beggs and Robinson in 1975 Glasø in1980 [3]; Labedi in 1992 [4]; Kartoamodjo & Schmidt in 1994 [5]; and Petrosky & Farshad in 1995 [6] developed their correlations for different types of crude oils. Egbogah-Jacks proposed different correlations with respect to the type of oil (Extra heavy, heavy oil) and without pour point [7, 8]. Several oil companies have identified heavy oil reservoirs in the North Sea and obtained measured viscosity data for them. Viscosity data has been provided through the offices of the DTI for oils from four reservoirs identified as Oil 1, Oil 2, Oil 3 and Oil 4. Details of these data are listed in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of Data Provided.

The API gravity of the dead oil has been assumed to remain near constant for the temperatures studied. In this work dead oil viscosities have been predicted using different forms of correlations. Mean absolute difference (MAD) is used to compare and evaluate the prediction ability of correlations, which is defined as below:

√ ∑ √ ∑ ( ∑ ) ( ∑ ( ) ) ∑ ( ) ∑ ( ) ∑ ( ) ∑ ( ) Where n is the number of data points. Table 2 summarized comparison of predicted dead oil viscosities. We check the results and calculate the Beal’s and Modified Egbogah-Jacks (Heavy Oils) correlations that are shown in Table 3. It have been concluded that Beal’s equation {2} and Egbogah-Jacks {6} are perhaps the best showing the smallest mean difference. is the viscosity obtained experimentally and predicted viscosity. though none of the correlations provide a reliable estimate of the dead oil viscosity (Table 2). Table 2: Comparison of Predicted Dead Oil Viscosities is Based on their comparison of all the predictions with the measured dead oil viscosity data. Beal’s dead oil correlation - Modified Egbogah-Jacks (Heavy Oils)correlation .∑ | | Also root mean square error (RMSE) and correlation coefficient (r) can be used to compare and evaluate the prediction ability of correlations too.

The best two correlations for μod (Beal {2} and Modified Egbogah-Jacks (Heavy Oils) {6}) were used to generate a range of data between 10 and 20 °API and 50 to 200°F.002 Modified EgbogahJacks μod cp 9280.5 19. The closeness of two fits is shown in Figure 1. covering four different fluids with 3 or 5 temperatures per fluid. and .5545 34.869 159. However. it can be found they are reasonably well fitted with below equation.6 6.004 133. μod Beal’s μod Bennison μod cp 2117.5 11 39 87 150 106 200 300 90 cp 1904 272 38 383 29.5 19.964 Oil 1 Oil 2 Oil 3 19.57319 1349.324 180.60292 444. the data is fairly well spread.3494 33.22506 13.63595 6.8022 34.538 .4641 34. . Table 3: Comparison of predicted dead Oil Viscosities Fluid API Temp Exp. therefore only the API gravity and temperature have been utilised. This form of correlation has been used .784128 7615. By plotting these two correlations (Figure 1).5 14.4 8396 cp 498.1475 3.656 27.72113 259.5 14.DEVELOPMENT OF NEW CORRELATION FOR μod In this paper sixteen data points have been used to develop a new correlation for μod. Figure 1: Left side: Dependence of Viscosity (μod) on API Gravity and TemperatureRight side: Curve Fitting to Obtain Coefficients a and b.5 14.97634 511.3983 31.582647 9626. The supporting fluid property data available was not very extensive.

22003 11.28209 55. and Modified EgbogahJacks.79 33.29189 11.1 62.9808 152.505.756 1382. developed equation is a generalized correlation and is not over-fitted to the data-points and has lower mean absolute difference with experimental data. respectively. Figure 2 is shown the compares the scatter diagrams of this work(Bennison) with Beal’s.69877 17.998 As we can see MAD% and RMSE of the developed correlation for the test data-set are 11.16% 0.63 69.80052 60.982 Modified EgbogahJacks (1995) 2653.7965 11 175 143 184. .7838 11. That means.0333 137.3787 11 150 357 532.74% 0.371 360.41 319.37292 Table 4: Comparison of this work with some others correlation Bennison (1998) Beal (1946) 538.21867 66.1 11.79988 61.50 11.58% 0.731 1065.28 703.5 120 969 1515.5 100 3369 3806.Oil 4 11 120 1349 2115.2041 147.0451 306.5 200 58.4698 11.60294 30.74% and 231.74137 11 200 66 68.5 250 20.6837 367.245 RMSE MAD% r 231.467 2952.7996 11.4843 90. which are comparable with Beal’s and Modified Egbogah-Jacks results.5 150 338 422.

Comparing predicted viscosity with Beal’s correlation and predicted viscosity with proposed correlation is shown in Figure 3. and at the bottom: with developed correlation (Bennison). Bennison Figure 3: Scatter diagrams of predicted viscosities of dead oil with Beal’s correlation and predicted viscosities with Bennison correlation. 10000 1000 100 10 1 1 10 100 1000 Predicted viscosity with Beal's corr.Peredictede Viscosity. cP 10000 1000 100 10 1 1 10 1 10 100 1000 Experimental Viscosity. cP 10000 1000 100 10 1 1 Beal's Correlation 10000 Predicted Viscosity. 10000 μod Beal's vs. cP Bennison Correlation μod 100 1000 10000 Experimental Viscosity. Also a comparison of Scatter diagrams of experimental and predicted viscosities of dead oil with all three correlations is demonstrated in Figure 4. cP Figure 2: Scatter diagrams of experimental and predicted viscosities of dead oil at the top left: with beal's. cP 10000 Peredicted Viscosity. at the top right: with modified Egbogah-Jacks. Predicted vicosity with Bennison corr. cP 1000 100 10 1 Modified Egbogah-Jacks( heavy oil) μod μod 100 10000 Experimental Viscosity. .

