You are on page 1of 18

Development of an Expert System for Reservoir Fluid PVT

Properties Correlations
Ahmed Alzahabi,
Texas Tech University
Ahmed El-Banbi and Mohamed H. Sayyouh,
Cairo University
Copyright 2013, Southwestern Petroleum Short Course
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 60th Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, April 17-18, 2013.

1. ABSTRACT
The accuracy of determination of the crude oil PVT properties is essential for solving many reservoir engineering,
production engineering, reserve accurate estimates and surface production and operational problems. A large number of PVT
correlations for oil exist in the petroleum literature and numerous studies are also present for with data favoring one
correlation over the other. In the absence of PVT representative data from laboratory experiments, it is often difficult to
choose which correlation to use to calculate different PVT properties. We approached this problem in two ways. First, we
developed an expert system that checks the input parameters (e.g. reservoir parameters) against the valid ranges of input data
for different correlations as cited by the author of each correlation, and then recommends which correlations to use for
specific input parameters. Second, we tested all available PVT correlations for black oil on a database of selected 3500 data
points of crudes to develop criteria on which correlations to use for each PVT property for any specific range of input data.
These specific crudes were selected to allow testing of those guidelines on a wide range of reservoir input data for black oils.
Our database included oils with oAPI ranging from 17 to 51, gas-oil-ratios of 8 to 7,800 scf/STB, formation volume factor at
bubble point of 1.04 to 4.47 bbl/STB, bubble point pressures of 60 to 4,739 psia, and reservoir temperatures of 40 to 270 F.
The present work included 14 bubble points, 6 solution-gas-oil ratio, 14 formation volume factors, 13 oil compressibilities,
14 dead oil viscosities, 9 saturated oil viscosities, 10 under saturated oil viscosities ,12 under-saturated densities, 2 total
formation volume factors and 2 saturated oil density correlations.
An amazing match was concluded due to combining both the developed PVT-Calculator and PVT-Expert System, which
made the conclusion more applicable to be tested to different PVT data points in all future applications.
Based on this study, guidelines for selecting an appropriate correlation for PVT oil properties and specific guiding ranges are
introduced for black oil PVT properties correlations .These guidelines are recommended in programming of PVT correlations
regardless of their geographic origin.
2. INTRODUCTION
Usually, PVT properties are experimentally measured in the laboratory. When such direct measurements are not
available, PVT correlations from the literature are often used.
Fundamentally, there are two different types of correlations in literature. The first group of correlations is developed using
randomly selected datasets. Such correlations are called generic correlations. The second group of correlations is developed
using a certain geographical area or a certain types of oil. Correlations using randomly selected datasets may not be suitable
for certain type of oils, or certain geographical areas. Even though the authors of the generic correlations want to cover a
wide range of data .Such correlations still work better for certain types of oils.
Specialized correlations represent the properties of a certain type of oil or geographical area (for which they are developed)
better than the general purpose correlations.
The best source of oil property data is the laboratory PVT (pressure-volume-temperature) analysis of a reservoir fluid sample.
However, in the absence of experimentally measured properties of reservoir fluids, these physical properties must be
estimated from correlations.
Many correlations for estimating crude oil PVT properties have been published in the past 50 years. Most of these
correlations yield reasonably accurate results when applied at the original limitations.
Here our work presents the details of the error statistics for each correlation. For comparison, error analyses were carried out
for this study and for some of the more frequently used published correlations in the industry.

We believe that the results obtained by using these correlations will improve the use of material balance calculations as well
as the recovery efficiency of a reservoir.
A computer program for oil PVT correlations model was written in a programming language to predict all the properties over
a wide range of input data and also to provide the most appropriate correlation to be used for any reservoir data range based
on the limitations of each correlation which has been mentioned in the literature with all database of limitations as briefly
explained in the following tables.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW
In order to get reliable results of this work a special care is given to the limitations of the input parameters of each
correlation as mentioned in literature for the empirical correlations of PVT correlations that are related to Oil Properties.
In this work we present the most popular black oil correlations developed during the period from 1947 to 2010. The
paper provides the essential background required for the comparison and listed all ranges of the inputs according to the
original condition of each correlation as published in the original paper.
There have been a number of empirical correlations developed for medium and light crude oils. However, their applicability
is limited to specific oils due to the complex formulation of the crude oils. Moreover, their applicability to heavy oils is very
much in question. Egbogh1 used the pour point as an additional input parameter for dead oil viscosity correlations .De Ghetto
et al.2 first defined the heavy oils in terms of oAPI gravity. Later, he divided the heavy oil into two groups: heavy oil (10 <
oAPI <22.3) and extra heavy oil (oAPI <10).Hossain and Sarica 3 mentioned that Lohrenz and Bray also used the crude oil
chemical composition to develop an empirical correlation for oil viscosity.
Standing 4 ,in 1947 used a total of 105 data points on 22 different crude oils from California to develop his
correlations. Lasater 5 , in 1958 presented a bubble point correlation using 158 measured bubble point data on 137 crude oils
from Canada, Western and Mid-Continental United States and South America. Vasquez and Beggs 6 ,in 1989 developed
correlations for the solution gas to oil ratio and formation volume factor using 6004 data points. Glasso7, in 1980 used
data from 45 oil samples mostly from the North Sea region to develop his correlations. Al-Marhoun 8 ,in 1988 used 160
bubble point data on 69 Middle Eastern crude samples to develop a bubble point pressure correlation. Ahmed 9 used
the combined reported data of Glasso and Marhoun to develop a correlation for determining the oil formation volume factor.
Labedi 10 ,in 1982 and Petrosky-Farshad 11 , in 1995 used data on fluids from reservoirs in Western Canada, Africa, and
Texas-Louisiana, respectively to develop various correlations. De Ghetto et al. 12 (1994) used about 3700 measured
data points on 195 crude oil samples from the Mediterranean Basin, Africa, Persian Gulf, and North Sea, to evaluate
published correlations, and modified some of them to improve predicted results.
When both universal and regional correlations were applied to new data, a number of studies have shown that no one
correlation stood out as more accurate than all others. Rather different correlations were more accurate in certain ranges of
data while others were more accurate in other ranges.
4.

