SPE-113026-STU (Student 6)
Heavy Fraction C7+ Characterization for PR-EOS
Gastón Fondevila Sancet, Buenos Aires Institute of Technology
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 SPE International Student Paper Con-
test at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition being held in Anaheim, California,
11-14 November, 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by merit of placement in a regional student paper
contest held in the program year preceding the International Student Paper Contest. Contents
of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessar-
ily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members.
Abstract
A compositional simulator uses an Equation of State (EOS) to
predict the pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) behavior of
gas and crude oil fluids, which are very complex hydrocarbon
mixtures.
In a hydrocarbon mixture, the critical properties (critical
pressure “Pc”, critical temperature “Tc” and accentric factor
“ω”) must be given for each component. These properties are
well known for pure compounds (like methane, ethane, etc.),
but nearly all naturally occurring gas and crude oil fluids con-
tain some heavy fractions that are not well defined. These
heavy fractions are lumped and called the “plus-fraction”
(C7+). There arises the need of adequately characterizing these
undefined plus fractions in terms of their critical properties.
This work presents a correlation for the critical properties
of the plus-fraction C7+ needed in the characterization of crude
oil fluid samples for a compositional simulator using Peng-
Robinson’s1 EOS. The correlation is a function of the frac-
tion’s molecular weight (MW).
Twenty (20) PVT laboratory tests made in black oil fluid
samples taken from fields of the Neuquén Basin (Argentina)
were utilized for the adjustment of the bubble point (Pb), gas –
oil ratio (GOR), constant composition expansion pressure-
volume relation (PV) and differential expansion curves (Rs,
Bo and ρo) of the compositional simulator.
A comparative study was performed against the Riazi-
Daubert’s2 correlation. The correlation here presented gives
better results than those of Riazi-Daubert’s correlation and
also gives excellent liquid density predictions when there are
high MW hydrocarbons present in the fluid.
Introduction
One of the biggest existing problems when using a composi-
tional simulator is the lack of good critical properties estima-
tion for the heavy fraction of the fluid.3 Furthermore, for the
characterization of the fraction few data are available, usually
MW, SG and normal boiling point (Tb). For this correlation
MW and SG were utilized, as both are habitually given or can
be obtained from the molar composition of the fluid.
There are various methods for the characterization of
heavy fractions: Riazi-Daubert, Kessler-Lee4, Twu5 and Sta-
mataki-Magoulas6. This study only compares to Riazi and
Daubert, since it is the one mostly used in the industry; Stama-
taki-Magoulas is presented as a better alternative to Twu and
Kessler-Lee, but its performance was deficient, consequently
these last three studies are discarded from the comparison.
The trigger of this work was that estimations generated
from the Riazi-Daubert’s correlation were not close enough to
the PVT laboratory tests, and fraction parameter’s adjustment
was very time consuming in the simulator. A correlation was
created that could solve this problem, giving closer results to
laboratory curves and as a consequence, less time spent in the
critical parameter’s adjustment.
Equation of State
Today Peng-Robinson EOS (PR-EOS, 1976) is one of the
most widely used EOS in the chemical and petroleum indus-
try. It is superior when considering liquid density predictions
to the Soave-Redlich-Kwong EOS (SRK-EOS, 1972), al-
though all cubic EOS experience difficulties in the liquid den-
sity calculations, which brings to the application of certain
modifications to these equations. We have used two modifica-
tions presented below. The EOS is presented here:
RT aα
P= − (1)
Vm − b Vm2 + 2bVm − b 2
R 2Tc2
a = 0.457235528921 (2)
Pc
RTc
b = 0.077796073904 (3)
Pc
( )⎦
2
α = ⎡1 + κ 1 − Tr ⎤ (4)
⎣
κ = 0.37464 + 1.54226ω − 0.26992ω 2 (5)
For the application of EOS in mixtures (this is the case of
petroleum fluids), certain mixture rules must be utilized. In
this study the quadratic mixture rule is used, since it is the
simplest:
2 SPE Student Paper

aij = ai a j (1 − kij ) (6) θ = aMW b SG c exp ⎡⎣ dMW + eSG + f ( MW ⋅ SG ) ⎤⎦ (14)