Testing proposed correlation with data bank The reliability of the correlations has been evaluated against a set of 53 crude oil samples collected from the Mediterranean Basin. Beal’s. cP 10000 1000 100 10 1 1 10 100 1000 Experimental Viscosity. Viscosity. cp . (1994) [9]. temprature compared with experimenta data with their API. the Persian Gulf and the North Sea which is related to the Ghetto et al. It is recommended that this is used to estimate dead oil viscosity of other heavy oils. Modified EgbogahJacks Corr.Predicted Viscosity. cP 10000 Bennison Corr. Table 6 is showing the comparison of experimental oil viscosity with predicted viscosity with Bennison. Developed correlation is closed to the experimental data and other correlations are alittle under estimate or over estimate the heavy oil viscosity. Estimated dead oil viscosities were compared with experiment viscosity data at different temperatures for Bennison. Beal's Corr. To assess the results that discussed in previous part and based on the reservoir classification (Fluids) data with API<20 were selected. Afrca. Modified Egbogah-Jacks correlations by plotting them az a function of temprature and API. Figure 4: Scatter diagrams of experimental and predicted viscosities of dead oil with all three correlations These curves show good agreement with the measured data and show that the results of Bennison correlation are accurate for the North Sea data tested. temprature. 10000 1000 100 10 1 0 50 100 Temprature(F) 150 200 250 300 350 Experiment al μod Bennison μod Beal's μod Figure 5: Predicted data oil viscosity vs. Figure 5 demonestrates for log μod vs. Beal’s.

cP 10000 Figure 6: Scatter diagrams of experimental and predicted viscosities of dead oil at the top left: with beal's. Beal's correlation-data bank Predicted viscosity. Table 5: Comparison of this work with some others correlation Bennison (1998) Beal (1946) Modified EgbogahJacks . cp μod Predicteted viscosity. cP with Beal's corr. cp 10000 1000 100 10 1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Experimental viscosity. 10000 Figure 7: Scatter diagrams of predicted viscosities of dead oil with Beal’s correlation and predicted viscosities with Bennison correlation. at the top right: with modified Egbogah-Jacks. cp 100000 1000 100 10 1 1 10 100 1000 Experimental Viscosity. cP 10000 1000 100 10 1 1 Bennison Correlation-Data bank μod 10 100 1000 Experimental Viscosity. Figure 6 is shown the compares the scatter diagrams of this work(Bennison) with Beal’s. cP 10000 μod Modified Egbogah-Jacks data bank Predicted Viscosity. Bennison -data bank μod 10 100 1000 Predicteted Viscosity. and at the bottom: with developed correlation (Bennison). Predicted Viscosity.Modified Egbogah-Jacks correlations. cP with Bennison 10000 1000 100 10 1 1 Beal's vs. Modified Egbogah-Jacks.

47 0. is lower than Bennison model.56 43.92 0. Figure 8: Scatter diagrams of experimental and predicted viscosities of dead oil with all three correlations In this curve shows a good agreement with the measured data with Bennison correlation and experimental data.63 91. However.RMSE MAD% r 117. 10000 Predicted Viscosity. Beal's Corr. though. Using this data set Bennison correlation predicted more accurate viscosity. cP 1000 100 10 1 1 10 100 1000 Experimental Viscosity. The results of Bennison correlation are accurate as well as previous part for 53 crude oil samples collected from the Mediterranean Basin. which compares the scatter diagrams of this work with other two correlations.882 394.779 Table 5 reveals the superiority of the new model(Bennison). The contradiction may be clarified by referring to Figure 8. %MAD of Modified Egbogah-Jacks. cP 10000 Modified EgbogahJacks Corr. .71 68. purely attributed to the accuracy of the models in the entire range of oil gravity. since their RMSE and regression coefficients are not as good. the Persian Gulf and the North Sea. Bennison Corr. Afrca.853 (1995) 145.26 0.

Coefficients a and b were regressed against temperature and the following equations were derived: Figure 9 is showing the comparison of Beal’s correlation and developed correlation as a function of temperature and stockF F). cp 1000000 1000 T=68 F(new) T=105 F(new) T=68 F(Beal) T=105 F(Beal) 1 17 22 27 32 Cruid Oil API at 60 F and atmospheric pressure Figure 9: comparison of Beal’s correlation and developed correlation as a function of temperature and API. 20 C. They found absolute average deviation (%AAD) of 19. The new models correlate viscosity. . i. Table 6 shows data used for dead crude oil viscosity correlation: A comprehensive dead oil viscosity correlations for off-shore and onshore Iranian crude oils with respect to their nature is proposed.5% for the heavy (°API=17~28).NEW VISCOSITY CORRELATIONS FOR DEAD CRUDE OILS A new comprehensive correlation for prediction of viscosity of the Iranian heavy and light dead crude oils was developed with Sattarina et al.e. As it can be seen there is a fairly difference between the results of proposed correlation and Beal’s correlation. Absoulte viscosity of gas free cruid oil. and 40 C. For this correlation API are between 17 and 28 and temperature of 10 C. 2-570 cP for viscosity and 17-45 for °API gravity. in 2007 [10]. °API gravity and temperature for a quite wide range. One reason could be that the Beal’s correlation is applicable to crude oil viscosity with temperatures between 100F.