DATA COLLECTIONS
Data used for this work are used from an Egyptian area which is the Western Desert, and consists of reservoir
temperature, oil gravity, solution gas oil ratio etc within the range as shown in table 1.Quality Check have been made for the
samples before testing them in order to get the reliable results.
Table 1: Data Range for the Egyptian PVT Data
Laboratory measurement Parameters
o

Tank-oil gravity ( API)


Bubble-point oil FVF, Bob (bbl/STB)
Bubble-point pressure, Pb (psia)
Pressure below bubble point, Pb (psia)
Bubble-point solution GOR, Rsb (scf/STB)
Reservoir temperature, T (oF)
Average surface gas gravity (avg. g)
Under-saturated oil viscosity, o (cp
Bubble-point viscosity, ob (cp)
Dead oil viscosity, od (cp)

Minimum

Maximum

17.2
1.049
49
7
8
40
0.627
0.11
0.1063
0.4204

51.28
4.47365
4,739
4,739
7,803
270.9
1.93
104.2553
45.1183
147.8802

5. PROGRAMMING OF PVT OIL PROPERTIES CORRELATIONS


An extensive literature review is made on the empirical correlations of PVT correlations that are related to Oil Properties
.These correlations are programmed in a data base programming language.
Each subroutine uses the general PVT data base as a data file and calculates the studied property. Absolute Average error for

SPE Error! Reference source not found.

each measurement is as the following was calculated after testing the program and the results in Appendix:

1
( )
=
100


=1

6. PVT OIL CORRELATIONS


Our work included 13 models for bubble point pressure, 6 models for solution-gas-oil ratio, 14 models for oil formation
volume factors, 13 models for oil compressibilities, 14 models for dead oil viscosities, 9 models for saturated oil viscosities,
10 models for under saturated oil viscosities, 12 models for under-saturated oil densities, 7 models for under saturated oil
viscosity, 2 total formation volume factors and 2 models for saturated oil density correlations.
The results of the detailed evaluation of the correlations are presented and the details of the error statistics for each
correlation are presented and error analyses for the most frequently used published correlations in the industry were carried
out for comparison as described in details in table 10.
Table 1 through 9 summarizes the different oil properties, correlations, limitations and reported accuracies as given by the
various researchers. These data have been used as controlling criteria to serve the newly developed expert system to select the
most appropriate correlation.
On the other hand figures 1 through 6 are cross plots showing the estimated and experimental oil properties as given by the
above said authors. In general if the presented data shows a considerable scatter that makes their application quite limited.
7. RESULTS OF RELIABILITY ANALYSIS WERE PERFORMED ON EGYPTIAN OIL AND DISCUSSIONS
Crossplots: The crossplots of estimated vs. corresponding experimental values for bubble point pressure data points are
presented in Figure 1 . The closer the plotted data to the 45 perfect correlation line, the higher is the reliability of the
correlation. The correlation developed by Dindrouk and Christman behaves very well in the range of 0-500 psia.
The crossplots for solution gas-oil ratio are given in Figure 2 through 3. It is
estimated by different six correlations:
Standing, Vasquez and Beggs, Glasso, Al-Marhoun, Petrosky- Farshad and Dindrouk-Christman. The correlation of Glasso
shows that it is the best correlation for calculating solution gas oil ratio especially in the range of 0-120 scf/STB. But Glasso
correlation reveals its underestimation for calculation in the range of 120 to 3000 scf/STB, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 4 is a graphical cross plot formed between the estimated bubble point oil formation volume factor and their
corresponding measured data points. The correlation of Al-Marhoun 1988 shows the best results especially in the range of 12 bbl/STB (volatile oils).
The crossplot formed between the estimated coefficient of under-saturated isothermal oil compressibility and their
corresponding data points is given in Figure 5 for the correlation developed by Labedi. While labide is the best method in
comparison with other 9 correlations which are Kartomdjo ,Labedi, Petrosky Farshad, El-Sharkawy Vasquez-Beggs ,DeGhetto ,McCain ,Al-Mehaidab ,Ahmed and Al-Marhoun .
Figure 6 is a graphical cross plot formed between the estimated and experimental under saturated oil viscosity data points by
Beal. Beal shows the best stable correlation and it behaves very well in the range of 0-55 cp.
The correlation of Al Mehaidab is the best correlation for calculating saturated oil viscosity as shown in the graphical cross
plot in Figure 7. It indicates its higher degree of correlation in the calculated range of 0-5 cp.
Figure 8 is a graphical cross plot formed between the estimated (by Vasquez and Beggs) under saturated oil formation
volume factor and their corresponding measured data points especially in the calculated range of 1-4 bbl/STB.
The degree of match between the predicted values and the corresponding laboratory measurements depends upon the
accuracy in using each correlation within the specified range of applicability as specified in tables 2 through 9.
8. DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERT SYSTEM
The development of the Expert System of PVT properties to select the most suitable correlation involves the following
three phases Knowledge acquisition, system formulation, and system verification and validation.
8.1. Knowledge acquisition
The first activities carried out at the beginning of this phase were to identify and understand the main input parameters and
ranges of each for each published correlation as well as the identification of the expert systems. As presented above, these
tasks have been achieved through a comprehensive literature review of all published work in PVT properties correlations
worldwide coupled with the evaluation of the previous and current research in this field.
The developed Expert System for different PVT properties correlations uses the tables in Appendix as a knowledge data base.

