SPE 150650

Guidelines for Selecting Appropriate PVT Correlations for Black Oils

Ahmed Al-Zahaby, the British University in Egypt

Ahmed El-Banbi, Cairo University
Mohamed H. Sayyouh, Cairo University
Copyright 2012, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Cairo, Egypt, 20–22
February 2012.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an
abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and
are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE
copyright.

1. Abstract
Accurate determination of the crude oil PVT properties is essential for solving many reservoir engineering, production
engineering, 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 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, 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 35 Egyptian crudes to develop guidelines on which correlations to use for each PVT property for the
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 13 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 density correlations.
Based on this study, guidelines for selecting an appropriate correlation for PVT oil properties are introduced .These
guidelines are recommended in programming of PVT correlations regardless of their geographic origin.

2. Introduction
Ideally, 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.
2 SPE 150650

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 simulation 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 Analyis
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.

Table 1: Data Range for the Egyptian PVT Data

Laboratory measurement Parameters Minimum Maximum
o
Tank-oil gravity ( API) 17.2 51.28
Bubble-point oil FVF, Bob (bbl/STB) 1.049 4.47365
Bubble-point pressure, Pb (psia) 49 4,739
Pressure below bubble point, Pb (psia) 7 4,739
Bubble-point solution GOR, Rsb (scf/STB) 8 7,803
Reservoir temperature, T (oF) 40 270.9
Average surface gas gravity (avg. γg) 0.627 1.93
Under-saturated oil viscosity, μo (cp 0.11 104.2553
Bubble-point viscosity, μob (cp) 0.1063 45.1183
Dead oil viscosity, μod (cp) 0.4204 147.8802
SPE 150650 3

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
each measurement is as the following:
𝑛
1 𝑎𝑏𝑠 (𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦 − 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦)
𝐴𝐴𝑅𝐸 = × 100
𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦
𝑖=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 1-
2 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 ,De-
Ghetto ,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.
4 SPE 150650

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 Utilisation and validation

The developed PVT Expert System could be utilized to determine the most feasible PVT correlations for particular
reservoir parameters.

9. Results of compining 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%).

10. Conclusions
Based on the present study and data review the following conclusions and recommendations can be made.
1. Dindrouk and Christman correlation appears to be the most appropriate approach for Bubble point pressure
correlations, with an average error of 23%,and it behaves very well in the range of 0 -500 psia.
2. As regards the solution gas-oil ratio, Glasso correlation is the most appropriate with an estimate of error of 26 %,
and it behaves very well in the range of 0 -120 scf/STB.
3. For Bubble point oil formation volume factor, Al-Marhoun 1988 showed the best results especially in the range of 1-
2 bbl/STB (Black oils).
4. Vasquez and Beggs showed the best results for under-saturated oil formation volume factor especially in the range
of 1-4 bbl/STB.
5. For under-saturated oil viscosity Beal showed the best stable correlation with an error of 0.811 %, it behaves well
especially in the range of 0-55 cp.
6. For gas saturated oil viscosity Khamechi shows the best results with ARE of 40 %, it behaves well especially in the
range of 0-5 cp.
7. For the coefficient of under-saturated isothermal oil compressibility Labedi is recommended as the best correlation
with an error of 12 %.
8. As regards gas saturated oil density Ahmed gives the best results with ARE of 20 %.
9. For under-saturated oil density Vasquez and Beggs is the best selected correlation with an error of 0.06 %.
10. Papay shows the least error 4.25 % for gas compressibility factor correlations.
SPE 150650 5

11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.

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. Un-doughtily this can help revise
the achieved goal particularly in the area of reservoir engineering modeling that can also allow us to compare correlations
with neural network output.

Nomenclature
bbl/STB
Bo Oil Formation Volume Factor
scf/STB
Rso Solution Gas-oil ratio
psia
Pb Bubble point pressure
degree
API Gravity of stock tank oil
Bbl/STB
Boi Oil formation volume factor
γSTO The specific gravity of the stock
–tank oil

o
API API stock tank oil gravity
Molecular weight of the stock- lb/lb.
Mwo tank liquid mole
cp
µ Viscosity
psia-1
co oil compressibility
STB
γg Gas specific gravity
-
γo Oil specific gravity
psi
PPc Pseudo-critical pressure
-
PPr Pseudo-reduced pressure
psi
Pwf Bottom hole flowing pressure
Psp Separator Pressure, psia Mscf/D
Tsp Separator temperature ̊F
scf/STB
R Instantaneous gas oil ratio
g/cc
O oil density
Mscf/STB
Rs Solution gas oil ratio
Mscf/STB
R si Initial solution gas oil ratio
Specific gravity of the stock-
γo tank liquid
6 SPE 150650

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.
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. 650-
666, 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.
SPE 150650 7

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)1140-
1141.
32 - Khan and Al-Marhoun:”Viscosity Correlations for Saudi Arabian Crude Oils”Paper 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.
 Standing vasquez and Beggs
Figures Glaso Al-Marhoun

calculated solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB

Petrosky and Farshad Dindrouk and Christman
Shell Dindrouk Christman 3000
4000
3500
2000
3000
calculated Pb, Psia

2500
2000 1000
1500
1000
0
500
0 1000 2000 3000
0 experimental solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Figure 3: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental
experimental Pb, Psia solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB for the range of 0-
Figure 1: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental 3000scf/STB.
bubble point pressure, psia.

Standing vasquez and Beggs

Glaso Al-Marhoun
Petrosky and Farshad Dindrouk and Christman
200
calculated solution gas-oil

180 Dindrouk Christman Standing

160 2003Almarhoon 1988Almarhoon
140 Petrosky and Farshad Doklah and Osman
ratio, scf/STB

120 Omar and Todd Al-Mehaideb

estimated oil formation volume

100 Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt Glaso

Arps Vasquez and Beggs
80 5
60
40 4
factor,bbl/STB

20
0 3
0 20 40 60 80100120140160180200
2
experimental solution gas-oil
ratio, scf/STB 1
1 2 3 4 5
experimental oil formation volume
Figure 2: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental factor,bbl/STB
solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB for the range of 0-200
scf/STB.
Figure 4: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental
bubble point oil formation volume factor (bbl/STB).
SPE 150650 9

labedi Al-Mehaidab
100

calculated saturated oil viscosity, cp

1.40E-04
90
1.20E-04
80
calculated co, psi-1

1.00E-04 70
8.00E-05 60
6.00E-05 50
4.00E-05 40
2.00E-05 30
0.00E+00 20
0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 10
experimental co, psi-1 0
Figure 5: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
the coefficient of under-saturated isothermal oil experimental saturated oil viscosity, cp
compressibility data, psia -1.
Figure 7: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental
.
saturated oil viscosity data, cp.
Vasquez and Beggs
100 Beal 4
formaton volume factor, bbl/STB
calculated under saturated oil
calculated under saturated oil

80

60 3
viscosity, cp

40

20 2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
experimental under saturated oil 1
viscosity, cp 1 2 3 4
experimental under saturated oil
Figure 6: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental formaton volume factor, bbl/STB
under-saturated oil viscosity data, cp.
Figure 8: Cross-plot between estimated and experimental
under saturated oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB.
10 SPE 150650

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

Accuracy %

Reference
Reported
Property

Error %
Pp (psia) γo (°API) γg T (°F) Rs
(SCF/ST
B)
Pp Dindrouk-Christman 926 – 1,2230 14.70 – 40.0 .6017 – 1.027 117 – 276 133 – N/A 21
3,050
Standing 130 – 7,000 16.5 – 63.8 0.59 – 0.95 100 – 258 20 – 20.685 14
1,425
Petrosky and Farshad 1574 – 6,523 16.3 – 45 0.5781 – 114 - 288 217 – 86.635 11
0.8519 1,406
Al-Marhoun 130 – 3,573 19.4 – 44.6 0.752 – 1.367 74 – 240 26 – 23.915 17
1,602
Glaso 22.3-48.1 22.3-48.1 0.65-1.28 80-280 90-2,637 26.153 7
Khamechi, Rashidi, N/A 33.4-124 0.554-0.858 100-306 83-1,708 N/A 34
Rasouli &Ebrahimian
Omar &Todd 26.6-53.2 0.612-1.315 125-280 142- 7.17 28
1,440
Vasquez and Beggs 15-6,055 15.3-59.3 0.51-1.35 75-294 0-2,199 N/A 15

Doklah and Osman 590-4,640 28.2- 0.80- 190-275 181- 7.61 18

40.3 1.29 2,266
Lasater 48-5,780 17.9-51.1 0.57-1.2 82-272 3-2,905 N/A 5

Farshad Leblance1 32-4,138 18.0-44.9 0.66-1.73 95-260 6-1,645 N/ A 20

Farshad Leblance2 32-4,138 18.0-44.9 0.66-1.73 95-260 6-1,645 N/A 20

Kartoatmdjo 15-6,055 14.4-58.9 0.38-1.71 75-320 0-2,890 20.17 21

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

Error %
Pb (psia) γo (°API) γg T (°F) Rs
(SCF/
STB)
Rso Shell GOM 926 – 14.70 – 0.6017 – 117 - 276 133 - N/A 21
12,230 40.00 1.027 3050
Standing 130 – 16.5 – 0.59 – 100– 258 20 – N/A 14
7,000 63.8 0.95 1425
Petrosky and Farshad 1574 – 16.3 – 45 0.5781 – 114 - 288 217 - N/A 11
6,523 0.8519 1406
Al-Marhoun 130 – 19.4 – 0.752– 74 – 240 26 – N/A 17
3,573 44.6 1.367 1602
Glasso 165- 22.3-48.1 0.65-1.276 80-280 22.3- N/A 7
7,142 48.1
Khamehchi,Rashidi,Raso 33.4-124 0.554- 100-306 83- N/A 34
uli Ebrahimian 0.858 1708
SPE 150650 11

Table 4: Reported Input Parameters Ranges for Under-Saturated Isothermal Oil Compressibility Correlations

Error % AAE
Correlation Limitations

Reference
Accuracy
Reported
Property

Pb γo γg T (°F) Rs Co(10-6
(psia) (°API) (SCF/STB) 1/ psia )

co Dindrouk 926 – 14.70 0.601 117 - 133 – 5.02– 6.21 21

Christman Shell 12230 – 40.0 7– 276 3,050 31.91
GOM 1.027
Vazquez and 15 - 15.3 – 0.511 170 0 – 2,199 N/A N/A 15
Beggs 6055 59.5 – (Mean)
1.351
Petrosky and 1574 - 16.3 – 0.578 114 - 217 – 3.5 – 6.66 11
Farshad 6523 45 1– 288 1,406 24.64
0.851
9
Al-Marhoun 106 – 17.5 – 0.75 – 71 – 24 – 1,453 3.45 – 5.46 27
3331 44.6 1.59 240 31.11
De Ghetto NA 6-56.8 NA 81-342 8-2,986 3.02-43 Extra heavy( oAPI 2
<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 13.7- 0.59- 95-260 6-1,758 2-34 AE-6.86 20

46.5 1.731 SD32.5
AAE20.21
Kartomdjo and 14.4- 75-320 0-2,890 2.701- AE 0.301 21
Schmidt 59.0 127.4 AAE23.67
Al-Mehaidab 501- 30.9- 0.746 190- 128-3,871 N/A 9.88 13
4822 48.6 - 306
1.116
Labedi N/A N/A N/A N/A 128-306 5.81- N/A 10
N/A 57.04
Ahmed N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9

Standing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4

El-Sharkawy 24.5- 0.807 120- 367-1,568 3.62- 15.23 1

39.8 - 243 29.18
1.234
 12 SPE 150650

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

Reported Accuracy
Correlation Limitations

Reference
Property

γo (°API) γg

Error %
Reservoir T (°F) Rs Bo
Pressure , (SCF/S (RB/ST
psia TB) B)

Bo Shell GOM ------- 14.70 – 0.6017 – 117 - 276 133 - 1.0845 N/A 21
40.0 1.027 3050 –
2.8984
Standing ------- 16.5 – 0.59 – 100 – 20 – 1.024 – N/A 14
63.8 0.95 258 1425 2.15
Petrosky and Farshad 1700- 16.3 – 45 0.5781 – 114 – 217 - 1.1178 N/A 11
10,692 0.8519 288 1406 –
1.6229
Al-Marhoun 20-3,573 19.4 – 0.753 – 74 – 240 24– 1.032 – EA .88% 8
44.6 1.367 1453 1.997 SD
1.18%
Glasso ------- 22.3-48.1 0.65-1.28 80-280 90-2637 1.032- EA-0.43 7
2.588 SD-2.18
Vasquez and Beggs 15.3-59.3 .511-1.35 75-294 0-2199 Deviation 15
5%
Farshad-Leblance 18-44.9 .66-1.7 95-260 6-1,645 N/A 20
Garber, Osorio
Doklah Osman 28.2-40.3 .80-1.29 190-275 181- 1.225 18
2266
Omar and Todd 26.6-53.2 0.612-1.32 125-280 142- 1.44 28
1,440
Al-Mehaidab 30.9-48.6 0.75-1.12 190-306 128- 1.35 13
3,871
Macary and El- 25-40 0.7-1.00 130-290 200- 7.04 1
Batanony 1,200
Kartoatmdjo and 14.4-58.9 0.38-1.71 75-320 0-2,890 2.025 21
Schmidt
Arps N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35
Ahmed 1988 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A EA 1.094 9
SD 2.5

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

Error %

γg γo( T (°F) Rs P , psia

oAPI ) (SCF/STB)

Bt Glasso 0.65- 22.3- 80- 90-2,637 400- SD 6.54 7

1.28 48.1 280 4,000 Avg devia -
4.56
Al-Marhoun’s N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 17
(1988)
 SPE 150650 13

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

Reference
Accuracy
Reported
Property

Error %
Limitations
Correlation
Rs
Pb(psia ) µo (cp) µobp (cp) T (°F)
(SCF/STB)
Dindrouk Christman 926 – 0.211 – 0.1610 – 121 - AARE 5.99
µo 133 - 3,050 21
Shell GOM 12,230 10.6 8.7 276 ARE -0.83
140 – 0.16 – 0.142 – 72 –
Standing 12 - 1,827 N/A 14
4135 315 127 292
1,574 – 0.224 – 0.211 – 114 –
Petrosky and Farshad 21 – 1,885 2.9 11
9,522 4.09 3.546 288
Glasso N/A N/A N/A 50-300 N/A N/A 7
Khan and Al- 107 – 0.13 – 0.13 –
75-240 24-1,901 1.915 32
Marhoun 4,315 71 17.9
501- 190-
Al Mehaidab N/A N/A 128-3,871 2.885 13
4,822 306
Beggs-Robinson
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 31
Beal 132-
N/A N/A 72-292 51-3,544 ARE 2.7 30
5,645
Kartoatmdjo &
Schmidt N/A N/A 0.096-586 80-320 2.3-573 6.88 21

Labedi 0.115-
60-6,358 N/A N/A N/A ARE -3.1 10
3.72

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

Reference
Accuracy
Reported
Property

µoD µobp T Rs Pb, Error%

(cp) (cp) (°F) (scf/STB psia
)
µo Dindrouk Christman Shell GOM 0.896 0.161 N/A 133- N/A 13.2 21
b – 0– 3,050
62.63 8.7
Standing 0.377 0.3 – N/A 0-3544 N/A N/A 14
– 50 35
Petrosky and Farshad 0.725 0.211 N/A 21-1,885 N/A N/A 11
– –
11.69 7.403
Khan and Al-Marhoun N/A 0.13 – 75- 24-1,901 107- N/A 32
17.9 240 431
5
Glasso 0.616 N/A N/A N/A 7
-39.1
Chew and Connally 0.377 N/A 72- 51 - 132- N/A 33
-50 292 3,544 564
F 5
Al- Mehaidab N/A N/A 190 128- 501- N/A 13
- 3871 482
306 2
Khamechi, Rashidi, Rasouli& N/A 0.04-3 100 83-1708 N/A N/A 34
Ebrahimian -
14 SPE 150650

306
Beggs &Robinson N/A N/A 70- 20 - N/A N/A 31
295 2,070

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

Reference
Accuracy
Reported
γo (°API)
Property

µoD (cp) T (°F)

%
µod Dindrouk-Christman-Shell 0.896 – 62.63 14.70 – 121 - 12.62 21
GOM 40.00 276
Standing 0.865 – 1,550 10.1 – 52.5 100 - N/A 14
220
Petrosky and Farshad 0.725 – 25.4 – 46.1 114 - 12.38 11
10.249 288 SD 11.25

Glasso 0.6-39 20-48 50-300 22.1 9

Labedi 0.6-4.8 32-48 100-306 -2.16 10
Beggs and Robinson ------- 16-58 70-295 Ea :0.64% 31
SD
:13.53%
Beal, 0.8-188 10-52 100-220 24.2 30
Schmidt-and Kartoatmdjo 0.5-586 14.4-59 80-320 39.6 21
El-Sharkawy 0.6-33.7 20-48 100-300 19.3 64
And Ali Khan
Naseri, Nakizar 0.75-54 17-44 105-295 7.77 1
Trevor Bennison N/A 8-20 100-250 13 1
Egbogh N/A 5-58 15 -80 C Ea -5.13 1
SD:55.51
Khan and Al-Marhoun N/A 14.3-44.6 75-240 N/A 32
SPE 150650 15

Table 10: Error statistics for the PVT correlations

Correlation in each
report
The best Bo
Report Number

Correlation in each
Correlation in each

Correlation in each

Correlation in each
Average Relative

Average Relative

Average Absolute

Average Relative Error

Average Relative Error

Average Relative

Average Relative

Average Relative
The best Rs

Relative Error
Correlation

The best ρo
The best Pb
The best µo

The best ρo
Correlation

The best Bo

The best Bo
Error %

report
report

report

report
Error

Error

Error

Error

%
%

%
1 Vasque 0.156 Vasque 0.161
Beggs- Petrosk Ahm
Glass 35.1214 8.380 Farshad 0.433 0.157 Kartoat 11.56 39.73 z 851 z 618
Robinso y and ed
o 3 835 Leblanc 1 711 mdjo 86 85 and and
n Farshad 1985
e2 Beggs Beggs

2 Al- Petrosky Ahm Petrosk 0.098 Petrosk 0.092

Glass 3.345 Farshad 1.618 0.026 25.18 39.03
18.3291 Khan Marhou and ed y and 636 y and 78
o 99 Leblanc 57 319 12 99
n 2003 Farshad 1985 Farshad Farshad
e2

3 Vasque 0.103 Vasque 0.097

Beggs- Doklah Ahm
Glass 3.25086 11.15 8.070 0.254 13.38 33.98 z 89 z 99
Robinso and Glasso Labedi ed
o 8 96 57 77 86 73 and and
n Osman 1985
Beggs Beggs

4 Al- Vasquez Al- 0.134 McCain 0.395

Al- Ahm
Shell 0.426 12.78 Marhou 3.216 9.786 23.48 Marhou 168 209
60.0513 Beal Marhou ed
GOM 33 34 n 32 and 88 1 n 92
n 1985
1988 Beggs

5 Kartoat De 0.168 De 0.200

Kartoat mdjo Ahm Ghetto 68 Ghetto 39
Glass 16.2231 13.97 Standin 8.625 2.149 De 5.230 31.65
mdjo & and ed
o 3 12 g 025 298 Ghetto 315 21
Schmidt 1985
Schmidt

6 Vasq De 0.150 Al- 0.199

Al Petrosky Ahm Ghetto 64 Marhou 52
uez 5.104 Kartoat 5.439 0.118 47.63 34.00
37.5393 Mehaid Arps and ed n
and 135 mdjo 31 947 69 33
ab Farshad 1985
Beggs

7 Petros Al- 4.190 Al- 3.949

Petrosk Mehaid 448 Mehaid 89
ky Petrosk Ahm
0.177 Shell 11.10 y 1.367 32.89 6.900 ab ab
and 38.8111 y& Ahmed ed
193 GOM 933 and 29 331 53
Farsh Farshad 1985
Farshad
ad

8 Vasq Al- 4.470 Al- 4.380

Petrosk Al- Ahm Mehaid 531 Mehaid 91
uez 0.26955 0.297 Shell 23.05 Shell 2.485 25.39 7.230
y& Mehaida ed ab ab
and 6 443 GOM 253 GOM 91 45 53
Farshad b 1985
Beggs