M. The Viscosity of Air. pp51-55. 25-27 Octcber 1994. (1992) pp221-234. 2007. 2. Improved Correlations for Predicting the Viscosity of Light Crudes R Labedi Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. H. Volumetric and Phase Behaviour of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems M B Standing Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. AGIP SpA. pp 968-970. An Improved Temperature-Viscosity Correlation for Crude Oil Systems E O Egbogah and J T Ng Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. Reliability Analysis on PVT Correlations Giambattista De Ghetto. . 1980. Sattarina. Bayata. ISSN 1335-3055. 7. Francesco Paone. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME. Calgary. TX (1970) pp114-127. 3. Large Data Bank Improves Crude Physical Property Correlations T Kartoatmodjo and Z Schmidt Oil & Gas Journal.. Modarresi*b. European Petroleum Conference hefd In Londen. Teymoria. September 1975. 1994. International Heavy Oil Symposium. U. F Paone and M Villa. M. pp 11401141. Natural Gas. Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oils G De Ghetto. Crude Oil and Its Associated Gases at Oil Field Temperatures and Pressures. (1990) pp197-200. 6. 8. 5. Dallas. Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems H D Beggs and J R Robinson JPT. Dallas. 5. M. C Beal -SPE Reprint Series No 3. 4. Canada. SPE 30316. 10. July 4. Water. 9. 8.References: 1. Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction M Vazquez and H D Beggs JPT. SPE 28904. and Marco Villa. 6. NEW VISCOSITY CORRELATIONS FOR DEAD CRUDE OILS.K. Petroleum & Coal. Oil and Gas Property Evaluation and Reserves Estimates. TX (1981). 19-21 June 1995.

8 153.093824 cp 12.4 12.2 152.51192 23.8 170.77313 55. API Temp Bennison μod Beal’s μod Modified EgbogahJack μod API Temp Bennison μod Beal’s μod Modified EgbogahJack μod 7.42939 46.80865 12.05767 26.3 37.30582 69.6818 282.5478 63.10569 26.867783 cp 305.00209 59.9512 398.53885 30.76365 441.3 163.5 9.4 212 210 217.99864 169.2 11.52902 59.79855 31.1 140 250.07108 . Afrca.5 208.96035 15.2 158 154.5 152.1 28.0043 92.6665 159.6 154.06742 6.8 cp 11.5841 141.4959 105.6 12.9 47.2 262 186 219.40425 36.9664 81.Appendix Table 6: Comparison of predicted dead Oil Viscosities.67739 9.3 55.2 160.6 183.4 12.6 210.36222 5.1 15.8 177.2 116.6 14.3 8.4 165.28765 11.7 cp 7.4 154.8 19.77419 69.8 19.09685 31.2 8.7405 40.2 19.2 215.6 212 217.7813 131.4 158 152.9 7.445837 19.7 cp 1216.6 16 16.43616 26.29178 22.6 154.49585 23.9 207.9 230 233.5 19.4 150.4579 41.06450 29.6 50.27097 6.73246 22.8 19.28835 6.63340 71.8 178.5 14 14.6 19.24132 552.079417 23.4 240.4 49.2 55.42605 33.1 11.71057 27.28862 50.92283 55.3 163.6907 143.7233 32.3 112 115 438.7028 19.58938 12.7 214 203 131.10962 28.88104 81.9 9 9.8 F 153.13113 127.6608 332.88396 11.3 188.3215 284.5 19.48883 25.2 215.2503 20.4 11.9 8 8 8.7 112.7 133 88.5 7.34950 F 19 19 19 19.1823 27.4 43.83061 88.4 15.6 211.67387 78.7 152 107.8 13.2 167 152.85518 95.31141 29.3 19.9 165.9 207.4 12.4 217.48700 34.1 42.70196 46.27559 24.1 125.89723 63.26593 15.7 167 231.70153 63.2942 130.67736 30.53123 6.83573 12.54031 108.76352 25.55 74.30259 19.18674 74.6 10 10.8 17 17.6 10.38457 18.1 44.5373 41.1 210.6908 323.5 19.2 19.1 23.593 56.2 15.72179 24.17332 208.collected from the Mediterranean Basin.49622 21.6 98.5 16.9790 41.03369 25.9 23.68408 29.90602 32.7 47.6 18.5 10.9 cp 238.7 19.6381 194.28809 27.8 231.6 244 163.22027 27.4 19.47159 23.5 41 7.9699 9.6 8.7 117.7 194 244.611848 17.18363 14.7 33 43.6 208 215.51734 73.9 43.7 264.2 105 110.24975 28.5 14.5 19.4 172.4 cp 1133 236 443. the Persian Gulf and the North Sea.4 211.006589 15.58975 203.2 53.9 15.6 161.2 205.48214 26.9 11 11 11.