8.2. System Formulation


The system formulation involves the representation of the acquired knowledge from the first phase through rules. The
rules are conditional statements in the form of IF-THEN statements. These statements use the assigned numeric values
(limitations from the developed screening criteria) or linguistic values (e.g. reservoir parameters) of the different parameters
to determine the goal of the Expert System. These rules are divided into separate and identified groups in order to facilitate
the search of the rules, and their removal from or addition to the knowledge base.
The system has a user-friendly interface which allows data input as well as the option to consult the data base
8.3. PVT Expert System validation
The developed PVT Expert System could be utilized to determine the most feasible PVT correlations for particular
reservoir parameters.
9. RESULTS OF COMPARINING THE PVT CALCULATOR AND PVT EXPERT SYSTEM ON SOME OF THE
EGYPTIAN OIL PVT SAMPLES
We added some guidelines which should be taken in consideration in any reservoir engineering process specially the
range of applicability for PVT properties correlations.
Most of the Egyptian oil reservoirs are considered to be good candidates for applying certain PVT correlations according to
the limitation of each correlation as determined by the author of each one.
Dindrouk Christman correlation has given the best results for bubble point pressure calculations, with an average error of
23% in comparison with other correlations using our PVT oil database bank and validated by our developed PVT calculator
as shown in figure 1 and as detailed in Appendix A.
As an example; the following oil PVT Property correlation parameters;
a- Temperature 268 F,
b- API is 37.6,
c- Gas specific gravity is 0.9898,
d- Initial solution gas oil ratio is 2289.3 scf/STB.
are tested using our developed software (Expert System) and the result proved that Dindrouk Christman is one of the
recommended correlations; in addition to three others can be used like Glasso(27%), Lasater(7.9%) and Kartoatmdjo(24%).
Table shows an amazing match by both of them:
Table 2: Results of testing Expert System and PVT Calcualtor
Property

Expert System

PVT Calculator

Bubble-point
pressure

Dindrouk -Christman , Glasso and Lasater

Dindrouk -Christman

Solution gas oil


ratio

Glasso, Al-Marhoun and Standing

Glasso

Bubble point oil


formation
volume factor

Al-Marhoun 1988 , Glasso and Vasquez and


Beggs

Vasquez and Beggs

SPE Error! Reference source not found.

10. CONCLUSIONS
Based on the present study and data review the following Table and can be made:

II.

Property

Correlations

Range

Bubble point pressure

Dindrouk and Christman

<3000 psia

Solution gas oil ratio ,

Glasso

<1500 scf/STB

Bubble point oil formation


volume factor

Al-Marhoun 1988

<2.2 bbl/STB

Under-saturated oil
formation volume factor

Vasquez and Beggs

1-4 bbl/STB

Under-saturated oil viscosity

Beal

<60 cp

Gas saturated oil viscosity

Khamechi

0-5 cpcp

coefficient of undersaturated isothermal oil


compressibility

Labedi

<2*10^-5

Gas saturated oil density

Ahmed

All tested ranges

Under-saturated oil density

Vasquez and Beggs

All tested ranges

I.
The table offers guidelines based on range of applicability and testing
The table is based on several runs and extensive use of PVT Calculator and Expert System

In addition to the following conclusions:


1. Papay shows the least error 4.25 % for gas compressibility factor correlations.
2. For dew point pressure El-Sharkawy shows the least error with 23 % for the 120 gas condensate samples. It behaves
well in the range of 3000-7000 psia.
3. The proposed PVT calculator and Expert System can be incorporated in reservoir simulators and can be a
breakthrough in oil PVT calculations process and in estimating reserves.
4. The use of the numerous published PVT correlations for oil and gas systems should be within the range of
application and any outside the range will give bad performance and may affect all reservoir engineering
calculations.
11. RECOMMENDATION
In order to reach more reliable selection of PVT correlations, additional and satisfactory enough database for oil and gas is
required for future work to enhance and optimize the credibility of the anticipated results.
A BIBLIOGRAPHY
The first author holds an engineering degree BS from Al-Azhar and MS degree from Cairo University, both in Petroleum
Engioneering. He has five years experience in the petroleum industry, including production optimization, gas deliverability
modeling, and reservoir engineering, and modelling and welltest analysis. He has coauthored numerous technical
publications, has taught several short courses, and conducted hands-on training workshops in his areas of expertise.
Ahmed team won 2nd place team in The International Petroleum Technology Conference (Educational Week) at Qatar Dec.
2009 He is a 2012-2013 SPE STAR Fellowship recipt.
The 2nd and 3rd co-authors are Professors in Cairo University, both of them has a deep experience in Petroleum Engineering.

NOMENCLATURE

bbl/STB

Bo

Oil Formation Volume Factor

Rso

Solution Gas-oil ratio

Pb

Bubble point pressure

API

Gravity of stock tank oil

Boi
STO

Oil formation volume factor


The specific gravity of the stock
tank oil

Mwo

API stock tank oil gravity


Molecular weight of the stocktank liquid

Viscosity

co

oil compressibility

Gas specific gravity

Oil specific gravity

PPc

Pseudo-critical pressure

PPr

Pseudo-reduced pressure

Pwf
Psp

Bottom hole flowing pressure


Separator Pressure, psia

Mscf/D

Tsp

Separator temperature

Instantaneous gas oil ratio

oil density

Rs

Solution gas oil ratio

R si

Initial solution gas oil ratio


Specific gravity of the stocktank liquid

API

scf/STB
psia
degree
Bbl/STB

lb/lb.
mole
cp
psia-1
STB
psi
psi

scf/STB
g/cc
Mscf/STB
Mscf/STB

REFERENCES
1 - Egbogh ,An Improved Temperature Viscosity Correlation For Crude Oil Systems, A paper selected to be
presented at the 34th Annual Technical Meeting of Petroleum Society of CIM held jointly with the Canadian
Association of Drilling Engineers in Banff May 1983.
2 -De Ghetto at el. Reliability Analysis on PVT Correlations "paper SPE presented at the European Conference
held in London U.K.25-27 October 1994.
3 -Hossain and Sarica ,"Assessment of heavy oil viscosity correlations", SPE 97907-MS paper was prepared for
presentation at the 2005 SPE International Thermal Operations and heavy Oil Symposium held in Calgary ,Alberta,
Canada
4 -Standing, M.B.:"A Pressure Volume-Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of California Oils and Gases,
"Drilling and Production Practice, API (1947).
5 -Lasater, J. A.: "Bubble Point Pressure Correlation", Trans. SPE paper 957-G, May 1958.

SPE Error! Reference source not found.