bi + b j Where:
bij = (7) θ = some physic property.
2
a-f = coefficients for each physic property (Table 1).
Binary interaction parameters kij of the Eq. 6 were ob-
tained from Nishiumi’s7 correlation. The Edmister’s correlation for the accentric factor is Pc
and Tc dependent. Is given by:
EOS Modifications
In our case the compositional simulator utilizes two modifica- 3 log ( Pc 14.7 )
ω= −1 (15)
tions: Twu-Coon-Cunningham8 and Twu-Tilton-Bluck9. 7 Tc Tb − 1

Twu-Coon-Cunningham. This modification considers a new

relation of the attraction term: the α parameter, temperature TABLE 1 – Riazi and Daubert’s coefficients
and accentric factor dependent. They propose the next equa-
θ Tc Pc Tb
tions:
a 544.4 45203 6.77857

(
α = α ( 0 ) + ω α (1) − α ( 0) ) (8) b
c
0.2998
1.0555
-0.8063
1.6015
0.401673
-1.58262

( )
d -0.00013478 -0.0018078 0.00377409
α ( 0) = Tr −0.171813 exp 0.125283 ⎡⎣1 − Tr1.77634 ⎤⎦ (9)
e -0.61641 -0.3084 2.984036
f 0.0 0.0 -0.00425288
(
α (1) = Tr −0.607352 exp 0.511614 ⎡⎣1 − Tr 2.20517 ⎤⎦ ) (10)
PVT Data
A selection of twenty (20) PVT studies was realized in the
Twu-Tilton-Bluck. Presents a volume-change factor for im-
Neuquén-Basin, mostly Black-Oil samples from these reser-
proving the liquid density predictions. They propose the fol-
voirs: Centenario, Mulichinco, Petrolífera, Quintuco, Sierras
lowing equations:
Blancas and Tordillo. The samples posses an API range be-
tween 30 and 60, a GOR range between 50 and 250 m3/m3 and
c = vs ,CEOS − vs , RA (11)
a C7+ mole % range between 25% and 50%. Their character-
istics are given in Table 4 and their heavy fraction properties
⎛ RT ⎞ ⎡1+ (1−Tr )2 7 ⎤
⎣⎢ ⎦⎥
are given in Table 5.
vs , RA = ⎜ c ⎟ RA
Z (12)
⎝ Pc ⎠ Methodology
The compositional simulator utilized is the software UniTest©
v = vCEOS − ∑ xi ci (13) (property of DeltaP®). It uses the PR-EOS with the modifica-
tions previously presented, the quadratic mixing rule and the
Where: Nishiumi’s binary interaction parameters. The outputs of the
vs,CEOS = volume of saturated liquid calculated by a cubic EOS. simulator are the following curves:
vs,RA = volume of saturated liquid calculated by Rackett’s
equation (Eq. 12). - Solution gas – oil ratio (Rs), DE.
ZRA = Rackett’s parameter (see Table 3). - Oil formation volume factor (Bo), DE.
- Oil density (ρo), DE.
In the case of pseudo-components, the value of ZRA is equal to - Pressure – volume relation (PV), CCE.
the critical compressibility factor Zc.
DE stands for Differential Expansion and CCE stands for
Riazi-Daubert Correlation Constant Composition Expansion.
Riazi-Daubert’s correlation utilizes MW and SG as heavy The software has an optimization function for comparing
fraction parameters. They propose the same type of equation the laboratory data with the output of the simulator, varying
for all the physical properties, varying only the coefficients in parameters selected by the user and adjusting the data set by
each particular case. For calculating the accentric factor, Ri- the “least squares” method. This function was used to adjust
azi-Daubert uses the Edmister’s10 correlation. The proposed the density curve, varying the plus-fraction MW and obtaining
relationship is next: an array of “adjusted MW” (called MW*).
SPE Student Paper 3