Hoever. Eyring gave the equation for correlating viscosity of Athbasca gas-free bitumen as. molecular and physical properties from normal crude oil.51.82 O0.1%. example gas-free Athabasca bitumen is different from the correlation models applied to conventional oils. its neighbours must give way or that a hole must be created. Prior to the development of the linear and the non-linear viscosity models. at temperatures below 600C.Summary/Correlation of Viscosity and Solution GOR for gas-free Athabasca bitumen A paper written by M. Khan. Eyring viscosity model: This model prposes that for a molecule in a viscous liquid to flow. Of all the correlation models employed at correlating the bitumen. So Athabasca gas free bitumen highly deviate from this type of liquid in the following respects:Large molecules with high molecular weight. ΔF. distributed in about 80% of a dispersing medium known as the maltenes and the maltenes itself is subdivided into two components: the light phase ( saturates and aromatics) and the heavy phase known as the resins.A. Athabsca bitumen consists of about 20% asphaltenes. A. slight associative effects may exist .Y. the two models are applied within temperature range of 200C to1300C. only two models produced reasonable correlations within allowable error margin. They are the linear and the non-linear viscosity models that employ doublelogarithmic viscosity functions.Mehrotra and W. The linear produced results with an average deviation of 8. * SPE MemberSPE 30316 The viscosity models for the correlation of bitumen. This is as a result of the complex nature of the chemical composition of bitumen. ΔH and the degree of disorder.2% while the non-linear produced results with an average deviation of 7.K.6 N0. The free energy is related to the amount of energy which a molecule must possess.7 H55. and Marco ViIla*. ΔS created as a result of the rearrangement due to the movement. Francesco Paone.Svrcek in 1984 & and a paper on PressureVolume-Temperature Correlations for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oils Giambattista De Ghetto*. The molecule must be activated to enable it to move.19 S0. enthalpy and entropy. Eyring stated that ΔF.p.This energy he called it free energy for activation. ΔH and ΔS are different from the Gibbs free energy. ( ) ( ) Khan et al noted that this equation is only applicable for liquids that behave like monoatomic ideal gas.B.The molecular formular for Athabsca bitumen is C36.A. AGIP S. there were two equations by Eyring viscosity model and Hildebrand’s viscosity Molar-Volume relationship that were employed at correlating the viscosity of Athabasca gas-free bitumen. This shows that bitumen has different structural.

b1 and b2 are constants. T= absolute temperature in Kelvin and d=density. In the equations. To estimate the density of bitumen at temperature range of 20 to 1300C. the viscosity of the bitumen is read from the graph as { ℓn ℓn(µ) = 2}. ΔFvapourization/ΔF is about 2. Khan et al.6% to 10. For example. However. However. noted that for simple liquids with spherical molecules in cubic packing. N=Avogadro’s number. With the average molecular weight of bitumen taken as 617g/gmol. R=Universal gas constant. ΔF is one -third the heat of vapourization and for a number of normal liquids. if you use correlating equation such as the linear equation. h= Plank’s constant. for bitumen. where C1 and C2 are constants. the density and the activation free energy would be known. Overall.46. To obtain and predict the viscosity of gas free Athabasca bitumen. ie a plot of the double-log of viscosity (in mP. µ=viscosity in mPa. g/cm3. g/gmol.s yields 1618mPa. the correlation of Goldhammer was used. using this correlation did not produce worthwhile viscosity values for the gas free Athabasca bitumen. See graph below. temperature is in kelvin. T=347K. To account for all these deviations. To use this equation to correlate the viscosity of Athabasca bitumen at various temperatures. ⁄ and then the correlation of ΔF with the density and the boiling point.) and ΔF=f(Temperature). ΔF was calculated using ( ) ( ). Khan et al. making the correlations more complicated.7%. Eyring’s equation as stated above is a modified form from the original equation. The two equations provide satisfactory correlations for the viscosity of Athabasca gas free bitumen with error margin of between 3. and substituting the numerical values for the various constants. Converting to mPa.22.P.s. at 347K. The linear model.s) versus temperature in logarithmic scale. double logarithmic function model of viscosity was developed.between molecules thus causing extremely high viscosities and the bitumen is highly varied in size and shape. The equation is stated as ℓn ℓn(µ) = { } . .s or 1618cP. there is no data on the value of ΔF. However. you get the same result. and then correlation was attempted for ΔF using: ΔF=f(density. . M=Molecular weight. ℓn ℓn(µ) =C1 ℓnT+C2 with parameters C1=-3. ℓn ℓn(µ) =C1 ℓnT+C2. The correlation of the viscosity of gas free Athabasca bitumen could be achieved graphically or by using equation. B.62722 and C2 =23.

i. Sample 2 is a bitumen sample before N2 and synthetic combustion gas run.Different bitumen samples use different parameters for correlation. See table 3. SOLUTION GOR CORRELATION FOR EXTRA HEAVY OIL DATA BANK FROM WHERE PVT VALUES WERE TAKEN AND PLUGGED INTO CORRELATION EQUATIONS FOR GOR CORRELATION. Values are taken from 1-10. for extra heavy oil RESULTS MODIFIED STANDING CORRELATION . Sample 1 is the bitumen sample used by Jacobs et al.e. Sample 3 is the bitumen before C02 gas run while sample 4 is the bitumen sample before NH4 gas run.

43 202.624 1.39 4021.1 202.9 165.2 221.5941728 27.273 plot of measured vs calculated GOR for heavy oil.8925751 48.679 0.3 7.2 215.40897904 122.05 69.6 210.5 208.63 725. using modified standing correlation Measured GOR Linear (Measured GOR) R² = 0.2 215.00091(T)-0.403 0.025321 158.389 1.6 P (Psia) 2503.471 1.03 90.83 14.2 T (0F) 147.7156767 52.9 7.47 2082.32 668.42 84.08715113 51.( ) Table 1: PVT values including calculated GOR Calculated GOR 114.2 210.403 1.37 16.76117823 107.5 7.96 697.7658 Measured GOR 224.30514548 13.85 API 6 6. API<<10 350 300 Measured GOR 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Calculated GOR.5 7.738 1.74 295.31 46.2 gg 0.0125ʸAPI ) .7 153.00737652 56.044 0.77 342.25 619.64 249.57 ∑= 245.9 165.9775 Figure 2: comparing calculated vs measured solution GOR using modified Standing Correlation STANDING CORRELATIOM ( ʸ=0.9 8 8 8.9682492 ∑=752.623 1.29 2902.3 6.