6 -Vasquez, M., and Beggs,Correlation for Fluid Physical Property Predictions, JPT June 1989.
7 -Glasso Generalized PVT Correlations, paper SPE 8016 accepted for publication July 79, published May 1980.
8 - AL-Marhoun, M.A., "PVT Correlations for Middle East Crude Oils; Journal of Petroleum Technology", pp. 650666, May 1988.
9 - Ahmed T. ,"Equation of State and PVT Analysis, Applications for Improved Reservoir Modeling: Book Gulf
Publishing Company Houston, Texas.2007.
10 - Labedi, R.M.:"PVT Correlations of the African Crudes, "PhD Thesis, Colorado School of Mines (May, 1982).
11 - Petrosky, G.E., Jr., and Farshad, F.F.: Viscosity Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils, paper SPE 29468
presented at the Production Operations Symposium of the SPE, Oklahoma City, OK. April 1995.
12 - De Ghetto at el Pressure-Volume Temperature Correlations for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oils, Paper SPE
30316 presented at the International Heavy Oil Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada 19-21 June 1995.
13- Al-Mehaidab, Improved PVT Correlations for UAE Crude Oils paper SPE 37691, presented at the 1997 SPE
Middle East Oil Conference and Exhibition held in Manama, Bahrain 17-20 March 1997.
14 -Standing, M. B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems, 9th printing, Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX (1981).
15 - Vasquez, M.E., and Beggs, H.D.: Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction, Journal of Petroleum
Technology (June 1980) 968-970.
16 - Saleh, Mahgoub and Asaad "Evaluation of empirically derived PVT Correlations for Egyptian crude oils" SPE
15721.
17 - Al -Marhoun M,PVT Correlations for Middle East Crude oils, SPE paper 13718 published in JPT May
2008.
18 - Doklah, M.E. and Osman, M.E:"Correlation of PVT properties for UAE Crudes "SPE formation Evaluation
(March 1992), 7, 41-46.
19 - Farshad, F.F., Leblance, J.L., Garber, J.D., and Osorio, J.G.:"Empirical PVT Correlations for Colombian
Crude Oils, "Paper SPE 24538, 1992.
20 - Kartoatmdjo, R.S.T, and Schmidt, Z.:"New Correlations for crude oil physical properties," paper SPE 23556,
June 1991.
21 - Dindrouk, Christman PVT Properties and Viscosity Correlations for Gulf of Gulf of Mexico Oils paper SPE
71633,presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana ,30
Sept -3 Oct 2001.
22 - Petrosky, G.E., Jr., and Farshad, F.F.: Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Crude
Oils, paper SPE 26644 presented at the 68th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, Houston,
TX. (October 1993).
23 - Al-Marhoun, Evaluation of empirically derived PVT Properties for Middle East crude oils Journal of
Petroleum Science &Engineering 42(2004) 209-221.
24 - McCain, W.D., Jr., Reservoir-Fluid Property Correlations State of the Art, SPE Reservoir Engineering
(May 1991) 266-272.
25- Standing, M .B."A pressure-Volume-Temperature correlation for mixtures of California oils and gases", Drilling
and Production Practice, API, pp 275-287 (1974).
26 - Adel M. Elsharkawy, Abbas A. and Ali Khan ,"Correlations for predicting solution gas-oil ratio, oil formation
volume factor, and under-saturated oil compressibility", Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering ,Volume 17,
Issues 3-4, May 1997, Pages 291-302.
27 - Al-Marhoun The Coefficient of Isothermal Compressibility of Black Oils paper SPE 81432, presented at the
2001 SPE 13th Middle East Oil Show & Conference held in Bahrain 5-8 April 2003.
28- Omar and Todd, "Development of New Modified Black Oil Correlations for Malaysian Crudes, SPE 25338
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil& Gas Conference and Exhibition held in Singapore, 8-10 February 1993.
29 - Arps, J.J."Estimation of Primary oil and gas Reserves, "Rick, T .C. Petroleum Production handbook, Volume2,
Dallas, SPE, 1962, Chapter 37, P.1.
30 - Beal, C.:"The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas, Crude Oil and Its Associated Gases at Oil Field
Temperatures and Pressures", Trans. AIME (1946) 165, 94.
31- Beggs, H.D., Robinson, J.F., "Estimating the viscosity of Crude Oil Systems," J. pet. Tech. (Sept.1975)11401141.
32 - Khan and Al-Marhoun:Viscosity Correlations for Saudi Arabian Crude OilsPaper SPE 15720 presented at the
fifth SPE Middle East Oil Show held in Manama, Bahrain. March 7-10, 1987.
33- Chew Connally:A viscosity correlation for Gas Saturated Crude Oils, Paper SPE presented at 33rd Annual
Fall Meeting of SPE in Houston, Tex.Oct.5-8, 1958.
34 - Khamehchi,Rashidi,Rasouli and Ebrahimian ,Novel empirical correlations for estimation of bubble point
pressure, saturated viscosity and gas solubility of crude oils Pet. Sci.(2009)6:86-90 .
35- Ahmed. T. "Hydrocarbon phase behavior" Book Gulf Publishing Company Houston, Texas.1989.

36 - Kumar, N. A," Compressibility factors for natural and sour reservoir gases by correlations and cubic equations
of state ", Thesis in Petroleum Eng, 2004: 14, 15, 23.
37 - Whitson C. H. and Michael R. Brule," Phase Behavior ", PVT SPE monograph Vol. 20, Richardson,
Texas,2000.
38 - Al-Khamis M. N., Evaluation of Correlations for Natural Gas Compressibility Factors. M Sc Thesis
Presented to the King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals Dahran, Saudi Arabia. March, 1995.

calculated solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB

Figures
Dindrouk Christman
4000
3500

calculated Pb, Psia

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000

Standing
Glaso
Petrosky and Farshad

vasquez and Beggs


Al-Marhoun
Dindrouk and Christman

3000

2000

1000

0
0

500

1000

2000

3000

experimental solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

experimental Pb, Psia

Figure 3: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental


solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB for the range of 03000scf/STB.

vasquez and Beggs

Glaso

Al-Marhoun

Petrosky and Farshad

Dindrouk and Christman

calculated solution gas-oil ratio,


scf/STB

Standing

200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200


experimental solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB

Figure 2: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental


solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB for the range of 0-200
scf/STB.