9 Vasque 0.060 Labedi 0.226

Beggs- Ahm
Glass 15.2957 5.847 5.371 0.118 4.790 32.56 z 862 23
Robinso Lasater Glasso Labedi ed
o 9 908 289 25 48 57 and
n 1985
Beggs

10 Kartoat Petrosk 0.126 Kartoat 0.124

mdjo Petrosky Stand y and 086 mdjo 93
Glass 2.029 Shell 7.225 0.524 34.01 38.07
40.6262 Khan and and ing Farshad
o 543 GOM 49 97 52 51
Farshad 1981
Schmidt

11 Al- Petrosk 2.631 Ahmed 1.962

Doklah Ahm
Alma 0.379 1.612 Marhou 1.563 46.28 32.59 y and 16 64
50.079 Khan and Ahmed ed
rhoun 75 42 n 452 98 62 Farshad
Osman 1985
1988

12 Al- Vasque 0.257 Vasque 0.257

Ahm
Shell 1.067 Shell 15.00 Marhou 18.68 Elsharka 3.844 26.94 z 03 z 997
83.7082 Khan ed
GOM 715 GOM 56 n 59 wy 97 16 and and
1985
1988 Beggs Beggs
16 SPE 150650

13 Doklah Doklah Al- Ahm Al- 0.312 Al- 0.304

Alma 0.358 6.123 5.963 3.421 34.13
47.8708 Khan and and Marhou ed Marhou 234 Marhou 8
rhoun 338 39 99 343 86
Osman Osman n 92 1985 n 92 n 92

14 Al- Vasquez McCai 0.733 McCain 0.732

Ahm
Alma 0.445 Shell 18.11 Marhou 10.99 4.934 14.24 n 442
64.7415 Khan ed
rhoun 58 GOM 431 n 91 and 66 09
1985
1988 Beggs

15 Doklah Al- - Ahm Al- 0.295 McCain 0.210

Shell 2.299 7.311 Standin 5.844 28.37
48.067 Khan and Marhou 6.383 ed Mehaid 18 39
GOM 81 418 g 44 44
Osman n 92 33 1985 ab

16 Petros De 0.052 De 0.053

Ghetto 206 Ghetto 51
ky Beggs- Ahm
1.397 51.42 1.537 De 5.499 24.71
and 19.7647 Robinso Lasater Glasso ed
595 637 68 Ghetto 971 9
Farsh n 1985

ad

17 Al- Vasque 0.001 Vasque 0.001

Farshad Ahm
Glass 4.738 4.057 Marhou 0.157 Kartoat 1.284 37.87 z 77 z 76
25.6363 Khan Leblanc ed
o 986 59 n 971 mdjo 33 76 and and
e2 1985
2003 Beggs Beggs

18 Kartoat Vasque 0.087 Vasque 0.089

Al-
mdjo- Ahm z 84 z 913
Glass 4.684 16.86 Marhou 0.082 7.070 37.58
25.7152 Khan Glasso De ed and and
o 186 89 n 571 77 91
Ghetto 1985 Beggs Beggs
2003

19 Petros N/A Al- 0.145

Al- Vasquez Marhou 91
ky Kartoat Farshad Ahm
0.823 6.503 Marhou 12.56 6.511 23.31 n 92
and 51.8721 mdjo & Leblanc ed
918 079 n 01 and 74 78
Farsh Schmidt e2 1985
1988 Beggs
ad

20 Petros Elshark 0.000 Elshark 5.7E-

awy 18 awy 05
ky Ahm
56.1587 0.461 70.97 Standin 7.614 0.001 27.84
and Beal Lasater Ahmed ed
3883 533 761 g 04 144 87
Farsh 1985

ad

21 Petros Al- 0.062 Vasque 0.049

Marhou 06 z 247
ky Ahm
0.441 1.216 Shell 4.308 Elsharka 1.290 28.50 n 92 and
and 29.3405 Beal Lasater ed
43 655 GOM 47 wy 533 759 Beggs
Farsh 1985

ad

22 Al- Vasquez McCai 0.522 Vasque 0.517

Ahm
Shell 0.549 Shell 3.086 Marhou 19.00 6.123 14.01 n 06 z 74
72.0626 Beal ed
GOM 193 GOM 365 n 52 and 869 67 and
1985
1988 Beggs Beggs

23 Vasque 0.070 Vasque 0.065

Vasque Doklah Ahm
Glass 56.0295 3.662 0.064 10.80 31.98 z 037 z 85
Labedi 8.055 z and and Labedi ed
o 7 59 99 29 25 and and
Beggs Osman 1985
Beggs Beggs

24 Vasque 0.105 Vasque 0.043

Doklah Ahm
Glass 6.946 0.521 14.06 32.40 z 834 z 12
18.0328 Beal 0.781 Glasso and Labedi ed
o 79 26 59 54 and and
Osman 1985
Beggs Beggs

25 Vasq Labedi 0.334 Vasque 0.099

Vasque Ahm 569 z 42
uez 0.554 0.828 0.615 24.06 34.50
52.4149 Beal z and Arps Labedi ed and
and 2 87 34 01 77
Beggs 1985 Beggs
Beggs

26 Al- Petrosk 0.161 Petrosk 0.160

Al- Ahm
Glass 4.474 Shell 22.57 Marhou 0.165 8.599 37.69 y and 801 y and 14
33.8804 Khan Mehaida ed
o 721 GOM 44 n 48 01 68 Farshad Farshad
b 1985
2003
SPE 150650 17

27 Kartoat Al- 0.028 Al- 0.027

Farshad mdjo Petrosky Ahm Mehaid 798 Mehaid 25
Glass 3.073 6.620 0.058 35.08 36.25
30.9658 Beal Leblanc and and ed ab ab
o 487 44 257 27 38
e1 Farshad 1985
Schmidt

28 Petros McCai 0.267 Ahmed 0.715

Al- Vasquez n 207 738
ky Kartoat Farshad Ahm 34.30
0.595 8.716 Marhou 0.392 0.949
and 36.1363 mdjo & Leblanc ed 98
103 042 n 201 and 911
Farsh Schmidt e2 1985
1988 Beggs
ad

29 Al- Al- 0.079 Vasque 0.053

Ahm
Shell 2.62533 0.703 2.404 Marhou 7.614 Elsharka 0.870 26.67 Marhou 35 z 411
Beal Lasater ed
GOM 9 734 974 n 495 wy 8 81 n 92 and
1985
1988 Beggs

30 Petros Al- 0.422 Ahmed 2.770

Al- Marhou 835 15
ky Kartoat Ahm
0.761 Shell 68.13 Marhou 14.85 Kartoat 15.21 20.98 n
and 70.8259 mdjo & ed
562 GOM 005 n 33 mdjo 748 85
Farsh Schmidt 1985
1988
ad

31 Al- Vasque 0.028 De 0.225

Petrosky Ahm
Glass 4.663 Shell 32.98 Marhou 0.410 25.20 36.90 z 172 Ghetto 172
36.7263 Khan and ed
o 779 GOM 94 n 213 88 82 and
Farshad 1985
2003 Beggs

32 Petros El- 0.216 El- 0.218

Sharka 7 Sharka 309
ky Al- Ahm
0.251 139.6 Standin 1.223 Kartoat 18.97 29.42 wy wy
and 75.2352 Beal Marhou ed
219 987 g 17 mdjo 933 19
Farsh n 1985

ad

33 Vasque 0.095 Kartoat 0.231

Ahm
Shell 0.809 82.33 0.062 23.15 31.31 z 258 mdjo 03
42.3917 Beal Lasater Glasso Labedi ed
GOM 75 786 967 96 56 and
1985
Beggs

34 Vasque 0.050 Vasque 0.048

Farshad Ahm
Shell 0.835 4.557 1.469 4.911 32.86 z 8 z 77
17.547 Beal Leblanc Arps Labedi ed
GOM 63 163 86 83 51 and and
e2 1985
Beggs Beggs

35 Al- Vasque 0.018 Vasque 0.019

Vasque Ahm
Glass 16.1640 0.849 13.61 Marhou 0.103 Kartoat 34.66 33.13 z 75 z 793
Beal z and ed
o 1 1 891 n 99 mdjo 35 77 and and
Beggs 1985
2003 Beggs Beggs