63 725.5 7.25 619.738 1.1 202.39 4021.9 165.2 210.8562926 512.6572701 62.6 API 6 6.679 0.3 7.37 16.2 221.389 1.471 1.43 202.67645165 326.57 ∑= 245.5680029 33.7 153.2 P (Psia) 2503.96 697.5 208.03 90.273 plot of calculated and measured GOR 350 300 Measured GOR 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 200 400 600 calculated GOR using standing correlation equation Meassured GOR Linear (Meassured GOR) R² = 0.938 Figure 3: comparing calculated vs measured solution GOR using modified Standing Correlation .5 7.31 46.74 295.403 0.29 2902.2 gg 0.77 342.6 210.5830831 155.044 0.42 84.85 T (0F) 147.9 7.3 6.9 165.624 1.2 215.8717601 128.623 1.7 2 Measured GOR 224.32 668.05 69.2 215.403 1.1269118 141.83 14.6047645 255.3453343 ∑=2068.9 8 8 8.47 2082.Table 2: PVT values including calculated GOR Calculated GOR 304.64 249.4222164 147.

9775 Standing correlation -6. 1984 Figure 5: conventional oil viscosity correlation (Beal’s) bitumen viscosity using double logarithmic function model.. the sample type would have to be defined so that the various parameters to be applied would be known. Correlation of viscosity for conventional oil takes into account the following factors: temperature. one needs to know the sample type and the temperature in absolute kelvin. In the two correlations. to correlate Figure 4: Graphical viscosity correlation as proposed by Jacobs et al. see figure 4.938 %MAD R2 DISCUSSIONS The use of double logarithm model to correlate the viscosity of heavy oil has some limitations. The main limitation lies in the fact that correlation is not done on any type of heavy oil. see figure 5. So viscosity correlation for conventional oil is different from the correlation of bitumen viscosity.Comparing modified Standing and Standing correlation Modified Standing correlation 3. pressure. meanwhile. bubblepoint pressure. I calculated GOR values which I plotted against measured values in each case.6 0. the . RS.95 0. By using both standing and the modified form of standing equation for solubility GOR correlation.

Paone. & Svrcek. (1995. A. Mehrotra. W. A. 2) while the un-modified standing correlation yielded result with R2=0. the best solubility GOR correlation for extra heavy oil is provided by modified standing correlation. B. May 1). The use of doudle logarithm model for the correlation of extra heavy oil seems to have less applicability because the parameters would need to be defined for it to be applied.. Petroleum Society of Canada. (1984. M. Society of Petroleum Engineers. Y. Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oils.2118/84-03-05 De Ghetto.938. Viscosity Models For Gas-Free Athabasca Bitumen. (see table 2 & fig 3).. M. & Villa. G. References Khan.modified form of standing correlations yielded a better result with R2=0. doi:10. doi:10. F.9775 (see table 1 & fig.2118/30316-MS .. In summary. X.. January 1).

.al. The correlation in this paper is based on data from whole across the North to South America. 1958) 1. 1958). ABSTRACT 158 bubble point pressures were measured from 137 independent systems across North to South America. (Laster et. ( 1 ) According to Henry’s Law some parameters were combined to come up with the relationship (Laster et. which had a short come that it was solely based upon data from the Californian Crude oils.al.al.A. t.al. 1958) 1.al. 1958). Pb = Yg H’…… (2) Equation 2 defines single phase system and H’ is a function of gas phase compo sition and temperature (Laster et.1 INTRODUCTION In absence of actual data from reservoir. 1958).2 DEVELOPMENT OF CORRELATION Working principle for the correlation is same as Standings which states that (Laster et.LASTER (MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. DALLAS TEXAS) 1. rg. (Laster et. Correlation of bubble point pressure for black oil systems is based on set of standard physical and chemical equations. a correlation parameter was required to estimate the reservoir properties. Correlation suggests that bubble point is a direct function of absolute temperature since the ratios for bubble point pressure to absolute pressure ( ᴼR) obtained from the experiment . Pb = f( R. T) …. Previously Standing came up with the correlation for bubble point pressure.TECHNICAL NOTE 2009 SPE 957-G (MAY 1958) BUBBLE POINT PRESSIRECORRELATION J.

Increase in molecular weight results in an increase in solubility of hydrocarbon components in gas phase and therefore saturation pressure is inversely proportional to gas gravity (Laster et. 1958). Figure 1 represents the relationship between oil gravity and effective molecular weight (Laster et.al.(3) Variables on left side are considered as bubble point pressure factor (Laster et. we need to obtain values of Pf and Yg from figure 2 (Laster et.al.al. Correlation assumes a unique molecular weight. 1958). These values correspond closely for crude oils with UOP characterization (Laster et. ) …… (4) Number of moles for tank oil relates to molecular weight of the tank oil. Mₒ correlation with oil gravity is as follows (Laster et. 1958).al. . …. known as Effective Molecular Weight (Mₒ) despite the fact that stock tank of oil is a complex mixture.al.al.were identical. 1958). 1958).. we get high differences of effective molecular weight for low gravity systems. Mₒ = f (T) …. (5) Smooth curves for both. Due to higher values of effective molecular weight compared with C 7+ fractions.al. the correlation and effective molecular weight are developed with help of empirical relationship by assuming values of Mₒ. The correlation doesn’t work well for the temperatures close to the critical temperatures (Laster et. Figure 2 shows relationship developed from the experimental data between bubble point pressure factor and gas mole fraction and the values for curve are shown in table 1. Due to non-development of a mathematical relationship. H is not a constant due to non-linear relationship between values. 1958). 1958).