estimated oil formation volume


factor,bbl/STB

Figure 1: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental


bubble point pressure, psia.
Dindrouk Christman
Almarhoon 2003
Petrosky and Farshad
Omar and Todd
Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt
Arps

Standing
Almarhoon 1988
Doklah and Osman
Al-Mehaideb
Glaso
Vasquez and Beggs

5
4
3
2
1

experimental oil formation volume


factor,bbl/STB

Figure 4: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental


bubble point oil formation volume factor (bbl/STB).

labedi

calculated saturated oil


viscosity, cp

1.40E-04

80

1.20E-04

calculated co, psi-1

Al-Mehaidab

100

1.00E-04

60

8.00E-05

40

6.00E-05
4.00E-05

20

2.00E-05
0

0.00E+00
0

0.00005
0.0001
experimental co, psi-1

0.00015

Figure 5: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental


the coefficient of under-saturated isothermal oil
compressibility data, psia -1.
.

Beal

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
experimental saturated oil viscosity, cp

Figure 7: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental


saturated oil viscosity data, cp.

Vasquez and Beggs

calculated under saturated oil


formaton volume factor,
bbl/STB

calculated under saturated oil


viscosity, cp

100

80

60
40

20
0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
experimental under saturated oil
viscosity, cp

Figure 6: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental


under-saturated oil viscosity data, cp.

2
3
experimental
under saturated
oil
formaton volume factor, bbl/STB

Figure 8: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental


under saturated oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB.

SPE Error! Reference source not found.

11

T (F)

Dindrouk-Christman

926 1,2230

14.70 40.0

.6017 1.027

117 276

Standing

130 7,000

16.5 63.8

0.59 0.95

100 258

Petrosky and Farshad

1574 6,523

16.3 45

114 - 288

Al-Marhoun

130 3,573

19.4 44.6

0.5781
0.8519
0.752 1.367

Glaso
Khamechi, Rashidi,
Rasouli &Ebrahimian
Omar &Todd

22.3-48.1
N/A

22.3-48.1
33.4-124

0.65-1.28
0.554-0.858

80-280
100-306

26.6-53.2

0.612-1.315

125-280

Vasquez and Beggs

15-6,055

15.3-59.3

0.51-1.35

75-294

Doklah and Osman

590-4,640
48-5,780

0.801.29
0.57-1.2

190-275

Lasater

28.240.3
17.9-51.1

Farshad Leblance1

32-4,138

18.0-44.9

Farshad Leblance2

32-4,138

Kartoatmdjo

15-6,055

Rs
(SCF/ST
B)
133
3,050
20
1,425
217
1,406
26
1,602
90-2,637
83-1,708

N/A

21

20.685

14

86.635

11

23.915

17

26.153
N/A

7
34

1421,440
0-2,199

7.17

28

N/A

15

7.61

18

82-272

1812,266
3-2,905

N/A

0.66-1.73

95-260

6-1,645

N/ A

20

18.0-44.9

0.66-1.73

95-260

6-1,645

N/A

20

14.4-58.9

0.38-1.71

75-320

0-2,890

20.17

21

74 240

Table 3: Reported Input Parameters Ranges for Solution Gas Oil Ratio Correlations
Correlation
Limitations

Rso

Dindrouk and Christman


Standing
Petrosky and Farshad
Al-Marhoun
Glasso
Khamehchi,Rashidi,Raso
uli Ebrahimian

Reference

o (API)

Property

Pp

Pp (psia)

Pb (psia)

o (API)

T (F)

926
12,230
130
7,000
1574
6,523
130
3,573
1657,142

14.70
40.00
16.5
63.8
16.3 45

0.6017
1.027
0.59
0.95
0.5781
0.8519
0.752
1.367
0.65-1.276

117 - 276

0.5540.858

100-306

19.4
44.6
22.3-48.1
33.4-124

100 258
114 - 288
74 240
80-280

Rs
(SCF/
STB)
133 3050
20
1425
217 1406
26
1602
22.348.1
831708

Reported
Accuracy
Error %
Reference

Property

Table 2: Reported Input Parameters Ranges for Bubble Point Pressure Correlations
Correlation
Limitations

Reported
Accuracy %
Error %

Tables

N/A

21

N/A

14

N/A

11

N/A

17

N/A

N/A

34

co

Reference

Reported
Accuracy
Error % AAE

Property

Table 4: Reported Input Parameters Ranges for Under-Saturated Isothermal Oil Compressibility Correlations
Correlation
Limitations
Pb
(psia)

o
(API)

T (F)

Rs
(SCF/STB)

Co(10-6
1/ psia )

Dindrouk
Christman

926
12230

14.70
40.0

117 276

133
3,050

5.02
31.91

6.21

21

Vazquez and
Beggs

15 6055

15.3
59.5

170
(Mean)

0 2,199

N/A

N/A

15

Petrosky and
Farshad

1574 6523

16.3
45

114 288

217
1,406

3.5
24.64

6.66

11

Al-Marhoun

17.5
44.6
6-56.8

71
240
81-342

24 1,453

27

8-2,986

3.45
31.11
3.02-43

5.46

De Ghetto

106
3331
NA

0.601
7
1.027
0.511

1.351
0.578
1
0.851
9
0.75
1.59
NA

Extra heavy( oAPI


<10) AE 8.5
Heavy 10< oAPI
<22.3 AE 15.6
Medium 22.3<
oAPI <31.1 AE
12.5
Light oAPI >31.1
AE 8.5

Farshad

NA

13.746.5

0.591.731

95-260

6-1,758

2-34

20

75-320

0-2,890

0.746
1.116
N/A

190306

128-3,871

2.701127.4
N/A

AE-6.86
SD32.5
AAE20.21
AE 0.301
AAE23.67
9.88

N/A

128-306

N/A

10

N/A

N/A

N/A

5.8157.04
N/A

N/A

Kartomdjo and
Schmidt
Al-Mehaidab

5014822

Labedi

N/A

Ahmed

N/A

14.459.0
30.948.6
N/A
N/A
N/A

21
13

Standing

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

El-Sharkawy

24.539.8

0.807
1.234

120243

367-1,568

3.6229.18

15.23

13

Reservoir
Pressure ,
psia

o (API)

T (F)

Rs
(SCF/S
TB)

Bo
(RB/ST
B)

Dindrouk Christman

-------

14.70
40.0

0.6017
1.027

117 - 276

133 3050

Standing

-------

Petrosky and Farshad

170010,692

16.5
63.8
16.3 45

0.59
0.95
0.5781
0.8519

100
258
114
288

20
1425
217 1406

Al-Marhoun

20-3,573

19.4
44.6

0.753
1.367

74 240

24
1453

1.0845

2.8984
1.024
2.15
1.1178

1.6229
1.032
1.997

Glasso

-------

22.3-48.1

0.65-1.28

80-280

90-2637

Vasquez and Beggs

15.3-59.3

.511-1.35

75-294

0-2199

Farshad-Leblance
Garber, Osorio
Doklah Osman

18-44.9

.66-1.7

95-260

6-1,645

N/A

20

28.2-40.3

.80-1.29

190-275

1.225

18

Omar and Todd

26.6-53.2

0.612-1.32

125-280

1.44

28

Al-Mehaidab

30.9-48.6

0.75-1.12

190-306

1.35

13

Macary and ElBatanony


Kartoatmdjo and
Schmidt
Arps
Ahmed 1988

25-40

0.7-1.00

130-290

7.04

14.4-58.9

0.38-1.71

75-320

1812266
1421,440
1283,871
2001,200
0-2,890

2.025

21

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A

N/A
EA 1.094
SD 2.5

35
9

N/A
N/A

1.0322.588

N/A

21

N/A

14

N/A

11

EA .88%
SD
1.18%
EA-0.43
SD-2.18
Deviation
5%

N/A
N/A

o(
oAPI )

T (F)

Rs
(SCF/STB)

P , psia

Glasso

0.651.28

22.348.1

80280

90-2,637

4004,000

Al-Marhouns
(1988)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Reference

Bt

Reported
Accuracy
Error %

Table 6: Reported Input Parameters Ranges for Total Formation Volume factor Correlations
Correlation
Limitations

Property

Bo

Reported Accuracy
Error %

Property

Table 5: Reported Input Parameters Ranges for Formation Volume Factor Correlations
Correlation
Limitations

Reference

SPE Error! Reference source not found.

SD 6.54
Avg devia 4.56
N/A

17

7
15

Pb(psia )

o (cp)

obp (cp)

T (F)

Rs
(SCF/STB)

926
12,230

0.211
10.6

0.1610
8.7

121 276

133 - 3,050

AARE 5.99
ARE -0.83

21

140
4135
1,574
9,522
N/A
107
4,315
5014,822

0.16
315
0.224
4.09
N/A
0.13
71

0.142
127
0.211
3.546
N/A
0.13
17.9

72
292
114
288
50-300

12 - 1,827

N/A

14

21 1,885

2.9

11

N/A

N/A

75-240

24-1,901

1.915

32

N/A

N/A

190306

128-3,871

2.885

13

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

31

1325,645

N/A

N/A

72-292

51-3,544

ARE 2.7

30

N/A

N/A

0.096-586

80-320

2.3-573

6.88

21

60-6,358

N/A

0.1153.72

N/A

N/A

ARE -3.1

10

Dindrouk Christman
Dindrouk and
Christman

Standing
Petrosky and Farshad
Glasso
Khan and AlMarhoun
Al Mehaidab
Beggs-Robinson
Beal
Kartoatmdjo &
Schmidt
Labedi

obp
(cp)

T
(F)

0.896

62.63
0.377
50
0.725

11.69
N/A

0.161
0
8.7
0.3
35
0.211

7.403
0.13
17.9

N/A

0.616
-39.1
0.377
-50

N/A

Al- Mehaidab

N/A

N/A

Khamechi, Rashidi, Rasouli&


Ebrahimian

N/A

0.04-3

Dindrouk Christman

Standing
Petrosky and Farshad

Khan and Al-Marhoun

Glasso
Chew and Connally

N/A

Rs
(scf/STB
)
1333,050

Pb,
psia

Reference

oD
(cp)

Reported
Accuracy
Error%

Property

Table 8: Reported Input Parameters Ranges for Bubble Point Oil Viscosity Correlations
Correlation
Limitations

o
b

Reference

Limitations
Correlation

Reported
Accuracy
Error %

Property

Table 7: Reported Input Parameters Ranges for under-saturated Oil Viscosity Correlations

N/A

13.2

21

N/A

0-3544

N/A

N/A

14

N/A

21-1,885

N/A

N/A

11

75240

24-1,901

107431
5

N/A

32

N/A

N/A

33

N/A

13

N/A

34

N/A
72292
F
190
306
100
-

51 3,544
1283871
83-1708

132564
5
501482
2
N/A

SPE Error! Reference source not found.

Beggs &Robinson

15

N/A

N/A

306
70295

20 2,070

N/A

N/A

o (API)

T (F)

Reference

Dindrouk and Christman

0.896 62.63

14.70 40.00

121 - 276

12.62

21

Standing
Petrosky and Farshad

0.865 1,550
0.725 10.249

10.1 52.5
25.4 46.1

100 - 220
114 - 288

N/A
12.38
SD 11.25

14
11

Glasso
Labedi
Beggs and Robinson

0.6-39
0.6-4.8
-------

20-48
32-48
16-58

50-300
100-306
70-295

9
10
31

Beal,
Schmidt-and Kartoatmdjo
El-Sharkawy
And Ali Khan
Naseri, Nakizar
Trevor Bennison
Egbogh

0.8-188
0.5-586
0.6-33.7

10-52
14.4-59
20-48

100-220
80-320
100-300

22.1
-2.16
Ea :0.64%
SD :13.53%
24.2
39.6
19.3

0.75-54
N/A
N/A

17-44
8-20
5-58

105-295
100-250
15 -80 C

1
1
1

Khan and Al-Marhoun

N/A

14.3-44.6

75-240

7.77
13
Ea -5.13
SD:55.51
N/A

Property

oD (cp)

Reported
Accuracy
%

Table 9: Reported Input Parameters Ranges for Dead Oil Viscosity Correlations
Correlation
Limitations

od

30
21
64

32

31

Glass
o

18.3291

Khan

e2

3.345

Farshad

1.618

99

Leblanc

57

e2

Glass

3.25086

BeggsRobinso
n

11.15
96

Doklah
and
Osman

8.070
57

Farshad

AlMarhou
n 2003

Glasso

0.157

Kartoat

11.56

711

mdjo

86

0.026
319

0.254
77

Petrosky
and
Farshad

Labedi

25.18
12

13.38
86

Ahm
ed
1985

Ahm
ed
1985

Ahm
ed
1985

and

and

Beggs

Beggs

39.03
99

and

60.0513

Beal

0.426
33

Christ

AlMarhou
n

Al12.78
34

Vasquez

Marhou

3.216

32

1988

9.786
and

88

Beggs

Ahm
ed
1985

618

85

0.161

Average Relative Error

Vasque

851

Petrosk

0.098

Petrosk

0.092

y and

636

y and

78

Farshad

Farshad

Vasque

0.103

Vasque

0.097

33.98

89

99

73

and

and

Beggs

Beggs

Dindr
ouk

%
The best Bo
Correlation in each
report

0.156

Error

Vasque
39.73

report
Average Relative

Correlation in each

%
The best o

Error

report

Average Relative

Correlation in each

%
The best Bo

Error

y and

report

Leblanc

Petrosk

Average Relative

835

The best Bo

0.433

Correlation in each

Farshad

Average Relative Error

8.380

The best o
Correlation in each
report

Average Absolute
Relative Error

BeggsRobinso

The best Pb
Correlation

35.1214

Average Relative
Error

Average Relative
Error %

Glass

The best o

The best Rs
Correlation

Report Number

Table 10: Error statistics for the PVT correlations

23.48

Al-

0.134

Marhou

168

McCain

0.395
209

n 92

man

Kartoat

5
Glass

16.2231

Kartoat
mdjo &
Schmidt

13.97

Standin

8.625

12

025

mdjo
and

2.149

De

5.230

298

Ghetto

315

Ahm
ed
1985

31.65

De

0.168

De

0.200

Ghetto

68

Ghetto

39

De

0.150

Al-

0.199

Ghetto

64

Marhou

52

21

Schmidt

Vasq
Al

uez
and

37.5393

Mehaid
ab

5.104

Kartoat

5.439

135

mdjo

31

Arps

0.118
947

Petrosky
and
Farshad

47.63
69

Ahm
ed
1985

34.00

33

Beggs

Petros
ky
and

Petrosk
38.8111

y&
Farshad

Farsh

Dindrou

Petrosk

0.177

k and

11.10

193

Christm

933

an

1.367

and

29

Ahmed

32.89
331

Farshad

Ahm
ed
1985

6.900

Al-

4.190

Al-

3.949

Mehaid

448

Mehaid

89

ab

ab

53

ad

Vasq
uez

0.26955

and

Petrosk
y&
Farshad

Dindrou
k and

23.05

k and

2.485

443

Christm

253

Christm

91

an

Beggs

9
Glass
o

15.2957
9

BeggsRobinso
n

Dindrou

0.297

5.847
908

10

Lasater

an

5.371
289

40.6262

Khan

2.029

k and

7.225

543

Christm

49

an

11
Alma
rhoun

12

50.079

Khan

0.379
75

Dindr

Christ
man

and
Osman

83.7082

Khan

25

Labedi

45

4.790
48

mdjo
and

0.524
97

Petrosky
and
Farshad

34.01
52

Al1.612

Marhou

1.563

42

452

Ahmed

46.28
98

1988

Al-

1.067

k and

15.00

Marhou

18.68

Elsharka

3.844

715

Christm

56

59

wy

97

an

Ahm
ed
1985

Ahm
ed
1985

7.230
53

Stand
ing
1981

Al-

4.470

Al-

4.380

Mehaid

531

Mehaid

91

ab

ab

Vasque

0.060

32.56

862

57

and

Labedi

0.226
23

Beggs

38.07
51

Petrosk

0.126

Kartoat

0.124

y and

086

mdjo

93

Ahmed

1.962

Farshad

Schmidt

Dindrou

ouk
and

Doklah

0.118

Mehaida

25.39

Kartoat

Dindrou

Glass

Glasso

Al-

1988

Ahm
ed
1985

Ahm
ed
1985

Petrosk

2.631

32.59

y and

16

62

Farshad

26.94
16

64

Vasque

0.257

Vasque

0.257

03

997

and

and

Beggs

Beggs

SPE Error! Reference source not found.

13

Alma
rhoun

47.8708

Khan

0.358
338

Doklah
and
Osman

17

6.123
39

Dindrou

14
Alma
rhoun

64.7415

Khan

and
Osman

5.963
99

Al-

AlMarhou
n 92

3.421
343

Vasquez

0.445

k and

18.11

Marhou

10.99

58

Christm

431

91

an

15

Doklah

1988

4.934
and

66

Beggs

Ahm
ed
1985

Ahm
ed
1985

34.13
86

Al-

0.312

Al-

0.304

Marhou

234

Marhou

n 92

McCai
14.24

n 92

0.733

442

Al-

0.295

ouk

Mehaid

18

and

48.067

Khan

Christ

81

Doklah
and
Osman

7.311

Standin

5.844

418

44

Al-

Ahm

Marhou

6.383

ed

n 92

33

1985

0.732

09

Dindr
2.299

McCain

28.37

McCain

0.210
39

ab

44

man

16

Petros
ky
and

Beggs19.7647

Robinso
n

Farsh

1.397
595

Lasater

51.42
637

Glasso

1.537

De

5.499

68

Ghetto

971

Ahm
ed
1985

De

0.052

De

0.053

Ghetto

206

Ghetto

51

24.71
9

ad

17
Glass
o

25.6363

Khan

4.738
986

Farshad
Leblanc
e2

Al4.057

Marhou

0.157

Kartoat

1.284

59

971

mdjo

33

2003

18

25.7152

Khan

4.684
186

Glasso

16.86
89

Marhou

0.082

571

2003

19

ed
1985

Vasque

0.001

Vasque

0.001

37.87

77

76

76

and

and

Beggs

Beggs

Kartoat

Al-

Glass

Ahm

mdjoDe
Ghetto

7.070
77

Ahm
ed
1985

37.58
91

0.087

Vasque

0.089

84

913

and

and

Beggs

Beggs

N/A

Petros
ky
and

Vasque

Kartoat
51.8721

mdjo &
Schmidt

Farsh

0.823
918

Farshad
Leblanc
e2

Al6.503
079

Vasquez

Marhou

12.56

01

1988

6.511
and

74

Beggs

Ahm
ed
1985

Al-

0.145

Marhou

91

n 92

23.31
78

ad

20

Petros
ky
and

56.1587
3883

Beal

0.461
533

Lasater

70.97

Standin

7.614

761

04

Ahmed

0.001
144

Farsh

Ahm
ed
1985

Elshark

0.000

Elshark

5.7E-

awy

18

awy

05

Al-

0.062

Vasque

0.049

Marhou

06

247

27.84
87

ad

21

Petros
Dindrou

ky
and

29.3405

Beal

0.441
43

Lasater

1.216

k and

4.308

Elsharka

1.290

655

Christm

47

wy

533

Farsh

an

Ahm
ed
1985

28.50

n 92

and
Beggs

759

ad

22

Dindr
Dindrou

ouk
and

72.0626

Beal

Christ

Al-

0.549

k and

3.086

193

Christm

365

an

Vasquez

Marhou

19.00

52

1988

6.123
and

869

Beggs

Ahm
ed
1985

McCai

0.522

Vasque

0.517

06

74

14.01

and

67

Beggs

man

23
Glass
o

56.0295
7

Vasque
Labedi

8.055

z and
Beggs

3.662
59

24
Glass
o

25

18.0328

Beal

0.781

Vasq
uez
and
Beggs

52.4149

Beal

0.554
2

Glasso

Vasque
z and
Beggs

6.946
79

0.828
87

Doklah
and
Osman

Doklah
and
Osman

Arps

0.064
99

0.521
26

0.615
34

Labedi

Labedi

Labedi

10.80
29

14.06
59

24.06
01

Ahm
ed
1985

Ahm
ed
1985

Ahm
ed
1985

Vasque

0.070

Vasque

0.065

31.98

037

85

25

and

and

Beggs

Beggs

Vasque

0.105

Vasque

0.043

32.40

834

12

54

and

and

Beggs

Beggs

Labedi
34.50
77

0.334

Vasque

0.099

569

42

and
Beggs

Dindrou

26
Glass
o

33.8804

Khan

Al-

4.474

k and

22.57

Marhou

0.165

721

Christm

44

48

an

2003

AlMehaida
b

8.599
01

Ahm
ed
1985

Petrosk

0.161

Petrosk

0.160

37.69

y and

801

y and

14

68

Farshad

Kartoat

27
Glass
o

30.9658

Beal

3.073
487

Farshad
Leblanc
e1

6.620
44

mdjo
and

0.058
257

Petrosky
and
Farshad

35.08
27

Ahm
ed
1985

36.25
38

Farshad

Al-

0.028

Al-

0.027

Mehaid

798

Mehaid

25

ab

ab

Schmidt

28

Petros
ky
and

Kartoat
36.1363

mdjo &
Schmidt

Farsh

0.595
103

Farshad
Leblanc
e2

Al8.716
042

Vasquez

Marhou

0.392

201

1988

0.949
and

911

Beggs

Ahm

34.30

ed

98

McCai

0.267

207

Ahmed

0.715

Al-

0.079

Vasque

0.053

Marhou

35

411

738

1985

ad

29

Dindr
Al-

ouk
and

2.62533
9

Beal

0.703
734

Lasater

2.404
974

Christ

Marhou

7.614

Elsharka

0.870

495

wy

1988

Ahm
ed
1985

26.67

n 92

and
Beggs

81

man

30

Petros
ky
and

Kartoat
70.8259

mdjo &
Schmidt

Farsh

Dindrou

Al-

0.761

k and

68.13

562

Christm

005

an

Marhou

14.85

Kartoat

15.21

33

mdjo

748

1988

Ahm
ed
1985

20.98

Al-

0.422

Marhou

835

Ahmed

2.770
15

85

ad

Dindrou

31
Glass
o

36.7263

Khan

Al-

4.663

k and

32.98

Marhou

0.410

779

Christm

94

213

an

32

2003

Petrosky
and
Farshad

25.20
88

Ahm
ed
1985

Vasque

0.028

De

0.225

36.90

172

Ghetto

172

82

and
Beggs

Petros

El-

0.216

El-

0.218

ky

Sharka

Sharka

309

and

75.2352

Beal

0.251
219

Farsh

AlMarhou
n

139.6

Standin

1.223

Kartoat

18.97

987

17

mdjo

933

Ahm
ed
1985

29.42

wy

wy

19

ad

33

Dindr
ouk
and

42.3917

Beal

0.809
75

Lasater

82.33
786

Glasso

0.062
967

Labedi

23.15
96

Christ

Ahm
ed
1985

Vasque

0.095

Kartoat

0.231

258

mdjo

03

Vasque

0.050

Vasque

0.048

77

31.31

and

56

Beggs

man

34

Dindr
ouk
and

17.547

Beal

0.835
63

Christ

Farshad
Leblanc
e2

4.557
163

Arps

1.469
86

Labedi

4.911
83

Ahm
ed
1985

32.86

and

and

51

Beggs

Beggs

man

35
Glass
o

16.1640
1

Beal

0.849
1

Vasque
z and
Beggs

Al13.61

Marhou

0.103

Kartoat

34.66

891

99

mdjo

35

2003

Ahm
ed
1985

Vasque

0.018

Vasque

0.019

33.13

75

793

77

and

and

Beggs

Beggs