Each crude oil sample was represented by a composi-
tional model of the reservoir fluid. This model is defined by
the mole composition of: Nitrogen (N2), Carbon Dioxide
(CO2), Methane (CH4) through Hexane (C6H14); the critical
properties of these elements were obtained from Reid11 and
are presented in Table 3. Lastly the pseudo-component
(which represents the heptanes plus-fraction of the fluid, in
this case C7+) is defined with the correlation presented next.
But here arises another problem: the liquid density
curves calculated by the simulator are far beyond from the
laboratory measured curves, although the PV, Rs and Bo
curves are adjusted. The solution: match the oil density curve
given by the simulator varying the MW of the plus-fraction.
This new MW is called the “adjusted MW” (MW*) and is
only used for calculating the oil density in the simulator. A
relation between MW* and MW (Eq. 19) was found:

Proposed Correlation MW * = 39.44 + 47.47 exp ( 0.006701MW ) (19)

First a simple curve matching, using the previously presented
software function, between the compositional simulator and
This equation is presented in Figure 4.
PVT tests data, varying the critical properties of the C7+, was
tried. The results were not promising: an excellent matching
Correlation Comparison
for each sample was accomplished, but there was no relation-
The comparison of both correlations was done using the rela-
ship encountered between the MW and SG with the critical
tive average error RAE, calculated between the PVT data
properties, the matching took several minutes of computer
points and the output points of the simulator, for each correla-
calculations and no physical meaning or explanation was
tion. Table 2 presents the RAE comparison between the two
taken into account.
correlations, Table 6 and Table 7 shows the RAE of Pb,
Then it was decided to try something simpler: the Reid’s
GOR, PV, Rs, Bo and ρo for each sample. The relative aver-
known critical properties of pure compounds between n-C7
age error (RAE) is given by:
and n-C20. The reason is that for this set of black oil samples,
the MW of the heptanes plus fraction is between the MW n-C7
1 xcalc − xdata
and n-C20, so it is not radical to think the C7+ as an “average”
compound between these two.
RAE =
N
∑ xdata
(20)
A relationship was established between the MW and the
critical properties using the data set provided by Reid. The Where:
functions for obtaining Pc (Eq. 16) and Tc (Eq. 17) from MW N = number of data points
were working well but the ω obtained brought some problems: xcalc = calculated variable
for samples with high MW of the C7+, the ω was greater than xdata = known data variable
unity and the vapor pressures obtained by the EOS at low
temperatures diverged to infinity.
So it was decided to represent the accentric factor using the TABLE 2 – RAE Comparison
correlation proposed by Edmister (Eq. 15). This decision is
RAE RAE
based on the fact that the values of calculated accentric factors
are less than unity and the previous problem disappears. This Work Riazi-Daubert
Using Edmister’s correlation for the ω calculation brings Pb 2.29% 3.43%
us an additional problem: the normal boiling point temperature GOR 7.37% 11.10%
Tb needs to be measured or obtained from the heavy fraction. PV 1.42% 1.47%
For solving this inconvenient it was also appealed to Reid’s
data set and a relation between Tb and Tc was found (Eq. 18). Rs 9.24% 12.59%
The correlation for the C7+ is presented next: Bo 2.24% 2.20%
ρo 1.50% 12.63%
Pc [ psia] = 82.82 + 653exp ( −0.007427 MW ) (16)
In Figure 5 and Figure 6 the comparisons between cal-
Tc [ R ] = −778.5 + 383.5ln ( MW − 4.075) (17) culated and real values of Pb and GOR are presented, respec-
tively. From Figure 7 to Figure 26 the PVT and simulated
curves of the following samples can be appreciated: Sample 1
Tb [ R] = 194 + 0.001241(Tc [ R ])
1.869
(18) (GOR = 250 m3/m3, m% C7+ = 26%), Sample 6 (GOR = 180
m3/m3, m% C7+ = 33%), Sample 10 (GOR = 130 m3/m3, m%
The results of using this correlation in the compositional C7+ = 38%), Sample 15 (GOR = 76 m3/m3, m% C7+ = 44%),
simulator are promising: in all the samples the bubble point is Sample 20 (GOR = 50 m3/m3, m% C7+ = 51%). The PVT
very close to the PVT value so the matching is sometimes not properties presented are PV, Rs, Bo and ρo. The contrast in oil
needed, and also the PV, Rs and Bo curves are very close to density predictions between this correlation and RD can be
their PVT values. Graphics of the previous equations are pre- clearly seen, showing that this work gives better oil density
sented in Figure 1 to Figure 3. prediction performance.
4 SPE Student Paper
Conclusions
ƒ This work presents a new set of correlations for obtain-
ing the critical properties of a pseudo-component repre-
senting the heptanes plus fraction C7+ of a crude oil fluid.
These correlations are function of the fraction’s MW.
ƒ A plus-fraction’s MW adjustment function is presented
for improving the liquid density predictions of the simu-
lator. This function shows to be a solution to the problem
of the cubic EOS when predicting liquid densities in res-
ervoirs fluids with high content of heavy hydrocarbons.
ƒ This work is compared to the Riazi-Daubert’s correla-
tion: the two correlations performed equally when pre-
dicting the PV and Bo curves; in the calculation of the Rs
curve this work obtained better results than the other. In
oil density calculations, this work demonstrates very
good predictions, better than the previous correlation.
Future Work Recommendations
ƒ Add to the adjustment, phase envelope curves obtained
in the laboratory, since the simulator can generate this
type or curves. This point should be taken into considera-
tion because the adjustments are realized at constant tem-
perature, equal to reservoir temperature, having as a re-
sult an infinite number of phase diagrams that coincide in
the same isotherm, and the user must be careful when ex-
trapolating to other temperatures.
ƒ The data base of this study should be enlarged with a
large number of samples, and from more fields: Golfo
San Jorge, Noroeste, Cuyo and Austral–basin. Also cor-
relations for different types of fluid should be created:
volatile oil and gas–condensate.
ƒ Enlarge this work with the study of more heavy frac-
tions: C10+ and C20+. Also the effect of dividing the heavy
fraction in various pseudo-components with a determined
distribution of molecular weights and compositions
should be studied. In this point it should be taken into ac-
count the computer power needed, because with more
components used, the time of calculations increase expo-
nentially.
Acknowledgments
I want to express my most sincerely gratefulness to all the
people that have helped me to do this work:
ƒ Rubén Caligari, Petrobras Energía SA. For granting
me the access to the PVT laboratory information needed.
ƒ Marcelo Crotti, InLab. For his excellent predisposition
in helping me with the selection of the information and
the PVT tests.
ƒ Juan A. Rosbaco, ITBA. For being my mentor in this
work and for the excellent person that he is.
ƒ Miguel Schindler, DeltaP. For letting me use the soft-
ware UniTest®. Also for helping me evaluate certain
theory aspects of this study.
Nomenclature
Bo = oil formation volume factor
CCE = constant concentration expansion
DE = Differential expansion
EOS = equation of state
GOR = gas – oil ratio, m3/m3
kij = binary interaction coefficient, kij = kji
MW = molecular weight
P = pressure, Pa
Pb = bubble point, kg/cm2
Pc = critical pressure, psia
PR = Peng-Robinson
PV = pressure – volume ratio
PVT = pressure – volume – temperature
R = universal gas constant, 8.3143 J mol-1 K-1
RAE = relative average error, %
RD = Riazi and Daubert
Rs = solution gas – oil ratio, m3/m3
SG = specific gravity relative to water at 1 atm and 60 °F
T = temperature, K
Tb = normal boiling point temperature, R
Tc = critical temperature, R
Tr = reduced temperature, where Tr = T / Tc
Tres = reservoir temperature, ºC
Vm = molar volume, m3
Zc = critical compressibility factor
ZRA = Rackett’s parameter
Greek letters
ρo = oil density, g/cm3
ω = accentric factor
References
1. Peng, D.Y. and Robinson, D.B.: “A New Two-Constant
Equation of State”, Ind. and Eng. Chem. Fund. (1976)
15, No. 1, 59-64.
2. Riazi, M. R., Daubert, T. E., “Characterization Parame-
ters for Petroleum Fractions”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
1987, Vol. 26, No. 24, pp. 755-759.
3. Whitson, C.H.: “Effect of C7+ Properties on Equation-
of-State Predictions”, 1982 SPE Annual Technical Con-
ference and Exhibition, SPE 11200.
4. Kesler, M.G. and Lee, B.I.: “Improve Prediction of En-
thalpy of Fractions”, Hydrocarbon Processing (1976) 55,
59.
5. Twu, C.H.: “An internally Consistent Correlation for
Predicting the Critical Properties and Molecular Weights
of Petroleums and Coal-Tar Liquids”, Fluid Phase Equi-
libria (1984) 16, 137.
6. Stamataki, S.K. and Magoulas, K.G., “Characterization
of Heavy Undefined Fractions”, 2001 SPE International
Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, SPE 64996.
7. H. Nishiumi and T. Arai, “Generalization of the Binary
Interaction Parameter of the Peng-Robinson Equation of
State by Component Family”, Fluid Phase Equilibria
(1988), 42, 43-62.
SPE Student Paper 5

8. Twu, C.H., Coon, J.E. and Cunningham, J.R., “A New

Generalized Alpha Function for a Cubic Equation of TABLE 4 – PVT Samples Properties
State. Part 1: Peng-Robinson EOS”, Fluid Phase Equi- GOR Tres Pb
libria (1995), Volume 105, Number 1. Sample API
[m3/m3] [ºC] [kg/cm2]
9. Twu, C.H., Tilton B. and Bluck D., “The Strengths and
Limitations of Equations of State Models and Mixing Sample 1 50.8 249.9 90.0 150.11
Rules”. Sample 2 47.7 213.1 82.6 146.59
10. Edmister, W.C., “Applied Hydrocarbon Thermodynamic, Sample 3 38.0 208.8 105.0 241.53
Part 4: Compressibility Factors and Equations of State”, Sample 4 41.2 204.8 73.9 269.70
Petroleum Refiner, April 1958, Vol. 37, pp. 173-179.
11. Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M. and Poling, B.E.: “The Prop- Sample 5 60.2 185.4 81.7 69.10
erties of Gases and Liquids”, McGraw-Hill Companies; Sample 6 57.2 181.2 81.2 127.00
4th edition (April 1987). Sample 7 31.8 163.6 95.6 253.39
Sample 8 42.8 138.1 156.0 198.83
SI Metric Conversion Factors
Sample 9 34.9 130.7 86.7 201.48
GOR: m3/m3 x 35.31467 = scf/stb
Pressure: kg/cm2 x 14.22334 = psia Sample 10 47.9 129.5 62.5 161.71
Temperature: °C x 1.8 + 32 = °F Sample 11 35.7 128.2 63.9 159.20
Density: g/cm3 x 62.42796 = lb/ft3 Sample 12 31.7 88.1 61.7 163.73
Sample 13 33.4 85.8 63.0 141.28
Appendix
In the Tables 6 and 7, GF stands for this work (author’s name) Sample 14 32.5 77.9 54.0 140.43
and RD stands for Riazi-Daubert. Sample 15 32.4 75.8 59.8 135.30
Sample 16 35.1 75.2 91.5 113.60
TABLE 3 – Reid’s Critical Properties Sample 17 35.2 72.7 70.0 111.92
Sample 18 31.8 64.6 52.0 121.39
Pc Tc
Element MW ω ZRA Sample 19 41.4 57.8 76.0 66.51
[psia] [R]
Sample 20 32.8 50.2 59.0 82.08
C1 16.0 666 343 0.0115 0.2892
C2 30.1 707 550 0.0908 0.2808
C3 44.1 616 666 0.1454 0.2766 TABLE 5 – C7+ Properties of Samples
n-C4 58.1 551 766 0.1928 0.2730 x
Sample MW SG
i-C4 58.1 528 735 0.1756 0.2754 [mole %]
n-C5 72.2 489 846 0.2510 0.2684 Sample 1 163.4 0.797 26.13%
i-C5 72.2 490 829 0.2273 0.2717 Sample 2 170.3 0.799 27.82%
C6 86.2 437 914 0.2957 0.2635 Sample 3 224.5 0.844 28.97%
Sample 4 218.7 0.829 27.55%
C7 100.2 397 973 0.3506 0.2604
Sample 5 144.4 0.779 29.52%
C8 114.2 361 1024 0.3978 0.2571
Sample 6 136.7 0.773 32.62%
C9 128.3 334 1071 0.4437 0.2543 Sample 7 256.8 0.870 30.67%
C10 142.3 306 1109 0.4902 0.2507 Sample 8 217.5 0.821 38.54%
C11 156.3 285 1150 0.5349 0.2499 Sample 9 241.2 0.861 36.50%
C12 170.3 264 1185 0.5622 0.2466 Sample 10 182.8 0.801 38.52%
C13 184.4 250 1216 0.6231 0.2473 Sample 11 234.9 0.859 36.05%
C14 198.4 235 1245 0.6797 0.2430 Sample 12 272.1 0.879 40.98%
C15 221.4 220 1272 0.7060 0.2418 Sample 13 238.2 0.871 41.70%
Sample 14 251.5 0.873 45.35%
C16 226.4 206 1297 0.7418 0.2388
Sample 15 266.8 0.875 44.19%
C17 240.5 191 1320 0.7699 0.2343
Sample 16 236.7 0.865 47.30%
C18 254.5 176 1341 0.7895 0.2275 Sample 17 223.9 0.863 48.45%
C19 268.5 197 1397 0.8270 0.2278 Sample 18 268.5 0.879 46.57%
C20 282.6 161 1381 0.9070 0.2281 Sample 19 221.0 0.836 52.60%
Sample 20 255.5 0.878 50.93%
6 SPE Student Paper

450
TABLE 6 – RAE of Pb, GOR and PV
Pc = 82.82 + 653exp(–0.007427MW)
Pb [%] GOR [%] PV [%] 400
Sample R2 = 0.9966
GF RD GF RD GF RD 350
Sample 1 2.1 4.6 5.5 4.6 1.5 1.4
Sample 2 4.3 5.9 0.5 0.6 1.4 1.2

Pc [psia]
300
Sample 3 0.4 0.6 14.2 18.3 0.9 0.9
250
Sample 4 3.0 2.0 3.8 7.1 0.9 0.9
Sample 5 1.1 4.3 20.2 17.9 1.9 1.7
200
Sample 6 0.0 5.1 3.2 4.5 1.7 1.3
Sample 7 0.6 3.1 11.8 18.3 1.1 1.6 150
Sample 8 1.6 0.0 15.6 17.7 2.9 2.6
Sample 9 5.5 6.7 11.7 17.3 2.0 2.2 100
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Sample 10 1.5 1.8 3.9 3.1 1.1 1.1
Sample 11 5.8 3.2 5.9 11.8 1.4 1.5 MW
Sample 12 3.7 8.8 7.5 15.2 2.5 2.9 Figure 1. Pc vs MW from Reid, Eq. 16.
Sample 13 0.1 2.0 5.1 19.9 1.4 1.6
Sample 14 2.3 1.5 3.7 10.9 1.3 1.6 1500
Sample 15 0.1 4.0 5.6 0.4 1.2 1.5
Sample 16 1.6 1.8 8.8 15.3 1.2 1.2 1400
Sample 17 0.3 0.2 3.2 10.3 1.0 1.1
Sample 18 0.4 4.6 1.7 10.1 1.5 1.9 1300
Sample 19 6.0 6.0 10.3 14.5 0.6 0.7
Tc [R]

Sample 20 5.2 2.4 5.2 4.1 0.8 0.9 1200

1100
TABLE 7 – RAE of Rs, Bo and ρo
Rs [%] Bo [%] ρo [%] 1000 Tc = –778.5 + 383.5ln(MW – 4.075)
Sample
GF RD GF RD GF RD R2 = 0.9989
900
Sample 1 9.5 9.7 2.0 2.5 1.5 5.6
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Sample 2 5.1 5.7 2.3 2.3 1.8 6.5
MW
Sample 3 17.9 21.7 3.4 5.3 1.3 11.0
Sample 4 8.0 10.8 1.7 1.1 2.0 9.4 Figure 2. Tc vs MW from Reid, Eq. 17.
Sample 5 21.6 19.8 8.8 8.6 0.8 3.9
Sample 6 2.0 3.8 1.2 1.6 1.6 3.3 1200
Sample 7 16.3 21.2 1.4 3.4 1.6 16.4
Sample 8 15.3 18.1 1.9 2.9 2.5 8.6 1100
Sample 9 14.2 19.2 1.0 1.4 1.2 15.3
Sample 10 4.5 3.6 3.0 2.7 3.3 5.4 1000
Sample 11 11.5 16.0 1.2 1.5 1.5 13.6
Tb [R]

Sample 12 5.3 10.6 2.7 1.2 0.9 21.4 900

Sample 13 3.0 4.0 3.6 1.9 1.5 17.0
Sample 14 4.9 10.8 1.9 0.6 0.7 17.9 800
Sample 15 7.4 13.5 2.0 0.6 1.0 19.7
Sample 16 11.4 17.7 0.8 1.9 0.8 15.0 700 Tb = 194 + 0.001241Tc1.869
Sample 17 5.3 11.2 0.9 0.9 0.7 13.8 R2 = 0.9999
Sample 18 2.9 9.7 1.9 0.6 0.7 20.7 600
900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
Sample 19 15.2 19.2 1.3 2.2 3.5 9.8
Sample 20 3.7 5.3 1.7 0.6 1.0 18.3 Tc [R]

Figure 3. Tb vs Tc from Reid, Eq. 18.

SPE Student Paper 7

360 1.30

340 MW* = 39.44 + 47.47exp(0.006701MW)

1.25 PVT
320 R2 = 0.9957 This Work
1.20 Riazi-Daubert
300

Relative Volume
280 1.15
260 GOR = 250 m3/m3
MW*

1.10 mole % C7+ = 26%

240
220 1.05

200 1.00
180
0.95
160
140 0.90
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 50 100 150 200 250 300
2
MW Pressure [kg/cm abs]

Figure 4. MW* vs MW, Eq. 19. Figure 7. CCE PV relation, Sample 1.

300 300

250
250

200
Pb [kg/cm2]

200
Rs [m /m ]
3
3

150 GOR = 250 m3/m3

mole % C7+ = 26%
150
100
PVT Data
100 Pb This Work PVT
Pb Riazi-Daubert 50 This Work
Riazi-Daubert
50
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Pb [kg/cm2] Pressure [kg/cm abs]

2

Figure 5. Comparison of predicted bubble points. Figure 8. DE Rs curve, Sample 1.

300 2.2

PVT Data
2.0
250 GOR This Work
GOR Riazi-Daubert
1.8
GOR [m /m ]
3

Bo [m3/m3]

200
3

1.6 GOR = 250 m3/m3

mole % C7+ = 26%
150
1.4

100 PVT
1.2 This Work
Riazi-Daubert
50 1.0
50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

GOR [m3/m3] Pressure [kg/cm abs]

2

Figure 6. Comparison of predicted gas – oil ratios. Figure 9. DE Bo curve, Sample 1.

8 SPE Student Paper

0.80 2.0

PVT
0.75 This Work
1.8
Riazi-Daubert

0.70
1.6

Bo [m /m ]
ρo [g/cm ]

3
3

GOR = 250 m3/m3

3
0.65 mole % C7+ = 26%
GOR = 180 m3/m3
1.4 mole % C7+ = 33%
0.60

PVT
1.2
0.55 This Work
Riazi-Daubert

0.50 1.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
2 2
Pressure [kg/cm abs] Pressure [kg/cm abs]

Figure 10. DE Oil Density curve, Sample 1. Figure 13. DE Bo curve, Sample 6.

1.30 0.75

1.25 PVT PVT

This Work This Work
0.70
1.20 Riazi-Daubert Riazi-Daubert
Relative Volume

1.15 GOR = 180 m3/m3

0.65
ρo [g/cm ]
3

GOR = 180 m3/m3 mole % C7+ = 33%

1.10
mole % C7+ = 33%
1.05 0.60

1.00
0.55
0.95

0.90 0.50
50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
2 2
Pressure [kg/cm abs] Pressure [kg/cm abs]

Figure 11. CCE PV relation, Sample 6. Figure 14. DE Oil Density curve, Sample 6.

250 1.30

1.25 PVT
200 This Work
1.20 Riazi-Daubert
Relative Volume

150
Rs [m3/m3]

1.15 GOR = 130 m3/m3

mole % C7+ = 38%
GOR = 180 m3/m3
mole % C7+ = 33% 1.10
100

1.05
PVT
50
This Work
1.00
Riazi-Daubert

0 0.95
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 50 100 150 200 250
2 2
Pressure [kg/cm abs] Pressure [kg/cm abs]

Figure 12. DE Rs curve, Sample 6. Figure 15. CCE PV relation, Sample 10.
SPE Student Paper 9

160 1.20

140
PVT
1.15 This Work
120
Riazi-Daubert

Relative Volume
100
Rs [m /m ]

1.10
3

GOR = 76 m3/m3
3

80 mole % C7+ = 44%

GOR = 130 m3/m3
mole % C7+ = 38% 1.05
60

40 PVT
1.00
This Work
20 Riazi-Daubert

0 0.95
0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
2 2
Pressure [kg/cm abs] Pressure [kg/cm abs]

Figure 16. DE Rs curve, Sample 10. Figure 19. CCE PV relation, Sample 15.

1.6 100

1.5
80

1.4
60
Rs [m /m ]
Bo [m3/m3]

3
3

1.3
GOR = 130 m3/m3 GOR = 76 m3/m3
mole % C7+ = 38% 40 mole % C7+ = 44%
1.2

PVT PVT
20
1.1 This Work This Work
Riazi-Daubert Riazi-Daubert

1.0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
2 2
Pressure [kg/cm abs] Pressure [kg/cm abs]

Figure 17. DE Bo curve, Sample 10. Figure 20. DE Rs curve, Sample 15.

0.85 1.30

PVT
0.80 This Work 1.25
Riazi-Daubert

0.75 1.20
GOR = 130 m3/m3
Bo [m /m ]
ρo [g/cm ]

3
3

mole % C7+ = 38%

3

0.70 1.15
GOR = 76 m3/m3
mole % C7+ = 44%
0.65 1.10

PVT
0.60 1.05 This Work
Riazi-Daubert

0.55 1.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250

Pressure [kg/cm2 abs] Pressure [kg/cm2 abs]

Figure 18. DE Oil Density curve, Sample 10. Figure 21. DE Bo curve, Sample 15.
10 SPE Student Paper

0.90 1.25

PVT
0.85
This Work
1.20
Riazi-Daubert
0.80

1.15

Bo [m /m ]
ρo [g/cm ]

3
3

0.75

3
GOR = 76 m3/m3 GOR = 50 m3/m3
0.70
mole % C7+ = 44% 1.10 mole % C7+ = 51%
0.65
PVT
1.05
This Work
0.60
Riazi-Daubert

0.55 1.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
2 2
Pressure [kg/cm abs] Pressure [kg/cm abs]

Figure 22. DE Oil Density curve, Sample 15. Figure 25. DE Bo curve, Sample 20.

1.30 0.90

PVT
1.25 PVT 0.85 This Work
This Work Riazi-Daubert
1.20 Riazi-Daubert
Relative Volume

0.80
ρo [g/cm ]
3

1.15 GOR = 50 m3/m3

mole % C7+ = 51% 0.75 GOR = 50 m3/m3
1.10 mole % C7+ = 51%
0.70
1.05

1.00 0.65

0.95 0.60
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
2 2
Pressure [kg/cm abs] Pressure [kg/cm abs]

Figure 23. CCE PV relation, Sample 20. Figure 26. DE Oil Density curve, Sample 20.

60

50

40
Rs [m /m ]
3
3

30 GOR = 50 m3/m3
mole % C7+ = 51%
20

PVT
10 This Work
Riazi-Daubert

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
2
Pressure [kg/cm abs]

Figure 24. DE Rs curve, Sample 20.