Co2.al. A deviation of less than 0. NOMENCLATURE f = function .al.al. 1958).al.7 % (Laster et. Than bubble point pressure is calculated from the following equation (Laster et.2. Maximum obtained error was 14.8 %. 1958).We can calculate bubble point pressure from fig. Error associated with presence of the gases is shown in Table 2 (Laster et.al. HS2. The correlation deals with systems free of non-hydrocarbon component which includes gases such as N2. 2 while effective molecular weight from fig. 1958). 1. To obtain bubble point pressure factor.3 (Laster et.3 CONCLUSION The correlation has applicability to large number of producing fields and is a quick method to estimate bubble point pressure for crude oil with an appropriate accuracy (Laster et. 1958). Values measured from correlation when compared with experimentally obtained values displayed an algebraic deviation of 3.5 % and 6. 1958). A correlation chart has also been prepared with graphical evaluation to calculate the bubble point shown in fig.5 % is observed for 21 % and 80% data points respectively. Presence of these gases results in lowering of the value of bubble point. 1.al. Gas mole fraction can be calculated from (Laster et. 1958). we apply the obtained value of Yg is in fig. 1 when we are having a for gas oil system.

al.75 0.250 0. (Laster et.58 0.150 0.70 6.90 5. 1958) .650 0.80 4.30 0. 1958) Gas Mole Fraction 0.94 1.19 1.450 0.70 3.500 0.300 0.800 0.30 4.05 0.400 0.70 Table – 2 Guide to effect of presence of non-hydrocarbon materials.600 0.100 0.43 0.47 1.0) rₒ = tank oil specific gravity H’ = General Henry’s Law H = Specific Henry’s Law constant (Independent of gas composition and temperature) Mₒ = Effective Molecular Weight of Tank Oil ng = moles of gas nₒ = moles of tank oil yg = mole fraction of gas Pb = bubble point pressure (psia) Pf = bubble point pressure factor R = total flash separation gas oil ration ( cu ft/bbl ) ( Measured at 60ᴼ F ) r = tank oil gravity ᴼAPI ( corrected at 60ᴼ F) t = temperature ᴼF T = absolute temperature.3500 0. (Laster et.10 2.17 0.550 0.850 Bubble Point Pressure Factor 0.74 2.al.700 0.rg = total gas gravity (Air = 1. ᴼR Table -1 Smoothed Bubble Point Factor Function.750 0.29 3.200 0.

1958).al. .1 2.0 1.7 2.Component Carbon Dioxide Hydrogen Sulfide Carbon dioxide Nitrogen Carbon Dioxide % Gas 9.5 0.7 Figure 1.1 1.3 Error in predicted Pb 5.1 2. Effective molecular weight related to tank oil gravity (Laster et.1 3.1 3.

.2 0.2 4.4 0.6 5.8 0. Correlation of bubble point pressure factor (Laster et.6 1.6 0.8 Bubble Point Pressure Factor 4.2.8 1 Gas Mole Fraction Correlation of Bubble Point Pressure Factor Poly.6 3.2 0.al.2 2.4 4 3. 1958). (Correlation of Bubble Point Pressure Factor) Figure.4 2 1.4 6 5.4 0 0 0.8 2.Correlation of Bubble Point Pressure Factor 6.

1958).Figure.3 Chart for calculation of bubble point pressure (Laster et. .al.

.79 0. A valid range of parameters was selected.55 4. The 1st data set was used was based on optimum range.1.88 0. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Different datasets have been utilized to check the reliability of correlation provided by the Lasater. applied on Lasater Correlation.3 600.1 Dataset used for the computation of bubble point pressure using Lasater’s Correlation. Results show a good validation of the data computed.7 Figure.DATA.89 r 17.77 4.9 39.9 ro 0. The results obtained from the correlation had values greater than the Standing Correlation when applied to the standing Correlations Graphs.5 3670.07 0.37 0.1 Computation of Mole fraction from tank oil gravity.9 29.26 0. R 20 100 1000 1400 T (ᴼF) 130 180 230 258 (ᴼR) 590 640 690 718 rg 0.83 Mo 457 423 345 240 Yg 0.55 Pb 276.98 3693.92 0. Table.75 Pf 0.9 21.82 0.75 0.95 0. graphs were generated and figure 1 and figure 2 were used and computed results are shown in table.85 0.

Table 2 shows the set of values measured for the Laster’s Correlations compared with the end results. First the correlation was performed on a set of values below 30ᴼ API as shown in table 2 and compared with the already calculated experimental values.Figure. This 1st set of values includes data for bitumen and heavy oil which doesn’t bear good results because of the reason that Lasater’s correlation has been developed for the crude oil which does not give some good results for the data employed for the heavy oil. We also come to the conclusion that there are different parameters which needs to be considered for developing a correlation and a statistical variation needs to be calculated and adjusted according to the . The data shows huge deviation from the experimentally measured values contrary to the claim owned by the paper that the correlation can be utilized for large number of data sets. The second dataset which has been utilized for Lasater’s correlation is from the paper SPE 28904 “Reliability Analysis on PVT Analysis Correlation by Giambattista De Ghetto”.2 Computation of Bubble point pressure factor.

21 201.16 1038.84 2076.64 27.11369 0.08 4895.2 11.172 11.6391 120.415 1.67 2552.64 27.required parameters being used for getting more reliable results and making this correlation as a useful correlation.1183 189.0937 a3 11.15 4908.7 214 203 131.121689 0.3 8.0937 1.54 486.64 27.0937 1.295 1.5 14 14.172 11.9 15.172 11.330552 0.63 337.5482 141.18 4519.36088 0 0.394789 0.1736 Pb (Exper) 2503.0626 197.62 227.64 27.04 25.2 152.75 2546.96 2916.3642 191.172 11.5 208.250582 0.276 0.172 11.172 11.172 11.64 27.277251 0.64 27.4 12.240875 0.2891 190.4 12.13 103.64 27.0937 1.77 4494.67 316.172 11.77 18.0937 1.2 167 152.236 0.8 13.172 11.74 4813.0937 1.32 668.172 11.0594 192.9 9 9.0937 1.63 4908.9 260 31.172 11.011 152.69 2432.0937 1.49 102.172 11.0937 1.1545 167.51 305.6 210.172 11.64 27.64 27.3 6.75 2850.64 27.53 40.8 152.16 17.64 27.49 a1 27.7 25.6 10 10.2 15.99 186.0937 1.57 597.18368 0.35 754.94 208.6 p 3428.172 11.142136 0.75 5391.325556 0.06 89.5 51.64 27.5 10.0937 1.75 4805.71 1736.5 7.9358 195.13 21.64 27.18 586.4 15.02 3727.75 2893.2 215.5 4996.237961 0. Table.64 27.5 7.64 27.0187 151.64 27.172 11.117181 0 0.172 11.0937 1.172 11.88 2916.09 3665.64 27.04 2916.0937 1.134 0.2075 197.25 619.253 0.172 11.8 153.172 11.55 69.479 API 6 6.64 27.64 27.42 2665.55 5739.5602 140.172 11.64 27.64 27.13 967.08 4732.323 1.080463 0.81 0.4 12.7919 1.64 27.178 1.6 8.172 11.0937 1.7 3684.56 654.34 234.334 1.0937 1.6 12.6 14.1 2850.5578 139.2 639.21 .0937 1.237611 0.0062 139.0937 1.45 4410.6 208 215.53 3784.0937 1.21 54.6 211.82 rg 0.172 11.1449 192.32 1763.072772 0.9 165.9 207.64 27.2046 202.7 153.491 1.056459 0.64 27.118234 0.172 11.0937 1.14 5518.0937 1.307 1.7146 139.9 2622.13 1180.64 a2 1.280787 0 0 0.3718 0.477 0.82 208.183113 0.172 11.39 4021.97 41.63 626.165384 0.14 4808.27 86.9 207.4 154.756 1.0937 1.3792 0.129 1.675 1.59 4883.172 11.0937 1.4 212 210 217.2 221.64 27.064 1.095747 Pb Measured 135.63 725.46 323.64 27.0937 1.172 11.64 27.788 198.429 1.29 2902.64 27.172 11.6 212 217.66 3563.8539 198.7209 140.2 205.04 2858.63 4148.172 11.768 1.172 11.235307 0.79 4708 4851.117624 0 0.1 84.104457 0.0937 1.8 152.735 1.83 108.0937 1.96 697.32 2233.0937 1.172 11.9 7.86 227.196236 0.812 0.5472 141.696 0.1453 193.0937 1.64 27.0937 1.0937 1.18 169.23 2916.241 151.1 210.57 89.64 27.6 154.4 Rs 231.9 8 8 8.172 rgs 0.77 342.6963 185.5326 188.64 27.47 1.7939 141.2 8.0937 1.714 1.172 11.71 570.172 11.776 0.172 11.551 197.2 210.1 Data set and the measured values for the Laster’s Correlation T 147.2 215.0937 1.261059 0.53 3727.815 0.9 11 11 11.01 355.0937 1.92 25.6 154.48 250.344 1.0937 1.62 93.3 7.97 2802.7 2588.6 183.64 27.9 165.47 2082.0937 1.64 27.64 249.1 15.

172 11.64 27.36354 0 0.172 11.9032 160.47 1749.34 7411.54 7137.7 19.64 27.3 19.172 11.4145 223.11 1877.7 4281.07 7411.54 7047.01 27.42628 0.0178 128.52 186.64 27.64 27.4 238.334109 0.4 240.5 16.9807 169.0937 1.47 6557.6 244 163. from 17ᴼ .18 796.78 1067.16 111.93 175.1 23.172 11.27 825.172 11.172 0.2 21.2 19.64 27.172 11.256 1.33852 0.271881 0.42 1124.062 1.71 Once the correlation was tested.8 19 19 19 19.58 3328.3 21.5 19.27 2674.4291 152.35 839.172 11.0937 1.8 170.0937 1.0937 1.2 19.64 27.5 183.27 469.3 22 23.0937 1.321682 0.27 1322.51 3740.172 11.172 11.04 4873.0937 1.0937 1.1353 149.58 4216.32 320.172 1.64 27.172 11.0937 1.218 0.172 11.386139 0.e.6686 220.005 0.0937 1.41 120.373436 0.63 967.64 27.587934 0.712528 0.0937 1.0937 1.2 21.93 796.349455 0.035 1.64 27.64 27.0937 1.723238 0.64 27.420216 0.274155 0.98 7211.412 1. Vasaquez and Begg’s correlation 989.28 1038.0937 1.188 1.4 19.06 896.172 11.0937 1.64 27.83 115.3 267.349488 193.172 11.8 17 17.34 146.54 4873.0937 11.26 1593.0851 144.63 3598.e.588866 0.2 158 154.6 134.0937 1.8126 151.54 135.274921 0. A comparison has been performed in a graphical .1301 164.9801 156.2105 157.8 176 338 97.0234 223.33 109.19 952.0937 1.3 23.64 27.02 396.421 1.8 231.64 27.547387 0.34 3721.0937 1.0937 1.914 1.42 1806.554022 0.64 27.64 27.61 25.18 332. and Al-Shamsi Correlation 1999.9 21 21.263 0.297509 0.211.328886 0.0937 1.172 11.5019 141.64 27.0392 229. For thsis purpose I have used 4 correlations i.2557 177.4 5305.31 27.4389 198.99 796.3 1934.67 1153.8 19.5 19.83 1.0937 1.172 11.141327 0.0937 1.1 140 250.64 27.09 0.059 1.3 163.0937 1.64 1074.37919 0.64 27.64 27.12 1009.172 11.13 1749. This time four different correlations were performed to measure the continuity and reliability of different correlations and how do they behave when compared with the experimental results.402 1.8 185.51 ᴼ API.172 11.64 27.6062 163. Standing’s Correlation 974.621454 0.0937 1.23 404.7 194 244.72 1209.64 27.169 1.44 6272.410971 0.26 1792.47 6856.172 11.12 166.64 27.7315 211.105 1.172 11.44 177.54 1649.7249 244.8 19.172 11.64 27.64 500.172 11.7 167 231.517 1.64 27.91 2319.8 19.5 19.258131 0.0937 1.56 4238.52 999.54 768. Dataset used for the correlations and the computed values of bubble point are shown in table 3. Laster Correlation 958.092 1.221543 0.337692 0.89 147.2088 162.33 1047. than I picked a third set of data points of variable API i.0937 1.0937 1.3 188.784 1.49 2369.133 1.96 121.315108 0.64 27.64 27.64 27.0937 1.406 1.2556 123.499 217.5 19.2292 172.47 167.4 188.8 177.5469 174.49 796.965 1.07 6927.411 1.922 149.49 1806.25 141.9199 211.98 1749.64 27.64 1.93 640.8 178.4 150.76 142.76 113.18 1315.6 112.6 19.172 11.0937 1.292 0.73 1209.12 1877.417 1.0937 1.9687 3769.7 188.172 11.98 145.172 11.172 11.37 140.59 697.64 27.95 2432 213.6495 167.0937 1.4 172.74 1082 2236.172 11.48 654.4 429.336 1.4 217.172 11.76 256.934 1.172 11.206 1.347 1.6 18.232 0.510201 0.4405 137.172 11.1122 102.82 330.64 27.172 11.35 100.2 190.0937 1.8 179.303222 0.4 165.172 11.864 16 16.

933 0.824 1677.747 396.2 Comparison of the results measured from different correlations.038 1120.2805 1152.85 1.54 739.17 661.47 641.41 133.696 2616.271 2516.5 141.12 5697.99 1517.575 1714.015 4628.9 Rs rg 0.14 477.965 1.7 33 35.6286 1668.3 Computed values of bubble point for different correlations.888 1796.8 183.8 117.5 511.657 632.103 426.24 120. API Tr 185.8392 617.7 217.321 458.4 219.4 158 150.505 2424. Table.95 2674.349 1.218 0.47 1664.266 371.656 25610.23 396.63 376.3 25 30.656 797.66 1145.324 1853.7916 1301.167 691.08 526. Different errors computed for this purpose are shown in table 5 .1 40 42.779 2277.051 1.227 3102.883 1768.1 276.113 0.5 45 50.48 2596.0426 1089.38 Comparison of the Results for Used Correlations 50000 Correlations Used 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Experimental Al-Shamsi V&B Lasters Standing Figure.9 500.408 Standing (1974) Lasater (1958) Vazquez & Beggs (1989) AlShamsi (1999) Exper Results Oil1 Oil2 Oil3 Oil4 21 23.94 2483.8 289.949 1.form for different correlations in figure 4.114 2426.2 154.739 2735.262 1308.2 276.989 4752.7 1419.4979 1418.676 1175.441 1081.915 2001.555 761. On comparison of all the correlations from the data set used Standing Correlation developed in 1974 works best for the computed results and shows minimum error amongst all the correlation and shows a close approximation to the experimentally values.0268 593.4317 2015.95 2583.9049 538.3168 23639.27 1.

19 6078. Standing Correlation r RMSE MAD 3.91 6078.68 -36.9037 V azquez & Beggs (1980) 1. J. E. Bubble Point pressure correlation Moradi. (2009).B.66352 0.A. Comparison of different errors for the correlation. I. (1958). 35(9). Petroleum university of Technology . (2010) Bubble Point Pressure Empirical Correlations. DATA MINING IN FORECASTING PVT CORRELATIONS OF CRUDE OIL SYSTEMS BASED ON TYPE 1 FUZZY LOGIC INFERENCE SYSTEMS.44026 Laster Correlation 2.. & MEDAI.623 0. Computers & Geosciences. 1817-1826. Islamic Azad University.Table 4. SPE.511 REFERENCES EL-SEBAKHY.62 6648.19 AlShamsi (1999) 3.08 -1. Lasateret.307 7061. Omidieh.

VIscosity, Buuble POint pressure correlations

VIscosity, Buuble POint pressure correlations

- 6.pdf
- pvt_tgb
- Crude Oil Viscosity Correlations- A Novel Approach for Upper Assam Basin
- SPE-89030-PA[1].pdf
- NB519ZQ
- Production Increase With Electric Heating Production Line Technology in an Extra Heavy Oil Field
- Viscosity determination 7
- IBP1359_12
- Multi Phase Flow Model
- 3(3)-2
- Nola13 Baum
- Biostat202 Resources
- Correlation Cheat Sheets
- Experimental Thermodynamics
- How Temperature Affects Lubricants
- ECH143-Reading Assign 1-Page 512 Mechanisms of Transport-Bird, Steward and Lighfoot
- Plain Bearings Lecture e
- 14
- 1112.3448v1
- Aerodynamics
- Marsh Cone Test
- Asphaltene Content Determination
- Viscosity
- Unit Conversion Tables
- Anleitung Ir1 e
- Bitumen
- IS
- Linked in Comments
- Motion Compensation
- 1.2 Properties of Natural Gases in High Pressure
- Reservoir Properties Correlation

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd