SPE 53185
Bubble Point Pressure and Oil Formation Volume Factor Correlations
A. A. Al-Shammasi, Saudi Arabian Texaco, SPE
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in
Bahrain, 20–23 February 1999.
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, 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 necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
This paper evaluates published correlations and neural
network models for bubble point pressure and oil formation
volume factor for accuracy and flexibility to represent
hydrocarbon mixtures from different geographical locations
worldwide. The study presents a new correlation for bubble
point pressure based on global data with improvement in
performance over published correlations. It also presents new
neural network models and compares their performance to
numerical correlations.
The evaluation examines the performance of correlations
with original published coefficients and with coefficients
calculated based on global data, data from a specific
geographical locations, and data for a limited oil gravity range.
The evaluation of each coefficient class includes geographical
and oil gravity grouping analysis. The results show that the
classification of correlation models as most accurate for a
specific geographical area is invalid to be used for these two
fluid properties. Statistical and trend performance analysis
shows that some of the correlations are violating the physical
behavior of hydrocarbon fluid properties. Published neural
network models are missing major model parameters to
reproduce. New developed models performed better, but suffer
from stability and trend problems.
Introduction
Solutions to reservoir performance problems at various stages
of reservoir life require the knowledge of the physical
properties of reservoir fluid at elevated pressure and
temperature. The PVT properties for reservoir hydrocarbon
mixtures are usually obtained from laboratory analysis on a
preserved or a recombined sample of reservoir fluid. Since
these experimental facilities are not always available, other
means for estimating them have been developed. During the
last 50 years, many correlations were developed to estimate
these PVT properties.
PVT properties are a function of temperature, pressure,
composition of the hydrocarbon mixture and the presence of
parafines and impurities. The performance of empirical
models depends mainly on how much a correlation model
represents this mixture under specific conditions. The purpose
of this work is to study the performance of models available in
the literature, based on published experimental data.
The study will be carried out to model the bubble point
pressure and the oil formation volume factor at and below the
bubble point pressure. Both empirical correlations and neural
network models will be considered to reach a clearer underst-
anding about what model to use and what to expect. A large
global database gathered for this study will be used to develop
correlations models that predicts oil properties better than
existing ones.
Literature Review
Since the 1940’s engineers in the United States have realized
the importance of developing empirical correlations for PVT
properties. Studies carried out in this field resulted in the
development of new correlations. Several studies of this kind
1 2 3
were published by Katz , Standing , Lasater and Cronquist .
4
For several years, these correlations were the only source
available for estimating PVT properties when experimental
data were unavailable. In the last twenty years there has been
an increasing interest in developing new correlations for crude
oils obtained from the various regions in the world. Vazquez
5 6 7,8
& Beggs , Glaso , Al-Marhoun , Abdul-Majeed and Salman
9
carried out some of the recent studies. The following presents
a review of the most known correlation models published in
the literature. A summary of these published correlation
models is provided in Tables A.1 and A.2 including the forms
of correlation used, errors reported by each author, and details
of the data used for each development.
1
Empirical Correlations. In 1942, Katz published a graphi-
cal correlation for predicting oil formation volume factor.
1
Katz used U.S. mid-continent crude to develop his correla-
tions. The correlation uses reservoir temperature, pressure,
solution gas oil ratio, oil gravity and gas gravity. The
correlations were presented only in graphical form. Katz
1
2 A. A. AL-SHAMMASI
correlations were hard to use because of the requirement to use
graphs and calculations in combination.
2,10,11
In 1947, Standing published his correlations for
bubble point pressure and for oil formation volume factor.
2,10,11
Standing correlations were based on laboratory
experiments carried out on 105 samples from 22 different
crude oils in California. The correlations treated the bubble
point pressure and the oil formation volume factor as a
function of the reservoir temperature, gas oil ratio, oil gravity
2,10,11
and gas gravity. Standing correlations were the first to use
these four parameters, commonly used after his work in
developing correlations. These correlations are the most
widely used correlations in the oil industry.
3
Lasater in 1958 presented a new correlation model based
on 158 samples from 137 reservoirs in Canada, U.S. and South
America. His correlation was only for bubble point pressure.
It is based on standard physical chemical equations of
solutions. It utilizes Henry’s law constant and the observation
that the bubble point ratio at different temperatures is equal to
the absolute temperatures ratio for hydrocarbon systems not
close to the critical point. The correlation was presented in
graphical form, and was used as a look-up chart. An
3
advantage of Lasater correlation is the wide variety of data
sources used to develop the correlation.
4
In 1972, Cronquist presented a ratio correlation based on
80 data points from 30 Gulf Coast reservoirs. The correlation
is useful for the analysis of depletion drive reservoirs when
PVT analysis is not available. The method was presented in
graphical form and requires an estimation of average reservoir
properties.
5 8
In 1976, Vazquez & Beggs published correlations for gas
oil ratio and oil formation volume factor. They started
categorizing oil mixtures into two categories, above 30 API
gravity and below 30 API gravity. They also pointed out the
strong dependence on gas gravity and developed a correlation
to normalize the gas gravity measurement to a reference
separation pressure of 100 psi. This eliminated its dependence
on the separation conditions. More than 6000 data points from
600 laboratory measurements were used in developing the
correlations.
6
Glaso in 1978 developed correlations for bubble point
pressure, formation volume factor, gas oil ratio, and oil
6
viscosity for North Sea hydrocarbon mixtures. Glaso
correlations main feature is that they account for paraffinicity
by correcting the flash stock tank oil gravity to an equivalent
corrected value using reservoir temperature and oil viscosity.
They also account for the presence of non-hydrocarbons on
saturation pressure by using correction factors for the presence
of CO2, N2, and H2S in the total surface gases. A total of 45
oil samples, most of which came from the North Sea region,
were used in the development of these correlations.
8 17,19
In 1988, Al-Marhoun published new correlations for
estimating bubble point pressure and oil formation volume
factor for the Middle East oils. 160 data sets from 69 Middle
Eastern reservoirs were available for the correlation
SPE 53185
7,8
development. Al-Marhoun correlations were the first to be
developed for Middle East reservoirs.
12
In 1987, Obomanu and Okpobori presented new
correlations for predicting gas oil ratio and oil formation
volume factor for Nigerian crude oils. They used 503 data
points from 100 Nigerian reservoirs in the Niger Delta Basin.
7
They used Al-Marhoun bubble point pressure correlation
2
model form and modified Standing oil formation volume
factor correlation model form. In addition they developed new
correlation coefficients for Nigerian crude oils. The oil
formation volume factor correlation divided the crude oils into
two ranges according to oil gravity.
9
In 1988, Abdul-Majeed and Salman published an oil
formation volume factor correlation based on 420 data sets
from unpublished sources. The form of the correlation is Al-
8
Marhoun oil formation volume factor correlation with new
13
calculated coefficients. Al-Fattah and Al-Marhoun reported
9
that 259 data sets used by Abdul-Majeed and Salman are
14
from Vazquez’s M.S. thesis. 256 data sets were found as
13
reported by Al-Fattah and Al-Marhoun .
15
In 1989, Asgapur, Mc Lauchlin, Wong and Cheun
published a new set of correlations for different geological
reservoirs for western Canadian gases and crude oils.
Correlations for bubble point pressure, solution gas oil ratio at
and below the bubble point pressure, and oil formation volume
factor at and below the bubble point pressure were developed
for four geological reservoirs. The new approach of
developing correlations for a specific geologic time was
justified by the different behavior of western Canadian
reservoirs. Very little detail was presented concerning the
crude oil differences. The new correlations used Al-Marhoun
bubble point pressure correlation form and developed a new
form for oil formation volume factor. The new approach
2 3
resulted in less average error than Standing , Lasater and
5
Vazquez & Beggs correlations for all the geologic reservoirs
studied.
16
Labedi in 1990 published new correlations for oil
formation volume factor, oil density and fluid compressibility
16
for African crude oils. Labedi correlations eliminate the need
for gas gravity and total gas oil ratio by using the separator
pressure and temperature. 97 data sets from Libya, 28 sets
from Nigeria, and 4 sets from Angola were available for the
study. The correlations substitute the gas gravity and total gas
oil ratio, which are very unlikely to be measured in the field,
with separation gas oil ratio, temperature, and pressure as
these are reported in field tests.
17
Dokla and Osman in 1992 published a new set of
correlations for estimating bubble point pressure and oil
formation volume factor for UAE crudes. They used 51 data
8
sets to calculate new coefficients for Al-Marhoun (1988)
18
Middle East correlations. Al-Yousef and Al-Marhoun
pointed out that the Dokla and Osman bubble point
pressure correlation performance found contradicting physical
laws, as the bubble point pressure is decreasing with
temperature and insensitive to oil gravity changes. The data
SPE 53185 BUBBLE POINT PRESSURE AND OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR CORRELATIONS
used in calculating the coefficients were insufficient to obtain
an empirical correlation.
20
In 1992, Al-Marhoun published a second correlation for
oil formation volume factor. The correlation was developed
with 11728 experimentally obtained formation volume factors
at, above, and below bubble point pressure. The data set
represents samples from more than 700 reservoirs from all
over the world, mostly from Middle East and North America.
21
In 1992, Farshad, Leblance, Garber, and Osorio produced
a new set of correlations for bubble point pressure, solution
gas oil ratio and the oil formation volume factor. They used
the number of surface separator stages as a criterion for
developing the correlations. The main feature of the new
correlation is that it uses separator gas gravity and solution gas
oil ratio instead of the totals, and corrects them for separation
temperature and pressure. Reservoir samples from 98
Colombian reservoirs were available for the study. The new
2 6
correlations used Standing and Glaso correlations forms and
calculated new coefficients for them. The correlations for
single stage separation process are considered for this study.
The proposed correlations based on corrected separator data
are more realistic since the stock tank gas gravity and solution
gas oil ratio are seldom measured in the field.
22
In 1992, Macary and El-Batanoney presented new
correlations for bubble point pressure, oil formation volume
factor and solution gas oil ratio. 90 data sets from 30
independent reservoirs in the Gulf of Suez were used to
develop the correlations. The new correlations were tested
23
against other Egyptian data of Saleh, Maggoub and Asaad ,
and showed improvement over published correlations.
24
Omar and Todd in 1993, based on similar work to
2
Standing oil formation volume factor correlation model,
calculated a modified set of correlation coefficients. Omar and
24
Todd also developed a bubble point pressure correlation that
uses the oil formation volume factor in addition to oil gravity,
gas gravity, solution gas oil ratio, and reservoir temperature.
The new correlation was based on 93 data sets from Malaysian
oil reservoirs. An estimated oil formation volume factor from
the developed correlation can be used for bubble point
prediction if it is not measured.
25
In 1993, Petrosky and Farshad developed new correlat-
2
ions for Gulf of Mexico crudes. Standing correlations for
bubble point pressure, solution gas oil ratio, and oil formation
volume factor were taken as a basis for developing the new
5
correlation coefficients. Vazquez & Beggs oil compress-
ibility correlation model was used as a basis for oil compress-
25
ibility correlation. The approach that Petrosky and Farshad
applied to develop the correlations was to give the original
correlation model maximum flexibility through nonlinear
regression to achieve the best empirical relation the model can
achieve through the available data set. The maximum flex-
ibility allows each variable to have a multiplier and exponent.
The original model fixes multipliers and exponents of some of
the variables to one. Ninety data sets from Gulf of Mexico
were used in developing these correlations.
3
26
In 1994, Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt used a global data
bank to develop new correlations for all PVT properties.
2
Standing correlation models were taken as basis for bubble
point pressure and solution gas oil ratio correlations. Vazquez
5
& Beggs oil formation volume factor correlation was
considered the basis for oil formation volume factor
correlation. Data from 740 different crude oil samples
gathered from all over the world provided 5392 data sets for
the correlation development. These correlations and Al-
20
Marhoun (1992) oil formation volume factor correlation are
the only correlations that used global data for development. In
addition to the global data gathered for the study, a separate
data set collected from literature was used to verify the final
results of the correlation models developed and compare them
with published correlations. The approach used in the
development of the new correlations is similar to Petrosky and
25
Farshad’s approach in providing the maximum flexibility to
the base models to reach the best empirical relation for the
available data.
27
In 1997, Almehaideb published a new set of correlations
for UAE crudes. He used 62 data sets from UAE reservoirs to
develop the new correlations. Correlations developed are for
bubble point pressure, oil formation volume factor, oil
viscosity, and oil compressibility. The bubble point pressure
24
correlation like Omar and Todd uses the oil formation
volume factor as input in addition to oil gravity, gas gravity,
solution gas oil ratio, and reservoir temperature. Improvement
over published correlations was achieved with these
correlations.
Neural Network Correlations. Neural network uses in
petroleum applications have been increasing in recent years.
An overview of neural network applications for petroleum
28
industry is well documented by Ali . The area of PVT
properties modeling using neural networks is relatively new.
Two studies were carried out during the last two years on this
subject.
29
In 1996, Gharbi and Elsharkawy published neural net-
work models for estimating bubble point pressure and oil
formation volume factor for Middle East crude oils. Separate
models were used for each property, and the models
architectures were of two hidden layers. The bubble point
pressure model has eight neurons in the first layer and four
neurons in the second. The formation volume factor model
has six neurons in both layers. 498 data sets collected from
the literature and unpublished sources were, used for training
the models. Another set of 22 data points from the Middle
East, not included in the training, were used to verify the
resulting network. The results showed improvement over the
conventional correlation methods with at least 50% reduction
in the average error for the bubble point pressure and 30%
reduction for oil formation volume factor.
30
In 1997, Gharbi and Elsharkawy published another
neural network model for estimating bubble point pressure and
oil formation volume factor for universal use. The two
properties are predicted by one model consisting of one hidden
4 A. A. AL-SHAMMASI
layer of five neurons. The study used 5200 data sets collected
from all over the world representing 350 different crude oils.
Another set of data consisting of 234 data sets was used for
verifying the results of the model. The reported results for the
universal model showed less improvement than the Middle
East neural model over the conventional correlations. The
bubble point pressure average error showed 30% less error for
the training data and 40% less for the test data compared to
conventional correlations.
The oil formation volume factor on the other hand was
better than conventional correlations in terms of correlation
coefficient. The average error for the neural network model is
similar to conventional correlations for training data and
higher for test data than the best performing conventional
correlation. The reported results for test data indicates better
performance than the training data.
Evaluation Studies of Correlations. As more correlati-
ons were developed, researchers evaluated the previously
published correlations with the new ones. Others carried out
studies to select the most accurate correlation for a particular
reservoir or geographic area. The only research done for
geologic categorization was done by Asgapur, Mc Lauchlin,
15
Wong, and Cheun .
31
In 1983, Ostermann, Ehlig-Economides, and Owalabi
evaluated published correlations based on eight Alaskan fluid
6 20
samples. They indicated that Glaso correlation for bubble
2
point pressure and Standing correlation for oil formation
volume factor showed least error for Alaskan crudes. The
samples they used were characterized by high nitrogen N2 and
carbon dioxide CO2 content. The study pointed out the
significant effect of non-hydrocarbons on the bubble point
31
pressure. Jacobson’s nitrogen correction was found to be of
6
better performance over Glaso’s correction.
23
In 1987, Saleh, Maggoub and Asaad published an
6
evaluation of empirical correlations for Egyptian oils. Glaso
correlation showed the best results for bubble point pressure
2 2
and solution gas oil ratio, Standing model was the best for oil
5
formation volume factor, Vazquez & Beggs correlation model
was the best for viscosity, and Beggs & Robenson was the best
for compressibility. No details were given about correction,
range of data, number of data, etc.
32,33
Sutton and Farshad in 1990 published an evaluation for
Gulf of Mexico crude oils. They used 285 data sets for gas
saturated oil and 134 data sets for undersaturated oil
representing 31 different crude oils and natural gas systems.
6
The results show Glaso correlations for bubble point pressure,
solution gas oil ratio and oil formation volume factor perform
the best for most of the data of the study. It was pointed out
5
that Vazquez & Beggs correlation models performed better
6
than Glaso correlations at high solution gas oil ratios above
1400 scf/STB and bubble point pressures greater than 7000
psia. The overall average absolute error for bubble point
6
pressure and solution gas oil ratio reported for Glaso
correlation models are 25.34% and 27.05% respectively.
SPE 53185
These values are relatively high when compared to what is
reported in the literature.
25
Later, in 1993 Petrosky and Farshad published a new
correlation based on Gulf of Mexico crudes with much lower
absolute relative error for all correlations than what is reported
in 1990 study. The best performing published models in the
6
1993 study are Glaso models for bubble point pressure and
8
solution gas oil ratio. Al-Marhoun (1988) correlation model
for oil formation volume factor showed best performance out
of the published models.
34
In 1991, McCain published an evaluation of all reservoir
properties correlations based on a large global database at
34 2
Texas A&M University. McCain recommended Standing
correlations for bubble point pressure and solution gas oil ratio
with estimation accuracy of 15% when used with separator gas
gravity and total solution gas oil ratio. For oil formation
34
volume factor at and below bubble point pressure McCain
2
recommended Standing correlation also with estimation
accuracy of 5.0% when used with total solution gas oil ratio.
He also pointed out the dependence of estimation accuracy on
the source of the data. For example, the accuracy of formation
volume factor estimation is less if an estimated solution gas oil
ratio is used.
13
In 1994, Al-Fattah and Al-Marhoun published an
evaluation of all oil formation volume factor correlations.
They used 674 data sets from published literature. The result
recommends Al-Marhoun (1992) correlation as it shows least
error for global data set. The study pointed out trend tests to
evaluate the model’s violation of physical behavior. The study
indicates the bad performance of all existing correlations in
two areas: the high solution gas oil ratio and the high
temperature regions.
35
Ghetto, Paone, and Villa in 1994 published a comprehen-
sive study on PVT properties correlation based on 195 global
data sets representing a full range of hydrocarbon mixtures.
The data sources are from Agip oils Inc., collected from the
Mediterranean Basin, Africa, the Arabian Gulf, and the North
Sea reservoirs. Standing correlation for bubble point pressure
gave the best results an with average absolute error of 16.1%.
34
This is in close agreement to the results of McCain study.
5
For the oil formation volume factor Vazquez & Beggs
correlation results were the best, with an average absolute
error of less than 3.0%. They categorized oils into four groups
according to oil API gravity and recommended different
correlations for each category.
They also investigated the improvement of the existing
correlations for all properties except formation volume factor.
This was done by recalculating new coefficients for the best
model selected based on the original coefficients analysis.
They found improvements could be achieved in bubble point
pressure models. Reduction of the average absolute error to
2
12.8% for Standing correlation was reached. The final
recommendations of the study suggest using the new modified
improved correlations with API categorization.
36
In 1994, Elsharkawy, Elgibaly, and Alikhan published a
study for evaluating PVT correlations for Kuwaiti crude oils.
SPE 53185 BUBBLE POINT PRESSURE AND OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR CORRELATIONS 5

9
The study used 44 sample analyses for the evaluation. Table 1. It shows that Abdul-Majeed and Salman took 256
2 14 29
Standing correlation for bubble point pressure gave the best data sets from Vazquez data and Gharbi and Elsharkawy
8
results with average absolute error of 10.85%. Al-Marhoun had 12 sets from other sources in their test data sets. The 256
9 14
(1988) oil formation volume factor correlation model data sets found in Abdul-Majeed and Salman from Vazquez
performed the best with an average absolute error of 2.72%. data were slightly modified by either increases or decreases by
37
In 1996, Mahmood and Al-Marhoun presented an eva- small amount in one or more of the five physical properties.
14
luation of PVT correlations for Pakistani crude oils. They Four sets of duplicates were detected for Vazquez and the
9
used 166 data sets from 22 different crude samples for the same sets were found in Abdul-Majeed and Salman . Other
evaluation. High errors were obtained for bubble point duplicates found are: three duplicates in Mahmood and Al-
8 37
pressure. Al-Marhoun correlation gave the least error with Marhoun for Pakistan data, two sets in Farshad, Leblance,
20 21
average absolute error of 31.5%. Al-Marhoun (1992) oil Garber, and Osorio for Colombian data and one set in both
6 35
formation volume factor correlation gave the best results with Glaso for North Sea data and Ghetto, Paone, and Villa for
an average absolute error of 1.23%. The bubble point pressure global data.
errors reported in this study, for all correlations, are among the
highest reported in the literature. Table 1: Cross Check of Data Sets for Duplicates and Repetitions.
Geographical Duplicates
In 1997, Hanafy, Macary, Elnady, Bayomi, and El-
38 Ref Location Authors within the set
Batanoney published a study for evaluating the most 1 USA Katz 0
accurate correlation to apply to Egyptian crude oils. Although 6 North Sea & Worldwide Glaso 1
the reported average absolute error for Macary and El- 8 Middle East Al-Marhoun 0
22
Batanoney correlations were not the minimum, the study did 9* All Over the World Abdul-Majeed and Salman 4
12 Nigerian Obomanu and Okpobori 0
recommend these correlations for bubble point pressure and 14 All Over the World Vazquez 4
22
oil formation volume factor. Macary and El-Batanoney 17 UAE Dokla, and Osman 0
correlation for bubble point pressure showed an average 21 Colombia Farshad, Leblance, Garber and Osorio 2
2 3 24 Malaysian Omar and Todd 0
absolute error of 16.6% while Standing’s , Lasater’s , and
16 29** All Over the World Gharbi and El sharkawy 0
Labedi’s models showed 14.1%, 14.8% and 14.9% 31 Alaska Ostermann, Ehlig-Economides and Owalabi 0
respectively. For formation volume factor Macary and El- 35 All Over the World Ghetto, Paone and Villa 1
22
Batanoney correlation showed an average absolute error of 37 Pakistan Mahmood and Al-Marhoun 3
17 Repeated on other references:
4.9% while Dokla and Osman showed 3.9%. The study *
256 data sets found in Abdul-Majeed9 from Vazquez14 data.
strongly supports the approach of developing a local **
12 data sets found, 2 data sets from Vazquez14 , 2 data sets from Dokla and Osman19, 4
data sets from Glaso6, 4 data sets from Al-Marhoun8.
correlation versus a global correlation.
The duplicates and the repeated data sets were dropped
Data Acquisition and Analysis Procedure from the global data group used for this work. The data
Data used for this work is published in the literature and available after excluding repeats are 1243 data sets for bubble
consists of reservoir temperature, oil gravity, total solution gas point pressure and 1345 data sets for formation volume factor.
oil ratio, and average gas gravity for bubble point pressure Variable ranges for the two data sets are shown in Table 2.
and/or flash oil formation volume factor at or below bubble
point pressure. This selection is based on the input Table 2: Pb and Bo Data Ranges.
requirements by the majority of published correlations. When Units Units
no information about separation conditions, gas gravity and PbMin 31.70 psi PbMax 7127.0 psi
solution gas oil ratio are provided, the data is considered as BoMin 1.02 bbl/STB BoMax 2.916 bbl/STB
one stage separation with average gas gravity and total RsMin 6.00 scf/STB RsMax 3298.6 scf/STB
solution gas oil ratio reported. γgMin 0.51 ratio γgMax 3.44 ratio
A total of 1661 data sets from 13 different published γoAPIMin 6.00 API γoAPIMax 63.7 API
literature papers were collected and checked for accuracy. TMin 74.0 deg F TMax 341.6 deg F
Another 48 data sets originated from Kuwait reservoirs from Bo Data Count 1345 Pb Data Count 1243
unpublished sources making a total of 1709 data sets. A data
set is given to represent raw data consisting of reservoir Thirteen models for each of bubble point pressure and oil
temperature, bubble point pressure, formation volume factor, formation volume factor were analyzed with the global data
gas gravity, solution gas oil ratio, and oil gravity. To insure sets. The analysis was carried out for each property in the
accuracy for each data group collected from a specific source, following sequence:
the results published in that source were recalculated. Table 1. The performance evaluation of correlations with original
A.3 shows the data sources and ranges for each parameter and published coefficients to point out the degree of accuracy for
the number of data sets collected for each source. each model representing global data.
Each data group was checked for duplicates and 2. The calculations of new coefficients for each correlation
crosschecked with other data groups to avoid data sets model using linear or non-linear regression as models allow.
repeated in more than one source. The results are given in
6 A. A. AL-SHAMMASI SPE 53185

This step is designed to test models for global flexibility and Table 3: Bubble Point Pressure Correlation Performance
evaluate the possibility of having better performance. with Original Coefficients and with New Calculated
3. The development of new correlations. Coefficients Based on Global Data.
Coefficients Classification [Original Coefficients]
4. The development of new set of coefficients for each data Correlation Name Average Absolute Standard Min Max
group obtained from the different geographical location. This Relative Error Deviation % %
geographically based analysis is meant to evaluate the Standing 20.685 28.50 0.03 372
Farshad, Leblance, Garber & Osorio (Non-linear) 22.487 21.63 0.02 173
accuracy of categorizing models according to the geographical
Al-Marhoun 23.915 28.50 0.01 317
origin of the crude used. Vazquez 24.084 32.61 0.01 404
5. The performance evaluation of correlations on the basis Glaso 26.153 26.64 0.00 247
of oil gravity grouping. This analysis is used to evaluate the Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 26.339 37.28 0.02 487
validity of grouping correlation models accuracy according to Dokla and Osman 26.415 27.26 0.04 262
Farshad, Leblance, Garber & Osorio (Linear) 26.844 30.35 0.00 324
oil gravity. New coefficients for oil gravity groups will be Almehaideb 32.648 42.74 0.01 427
calculated and tested accordingly. Laster 44.360 91.45 0.02 1214
6. The correlation models with coefficients from the five Macary & El Batanoney 45.572 76.11 0.04 767
steps mentioned above will be checked against the correct Petrosky & Farshad 86.635 230.0 0.12 3931
Omar & Todd 267.32 2594. 0.07 54409
PVT properties trends to point out model contradicting Coefficients Classification [New Coefficients Based on Global Data]
physical laws. Al-Marhoun 19.202 23.36 0.02 237
Standing Modified (Linear) 20.358 27.12 0.00 339
Bubble Point Pressure Farshad, Leblance, Garber & Osorio 20.358 27.12 0.00 339
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 20.537 28.12 0.04 354
The statistical analysis parameters for all correlations with Vazquez 20.537 28.12 0.04 354
original coefficients calculated for the 1243 data sets show Glaso 21.621 29.91 0.03 379
2
Standing correlation has the least average absolute error as Macary & El Batanoney 21.935 34.79 0.02 479
2 Standing (Non-Linear) 25.118 45.74 0.03 707
shown in top section of Table 3. Standing correlation has an
Petrosky & Farshad 127.93 285.7 0.22 4294
average absolute error of 20.68%, which is 3.22% lower than Coefficients Classification [New Correlation Based on Global Data ]
8
Al-Marhoun correlation. When new coefficients are calcula- Al-Shammasi 17.849 17.16 0.00 210
ted for all correlations based on global data, the performance
25
of all correlations improve except Petrosky and Farshad Development of New Correlation. The relationships
25 between variables in various forms were explored through
correlation. Petrosky and Farshad correlation is a recalcula-
2 plots and then linear regression analysis was used to test the
tion of coefficients based on Standing correlation, where a
non-linear regression was used and failed to converge. prediction performance.
2
For Standing correlation, two forms were used in the After testing many combinations, a new bubble point
recalculation of new coefficients, the non-linear form of the pressure correlation shown below in Equation 1, was reached
original model and a modified linear form that is reached by and found to perform better than all existing models tested in
dropping the constant in the original correlation. The modified this study with the global data sets available. The statistical
linear form reached improvement and the non-linear original results for this new correlation are given in the last section of
form converged to coefficients that gave less accurate results Table 3.
than the original coefficient. The modified linear form of
2
Standing correlation is one of the two correlations published Pb = γ o
5.527215
∗e
[
−1.841408∗ γ o ∗γ g ]
[
∗ Rs ∗ (460 + T ) ∗ γ g
.........(1) ] 0.783716

21
by Farshad, Leblance, Garber, and Osorio for one stage
separation. This is observed in Table 3 as repetition of the
results for the two rows. The other one stage correlation from
21
Farshad, Leblance, Garber, and Osorio is a recalculation of
6
coefficients based on Glaso correlation and it failed to
converge. Its results are not included in Table 3. Vazquez &
5 26
Beggs correlation and Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt
correlation both show the same results for the recalculation of
new coefficients as the latter correlation is a development
5
based on Vazquez & Beggs correlation.
8
With new calculated coefficients, Al-Marhoun correlation
gave the best fit with an average absolute error of 19.2% for
the global data used. This was followed by modified
2 8
Standing correlation with 1.15% difference. Al-Marhoun
gave the best results, with new calculated coefficients 1.49%
2
less than Standing’s original correlation. The linear and non-
linear correlation models reached close average absolute error
values indicating similar flexibility in all models.
The performance of the new correlation is better than all
other correlations with original coefficients or new calculated
coefficients. The new correlation’s statistical measures gave a
0.9987 correlation coefficient, 17.85% average absolute error,
17.17 standard deviation, and 210% maximum error.
Geographical and Gravity Grouping Analysis. Data
sets were grouped according to their geographical origin. The
correlation’s performance for different origins is calculated for
correlations with original published coefficients, new
coefficients based on global data and new coefficients based
on each individual data group. The last class of coefficients is
obtained by calculating the coefficients of the correlations for
each data group individually. The results show that regional
fitting of correlations to represent a specific geographical
region does not always provide the best performance
correlation. Table A.4 shows the average absolute error
results for the three classes of coefficients.
SPE 53185 BUBBLE POINT PRESSURE AND OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR CORRELATIONS 7

When data were grouped according to oil API gravity, the sensitivity to API gravity. With global data used to calculate
best performing correlation for each group of data geograph- coefficients, all models manage to follow the correct trends
ically classified does not show consistent least error over the with changes in variables.
whole range of API gravity. Instead it was observed that the
overall least error is a factor of the abundance of data points Table 4: Average Absolute Error for Bubble Point Pressure Correlat-
ions with Original Coefficients and Coefficients Calculated Based
falling in a certain API range. on Global Data with APIGravity Grouping.
Results with original coefficients show that the existing Coefficients Classification: [Original Coefficients]
correlations are highly influenced by the majority of API Correlation Name API Range < 10 <20 >= 10 & < 20 >= 20 & < 30 >= 30

gravity group used to develop them. The new coefficients on Farshad, Leblance, Garber & Osorio (Liner) 18.31 31.25 33.87 33.16 24.49
Al-Marhoun 31.85 33.93 34.35 27.76 21.75
the other hand show less fluctuation in performance as the
Almehaideb 48.45 61.08 63.64 37.84 28.22
globally diverse data sets were used to calculate the Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 23.60 21.75 21.37 20.07 28.70
coefficients. The performance of the top seven correlations Standing 10.54 15.37 16.35 19.20 21.67
for different API gravity ranges is shown in Figure 1. Glaso 103.66 45.83 34.11 28.03 23.61
Laster 28.20 30.99 31.56 38.55 47.46
Calculating correlations coefficients based on data with a
Dokla and Osman 31.93 34.95 35.56 22.28 26.81
limited range of API gravity resulted in lower errors than Vazquez & Bagges 14.60 20.10 21.21 20.26 25.64
original cases and global coefficients cases. Correlations with Omar & Todd 38.52 29.63 27.83 207.84 309.12
coefficients calculated based on limited API gravity data Macary & El Batanoney 29.26 39.32 41.36 42.92 47.00
Petrosky & Farshad 124.39 142.47 146.14 128.97 68.22
ranges produced slightly better results for all cases except for
Coefficients Classification: [New Coefficients Based On Global Data]
the range of data above 30 API gravity. The magnitude of the Al-Shammasi 17.93 20.82 21.41 20.69 16.69
improvement is between one and two percent. Summary of oil Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 12.55 18.69 19.94 19.09 21.16
gravity analysis is shown in Table 4. Petrosky & Farshad 127.91 184.10 195.49 181.20 106.18
Al-Marhoun 11.37 19.76 21.46 20.51 18.75
Standing Modified (Liner) 10.29 17.28 18.70 19.17 21.03
45
Standing Correlation Dokla and Osman Correlation
Macary & El Batanoney 18.56 26.66 28.30 29.22 19.26
Vazquez & Bagges Correlation
Al-Marhoun Correlation Glaso 36.28 19.48 16.08 19.94 22.34
Al-Shammasi Correlation

40
Farshad, Leblance, Garber & Osorio Correlation
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt Correlation
Vazquez & Bagges 12.55 18.69 19.94 19.09 21.16
Farshad, Leblance, Garber & Osorio (Liner) 10.29 17.28 18.70 19.17 21.03
Coefficients Classification: [Based on Data within API Group]
Vazquez & Bagges 10.27 19.07 20.76 18.18 21.31
Average Absolute Relative Error %

35
Al-Shammasi 11.13 18.91 20.35 18.21 16.90
Glaso 7.39 16.93 18.08 20.20 22.01
30 Petrosky & Farshad 127.91 184.10 135.44 168.64 152.12
Macary & El Batanoney 8.70 14.76 14.35 23.24 20.30
Al-Marhoun 9.58 14.77 15.44 17.99 19.10
25 Standing Modified (Liner) 10.06 14.37 15.15 18.12 21.22
Count 15 89 74 268 886

20 Table 5: Mean values used for the trend Tests.

API Grade Very Low Low Medium Light
T deg F 198 157 161 196
15
γoAPI 7.8 16.9 25.9 38.7
γg 1.214 1.024 0.942 1.054
10 Rs scf/STB 122 146 270 667
0 15 20 <25 30 35 <40 & <45 45
<1 &< & < 20 & &< & < 35 & >=
10 15 25 30 40
>= >= >= >= >= >= >=
API Category
Correlations with coefficients calculated based on limited
Figure 1: API Grouping of Average Absolute Error for Pb data from a certain origin don’t always give the correct trend.
Correlations with Published Coefficients. This indicates that limited data might generate a correlation
with coefficients giving lower average absolute errors, but
Sensitivity and Trend Tests. For sensitivity tests only one with trends that contradict physical laws. For example,
variable in the correlation was varied while the rest were held correlations based on UAE and Nigerian data sets do not
constant to see the trend of the correlation and check it against conform to physical laws. The temperature trends for three
the physical laws. Four points were selected, which covered major correlations with coefficients calculated based on these
the whole range of reservoir properties, they are shown in two data groups are shown in Figure 2.
Table 5. These values were taken as the mean of the global For correlations with coefficients developed based on a
data when grouped into four catogories as very heavy, heavy, limited range of API gravity, the trend performance suffers
medium, and light oils. The trend results of correlation with from the same problem as for limited data sets.
original published coefficients, confirmed the results indicated
18 17 Over all Performance Assessment. The performance of
by Al-Yousef and Al-Marhoun , that Dokla and Osman
correlation for UAE crudes was contradicting physical laws. bubble point correlations depends strongly on three sources of
17 error. The first is error involved in the correlation itself. It is
Dokla and Osman correlation shows the bubble point
pressure decreases as the temperature increases and has no from the error in the data used to develop it and from the
8 A. A. AL-SHAMMASI SPE 53185

23,38
degree of coverage the data provides over the whole range of • It has been observed in the literature that the correlation
reservoir fluid properties. This error will be imbedded within model recommended for a specific geographical area
the coefficients values used in the correlation. The second changes as the dataset changes.
error source is the error from the input variables used by 3. In addition to producing a model that is inconsistent
model. The last source of error is the error due to the non- with physical laws, the practice of calculating new sets of
hydrocarbons and impurities not represented in correlation coefficients for a specific data set, sometimes resulted in less
models and not corrected for. accurecy coefficents than those already published.
4. The new developed correlation named Al-Shammasi
4000 correlation, performs better than all existing correlations with
Al-Marhoun UAE
Standing Modified UAE original coefficients or new calculated coefficients.
3500 Glaso UAE
Standing 5. The most consistent puplished correlation model for all
Al-Marhoun NIG
3000 Standing Modified NIG data that exhibits a safe error range over the whole API gravity
Glaso NIG 2
is Standing correlation.
2500
6. The proper classification of correlation models should
Pressure

2000
be based on API gravity. That is supported by the observation
of reduce error when correlation model coefficients were
1500 calculated based on a limited range of API gravity, versus a
1000
full range.
7. The process of developing new coefficients for an
500 existing correlation model should be always include a check
for consistancy with physical laws.
0
8. Limited data that does not cover the whole range of fluid
104
144
164
184
204
244
264
284
304
344
364
384
404
106
118
130
142
172
192
212
232
272
292
312

109
119
129
139
159
177
197
217
257
277
297
317
117
137
157
177
217
237
257
277
317
337
357
377
417
437
84

89

Temperature properties should not be used to generate correlations or to

Figure 2: Temperature Trend of Pb Correlations with Coefficients calculate new coefficients for existing correlations.
Calculated Based On UAE and Nigerian Data Groups.
The first error source is the controllable one for the Oil Formation Volume Factor Correlations
correlation presented in this study. From the analysis of The statistical analysis parameters for all correlations with
coefficients calculation taking different basis to select the data original coefficients calculated for 1345 data sets indicate that
25
used in the calculation and testing the resulting coefficients for Petrosky and Farshad correlation model with original
the correct trend, the following points are extracted for bubble published coefficients is the best performing correlation model
point correlations: for the data used in this work. This is supported by the
1. The concept of having one global correlation model that statistical indicators as shown in Table 6.
25
could be considered as the best correlation model for all kinds Petrosky and Farshad correlation and Kartoatmodjo and
26
of data, does not exist. This is supported by the observation Schmidt correlation for oil formation volume factor are
2 2
that there isn’t any correlation model with original coefficients modifed Standing correlation. Standing correlation was
or with new calculated coefficients that perfectly fits the modified by recalculation of correlation coefficients with
global data. maximum flexibility of the model. Both correlations converge
2. The geographical classification of crudes and the to the same answer for the recalculation of coefficients based
classification of the correlation models, as best fit for that on the global data set. The two correlations are best for new
25
specific geographical area, is invalid most of the time. coefficients, but not better than Petrosky and Farshad
Observations that support this conclusion are as follows: correlation with original published coefficients. The results of
• The least overall error correlation model for each set of data the new calculated coefficients for all correlation models along
(geographically classified) does not show consistent least with the original coefficients are given in Table 6.
error over the whole range of API gravity, instead it was
observed that this overall least error is mostly a factor of the Development of New Correlation. For the develop-
abundance of data points falling in a certain API range. ment of new oil formation volume factor correlations, from the
This observation is true for correlation models with original many correlations forms analyzed, two correlations were
coefficients, new coefficients calculated based on the global selected. One of the two models uses three variables instead of
data, and new coefficients calculated based on each data the four variables conventionally used. The gas gravity
group. variable is not required for this model. The two models with
• Calculating new coefficients for the correlation models coefficients calculated based on the global data set are given in
based on limited data points might result in correlations with Equations 2 and 3 and the performance parameters for the new
coefficients that contradict the physical behavior of correlation are shown in Table 6.
petroleum fluids. New correlation with four-variables
Bo = 1 + 5.53 ∗ 10 −7 (Rs ∗ (T − 60))+ 0.000181∗ (Rs / γ o )
+ 0.000449 ∗ ((T − 60) / γ o ) + 0.000206 ∗ (Rs ∗ γ g / γ o )...........(2)
SPE 53185 BUBBLE POINT PRESSURE AND OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR CORRELATIONS 9

25
New correlation with three-variables Petrosky and Farshad correlation remains best performer in
Bo = 1 + 0.000412 ∗ (Rs / γ o ) + 0.000650 ∗ ((T − 60 ) / γ o )..........(3) the heavy and medium crudes.

Al-Marhoun 92 New Coefficients Based On Global Data

Table 6: Oil Formation Volume Factor Correlations Performance Petroskey New Coefficients Based On Global Data
Al-Marhoun 92 Original Coefficients
with Original Coefficients and with New Calculated Coefficients 5 Glaso New Coefficients Based On Global Data

Based on Global Data. Kartoatmodjo Original Coefficients

Petroskey Original Coefficients

Coefficients Classification: [Original Coefficients] Standing Original Coefficients

Correlation Name Average Absolute Standard Min Max 4

Average Absolute Relative Error %

Relative Error Deviation % %
Al-Marhoun 88 2.126 2.37 0.00 34.8
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 1.973 2.22 0.00 33.9
3
Standing 2.424 2.88 0.00 34.0
Glaso 2.936 2.60 0.00 34.9
Majeed & Salman 3.275 4.12 0.00 41.3
Petrosky & Farshad 1.728 1.92 0.00 11.8 2
Al-Marhoun 92 1.769 2.27 0.00 33.7
Omar & Todd 3.392 3.93 0.00 34.6
Almehaideb 7.506 5.76 0.02 37.9
1
Macary & El Batanoney 8.096 5.00 0.03 60.9
Vazquez & Beggs 3.700 4.45 0.01 33.5
Dokla and Osman 3.765 3.26 0.00 38.8
Coefficients Classification: [New Coefficients Based on Global Data] 0
5 31 it 1 9 R9 24 2 7 7 4 R1
Petrosky & Farshad 1.760 2.20 0.00 33.2 R3 wa tR
8
R2 R2 R1 R6 R3 R1 R1
de nR Ku as ia de de nR a an E de A.
wi ke lE mb wi wi sia ria
n Se ist UA wi S.
ld as de lo rld or
ld lay ige rth ak rld U.
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 1.760 2.20 0.00 33.2 or Al id C o o W a N N o P o
W M W M W
Al-Marhoun 92 1.773 2.25 0.00 33.6 Geographical Location of Data Source
Vazquez & Beggs 3.630 3.66 0.00 33.2
Macary & El Batanoney 2.830 2.92 0.00 33.0 Figure 3: Error Distribution for Bo Correlations with original and new
Standing 2.057 2.42 0.00 34.0 calculated Coefficients.
Almehaideb 2.747 2.69 0.00 32.3
Glaso 2.064 2.42 0.00 33.5 4.5 Petroskey & F New Coefficents Based On Global Data
Al-Marhoun 88 1.963 2.28 0.00 34.3 Petroskey & F Original Coefficients
Al-Shammasi (4 variables) Based On Global Data
Al-Marhoun 92 Original Coefficients
Coefficients Classification: [New Correlation Based on Global Data] Al-Marhoun 92 New Coefficents Based On Global Data
4.0 Kartoatmodjo Original Coefficients
Al-Shammasi (Four Variables) 1.806 2.27 0.00 33.7 Glaso New Coefficents Based On Global Data
Al-Shammasi (Three Variables) 3.033 2.66 0.00 32.9 Standing Original Coefficients
Average Absolute Relative Error %

3.5
Geographical and Gravity Grouping Analysis. Group-
ing the data according to the geographical origin, Petrosky and 3.0
25
Farshad correlation with original published coefficients
shows superior performance for all data groups except 2.5
37 8 1
Pakistan , Middle East data from Al-Marhoun , Katz data
19
and UAE data. The results with geographical grouping for 2.0
correlations with coefficients calculated based on global data
25
set, Petrosky and Farshad correlation performs the best, 1.5
except for the groups indicated. Figure 3 shows the perfor-
mance of the top seven correlations with geographical
1.0
grouping. With the case of coefficients calculated based on
25
data groups, the results show Petrosky and Farshad <1
0 <15 <20 <25 <30 <35 <40 <45 >=4
5
19 8 0 & =15 & =20 & =25 & =30 & =35 & =40 &
correlation best except for UAE and Al-Marhoun Middle >=1 > > > > > >
API Category
East data.
25 Figure 4: API Grouping of Average Absolute Error for Bo
Although Petrosky and Farshad correlation is best, the
Correlations with original and new calculated Coefficients.
performance is not consistent when data were grouped
25
according to oil API gravity. Petrosky and Farshad Sensitivity and Trend Tests. Trend analysis of oil format-
correlation consistently performs better for crude oil below 25 ion volume factor correlations with original published
API gravity. Higher than 25 API gravity, the performance is coefficients shows several of them contradicting the physical
not consistent, but very close to the best performer. Figure 4 laws. The analysis used the same four categories of mean
shows the performance of the best eight correlations out of values used in bubble point pressure trend analysis. The points
correlations with original coefficients and global based listed below are observation on correlations with original
coefficients with API gravity grouping. published coefficients with the graphical presentation of some
Results for correlations with the correlation coefficients them in Figures 5 and 6. The observations noted for the
calculated based on data from a limited API gravity range existing correlation models are:
show improvement in the very heavy and light crudes.
10 A. A. AL-SHAMMASI SPE 53185

9
• Abdul-Majeed and Salman model at high solution gas oil with original coefficients for oil formation volume factor
ratios shows a decrease in the oil formation volume factor shows outstanding
as the solution gas oil ratio increases. That contradicts the performance and could be generalized for global use with
20
physical laws. enough confidence. Al-Marhoun (1992) correlation comes
25
second after Petrosky and Farshad correlation. Other
3.500 conclusions reached from the analysis of coefficients
3.000
calculated for oil formation volume factor, taking different
Standing Correlation basis to select the data used in the calculation and testing of
Petrosky & Farshad Correlation
2.500
the resulted coefficients for the correct trend, are as follows:
Oil Formation Volume Factor

Abdul-Majeed & Salman Correlation

2.000 1. The concept of having one global model that could be

1.500
considered as the best model for all types of data is more
likely possible for oil formation volume factor property.
25
1.000
Petrosky and Farshad correlation, with original coefficients,
0.500 exhibits almost complete geographical and API grouping
0.000
superior performance consistency. There is no need for
geographical or API gravity based classifications, as a global
34

62
2
2
2

7
7
2
2
7
7
2
0
0
0
2
8
2
2
5
1
75
11
63
91
35
71
23
59
95
31
83
19
63
91
43
10
18
27

14
23
33
41
49
58
68
10
18
27
42
55
38
62
79
93
10
12
13
14
16
17
19
20
21
23
24
26
27
28
30
Solution Gas Oil Ratio
correlation model is very likely possible.
Figure 5: Solution Gas Oil Ratio Trend of Oil Formation Volume 2. Calculating new coefficients for correlation models
Factor Correlations with the Original Published Coefficients. based on limited data sets might result in coefficients that
invalidate the physical behavior of petroleum fluids. On the
top of the possibility of producing inconsistent coefficients
1.800
Standing Correlation
Petrosky & Farshad Correlation
with physical laws. The practice of calculating new set of
1.700 Vazquez & Bagges Correlation
Abdul-Majeed & Salman Correlation
coefficients for a specific data set was found to be not always
Macary & El Batanoney Correlation
better than the published coefficients.
Oil Formation Volume Factor

1.600 Omer & Todd Correlation

1.500
3. The process of developing new coefficients for an
existing correlation model or developing a new correlation,
1.400
should be always followed with a check for the trend of the
1.300
correlation model against the physical laws.
1.200

1.100 Neural Networks

The two existing models published in the literature, Gharbi
1.000 29,30
and Elsharkawy were subjected to validation tests. With
0. 4
1. 4
1. 4
1. 4
1. 4
1. 4
0. 4
0. 4
1. 4
1. 4
1. 4
1. 4
1. 4
0. 4
0. 2
0. 2
0. 2
1. 2
1. 2
1. 2
1. 2
1. 2
1. 2
1. 2
0. 2
0. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
1. 5
5
61
82
03
24
45
66
87
72
86
00
20
41
62
83
54
68
82
96
10
24
38
52
66
80
94
79
93
07
21
35
49
63
77
0.

Gas Gravity the limited information published about the models, two
Figure 6: Gas Gravity Trend of Oil Formation Volume Factor features of the models had to be assumed. The first is the
Correlations with the Original Published Coefficients. transfer functions form used from each layer to the next. The
22
• Macary and El-Batanoney correlation is insensitive to second is the order by which input variables are delivered to
gas gravity and API gravity changes. the models. Because these two items were missing, the test
5 24
• Vazquez & Beggs , Omar and Todd and Abdul-Majeed procedure assumes all possible combination of transfer
9
and Salman correlations show an incorrect trend of oil functions commonly used with backpropagation. It also tries
formation volume factor with increasing gas gravity. all possible delivery sequences of input to the neural model.
The use of limited data to calculate coefficients for For the case of one model for both properties, outputs
correlations as is the case with geographically based sequence could be interpreted as bubble point pressure
correlations, produces correlations with incorrect trends followed by oil formation volume factor or vise versa. For
because data is not sufficient to represent the whole range of example, for a model that predicts the two PVT properties and
fluid properties. The trend performance of correlations with has one hidden layer, there will be 24 possible sequences for
coefficients based on API limited range data is more adversly input variables, two possible sequences for outputs, and four
affected. possible combination of transfer functions.
The testing procedure was applied to the two published
Over all Performance Assessment. The oil formation models, and in all cases the published results were not
volume factor property of hydrocarbon mixtures is less reached. Four transfer functions combinations were tried
influenced by the presence of non-hydrocarbons and during the test including the most commonly used functions
impurities. The gas gravity parameter is of less significance logsig, purelin and tansig. For each transfer function
and influence on this property. Therefore, large error involved combinations there were twenty-four possible input sequences
in this variable does not reflect high error in estimation of oil for input variables. For each input sequence, two
25
formation volume factor. Petrosky and Farshad correlation interpretations of the outputs were possible. The total number
of structures tried for the testing were 192 configurations. The
SPE 53185 BUBBLE POINT PRESSURE AND OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR CORRELATIONS 11

best results reached are far from what is reported for both
properties. Models reported need more details to be
reproduced.
Development of Neural network models. The develop-
ment of neural network models starts with finding the best
network structure that will represent the complicated
relationship between variables. Possible neural network
structures, starting from a low number of layers and neurons to
a higher number of layers and neurons, should be tested to
data sets reserved for testing. The Best-achieved model has an
average absolute error of 11.68%, much higher than the
conventional numerical correlations. Models reached, that
were found to be consistent had a 12-14% absolute average
error position after few iterations, indicating the strong
presence of that direction in the training data.
3000
2500
Bubble point Pressure

select the best structure. Successful structures are those that

converge to the target error or reach the minimum possible 2000

Bubble Point Pressure

Sum Square Error (SSE) and exhibit stable performance to
new data not included in the training. 1500

Out of the global data sets, 137 sets were randomly

selected for testing successfully trained models, leaving 1106 1000

data sets available for bubble point pressure training. The best
results reached by model consisted of two hidden layers, five 500

nodes in the first layer and three in the second layer, with a
training average absolute error of 15.08% and 19.86% for test 0

data sets. The improvement over the new Al-Shammasi

84

94
9
4
9
4
9
4
9
6
3
2
7
2
7

7
9
2
7
2
7
2
7
2
7
2
7
2
7
12
17
21
26
30
35
39
10
13
16
20
25
29

11
13
16
20
25
29
10
14
19
23
28
32
37
41
Temperature
correlation is 2.77% for training data. The test data average
absolute error is higher than the numerical correlation model Figure 7: Temperature Trend for Neural Network Model.
by 2.01%. It was observed that several structures reached 15- 5000

16% average absolute error and that was always the minimum 4500

error for each configuration. This is confirmed with a plot of Bubble point Pressure

SSE versus cumulative iterations performed. Most of high 4000

error points were observed to be in the low pressure and low 3500

oil gravity range. Using limited data for training gave similar
Bubble Point Pressure

results, as shown in Table 7. 3000

2500
Table 7: Performance Comparison between Neural Network
and Numerical Correlations 2000

Training Data Neural Network Numerical Correlation

1500
Best Model Results Results
All data (1106 sets) 15.08% 17.85%
1000
Al-Marhoun (160 sets) 2.38% 3.67%
< 20% error by 6.13% 7.65% 500
Standing (765 sets)
0

The overall improvement reached in all cases show that the

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
77
57
37
17
97
77

54
.4
.6
.8
.2
.6
.0
.4
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8

.9
.3
.7
.1
.7
.7
.7
.7
5.
6.
7.
8.
8.
9.

7.
10
13
16
19
21
24
26
28
11
19
27
35
43
51

13
20
26
33
39
47
55
63
Oil Gravity
quality of the numerical correlation is very close to the neural
network modeling. The difference between the numerical Figure 8: Oil Gravity Trend for Neural Network Model.
correlations and neural network models is relatively small.
They are not enough to justify field applications, but are worth
4000
incorporating for computerized applications, if they pass trend
requirements. 3500

Bubble point Pres sure

The model based on the global data, and selected based on 3000

error performance, will be used for trend testing. Table A.5

Bubble Point Pressure

2500

gives the architecture of the model with all necessary details to

reproduce it. Trend analysis plots of the model are shown in 2000

Figures 7 through 10. The trend test clearly shows the 1500

weakness of neural network model, as it is unstable and has 1000

the wrong trend for solution gas oil ratio. No other model
reached, passed the trend analysis criteria, to be called a 500

correct trend neural model. 0

34

27

95
118
222

132
237
342
447
552
657

200
326
494
307
622
811
979
1147
1315
1483
1651
1819
1987
2155
2323
2491
2659
2827
2995
3163

Neural network model development for oil formation Solution Gas Oil Ratio

volume factor used 1165 data sets for training, leaving 180
Figure 9: Gas Oil Ratio Trend for Neural Network Model.
12 A. A. AL-SHAMMASI SPE 53185

Nomenclature
2500 Bubble point Pressure
Bo= Oil Formation Volume Factor, bbl/stb
2000
Rs= Solution Gas Oil Ratio, Scf/stb
Pb= Bubble point pressure, psia
Bubble Point Pressure

1500
T= Temperature, deg F
γo= Oil specific gravity
1000
γg= Gas specific gravity
API= API stock tank oil gravity
500
µ= Viscosity, cp
γ= Specific gravity
0
4

4
4

4
4

4
4

2
2

2
2

2
5

5
5

5
61

85

09
33

57

81
70

86

02

26
50

74

52
68

84

00

16
32

48

64

80
71

87

03

19
35

51

67
0.

0.

1.
1.

1.

1.
0.

0.

1.

1.
1.

1.

0.
0.

0.

1.

1.
1.

1.

1.

1.
0.

0.

1.

1.
1.

1.

1.
Gas Gravity Acknowledgments
Figure 10: Gas Gravity Trend for Neural Network Model. The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Saudi
Arabian Texaco for permission to publish this paper.
A non-linear relationship in numerical correlations is Appreciation is also extended to the Kuwait University
commonly used to represent the oil formation volume factor Computer Services (KUCS) for providing software used in
relation. Convergence of non-linear models to optimum this study and the Texaco Exploration and Production
solutions is very dependent on the starting position and the Technology Department (EPTD) library staff for providing the
data used in the process of non-linear optimization. This literature references and for their support throughout the study.
dependence on both factors is also valid for neural networks
training. The local minimum always reached by different References
models is probably due to the strong presence of that local in 1. Katz, D. L.: “Prediction of shrinkage of crude oils,” Dril. Prod.
the architectures used. Prac. Am. Pet. Inst. pp. 137-147 (1942).
The performance of empirical correlations for oil 2. Standing, M. B.: ”A Pressure Volume Temperature Correlation
for Mixture of California Oils and Gases,” Drill. & Prod. Prac,
formation volume factor is acceptable, with an average
API, Dallas (1947) 275-87.
absolute error of 1.8%. This low error is largely due to 3. Lasater, J. A.:” Bubble Point Pressure Correlation,” SPE Paper
experimental and human error. Therefore, the improvement in 957-G, (MAY 1958).
performance expected from neural network modeling is 4. Cronquist, Chapman.: ” Dimensionless PVT Behavior of Gulf
limited and of small magnitude. Coast Reservoir Oils,” Journal of Petroleum Technology, May
(1973) pp 538.
Conclusions 5. Vazuquez, M. and Beggs, H. D.: ”Correlation for Fluid Physical
1. The new developed correlations (Equations 1, 2, and 3) Property Prediction,” SPE 6719, (1980).
are improvements over existing correlations. The new bubble 6. Glaso, O.: ” Generalized Pressure-Volume Temperature Correlat-
ions,” JPT (May 1980), pp 785-95.
point pressure correlation (Equation 1) has the lowest average
7. Al-Marhoun, M. A.: “PVT Correlations for Saudi Crude Oils,”
absolute error for global data. It significantly out performs SPE 13718, SPE Middle East Oil TECH CONF and EXHB
other correlations for oil gravity above 30 API gravity. (Manamah, Bahrain, 11-14 –March 1985).
2
2. Out of published bubble point correlations, Standing 8. Al-Marhoun, M. A.: “PVT Correlations for Middle East Crude
correlation is the most stable performance correlation to be Oils,” JPT (MAY 1988) 650-66, Trans, 285, SPE Paper 13718.
used with an estimated average absolute error of around 20%. 9. Abdul-Majeed, G. H. A. and Salman, N. H.: “An Empirical
25
Petrosky and Farshad oil formation volume factor correlation Correlation for FVF Prediction,” J Can. Pet. Tech., 27(6): 118-
is the best global correlation. Neural network models have not 122 (1988).
been proven to perform better than numerical correlations for 10. Standing, M. B.: ”Oil-System Correlation.” Petroleum
Production handbook T. C. Frick (ed), SPE Richardson. TX
these two fluid properties.
(1962) 2. Chap. 19.
3. Correlation selection for a particular application should 11. Standing, M. B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field
be based on oil gravity performance criteria, not on Hydrocarbon System. SPE, Richardson, TX (1977) 124.
geographical criteria. Geographical classification of crude oils 12. Obomanu, D. A. and Okpobori, G. A.: “Correlating the PVT
is not supported by PVT correlations performance. Only data Properties of Nigerian Crudes,” Tran ASME (1987) Vol. 109, pp
that fully represent the full range of PVT properties should be 214-14.
used to develop new correlations or perform modifications to 13. Al-Fattah, Saud Mohammed and Al-Marhoun, M. A.: “Evaluation
existing models. Trend analysis is recommended to check of empirical correlation for bubble point oil formation volume
correlation performance over the full range of PVT properties. factor,” Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.
11(1994) 341-350.
14. Vazquez, M. E.: “Correlation for fluid physical Property
prediction,” M. S. Thesis, University of Tulsa. Oklahoma, (1976).
SPE 53185 BUBBLE POINT PRESSURE AND OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR CORRELATIONS 13

15. Asgapur, Soheil, McLauchlin, L., Wong, D., and Cheung, V.:
“Pressure Volume Temperature Correlation for Western
Canadian gases and Oils.” JCPT, (July-August 1989), Vol.28,
103-113.
16. Labedi, R.: “Use of Production Data to Estimate Volume Factor
Density and Compressibility of Reservoir Fluids.” Jour Pert Scie
Eng. 4(1990) 357-90.
17. Dokla, M. and Osman, M.: “Correlation of PVT Properties for
UAE Crudes,” SPE Formation Evaluation (March 1992) 41-46;
Trans, 285, SPE Paper 21342
18. Al-Yousef H. Y., Al-Marhoun, M. A.: “Discussion of Correlation
of PVT Properties for UAE Crudes,” SPE Formation Evaluation
(MARCH 1993) pp 80-81; SPE Paper 26135.
19. Dokla, M. and Osman, M.: “Authors’ Reply to Discussion of
Correlation of PVT Properties for UAE Crudes,” SPE Formation
Evaluation (March 1993) pp 82; SPE Paper 26316.
20. Al-Marhoun, M. A.: “New Correlation for formation Volume
Factor of oil and gas Mixtures,” Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology (March 1992) 22-26.
21. Farshad, F. F, Leblance, J. L, Garber, J. D. and Osorio, J. G.: ”
Empirical Correlation for Colombian Crude Oils,” SEP 24538
(1992).
22. Macary, S. M. & El-Batanoney, M. H.: “Derivation of PVT
Correlations for the Gulf of Suez Crude Oils,” EGPC 11th Pet.
Exp. & Prod. Conf. (1992).
23. Saleh, A. M., Maggoub, I. S. and Asaad, Y.: “Evaluation of
empirically derived PVT properties for Egyptian oils,” SPE
15721, 5th Mid. East Oil Sho. & Con., Bahrain, March 7-10
(1987).
24. Omar, M. I. and Todd, A. C.: “Development of New Modified
Black oil Correlation for Malaysian Crudes,” SPE 25338 (1993).
25. Petrosky, J. and Farshad, F.: “Pressure Volume Temperature
Correlation for the Gulf of Mexico.” 68th Soc. Pet. Eng. Anna.
Tech. Con., Houston, TX, Oct 3-6 1993, SPE 26644.
26. Kartoatmodjo, Trijana and Schmidt, Zelimie.: “Large data bank
improves crude physical property correlations,” Oil and Gas
Journal, July 4, 1994, pp 51-55.
27. Almehaideb, R. A.: “IMPROVED PVT CORRELATIONS FOR
UAE CRUDE OILS,” SPE 37691, SPE Middle East Oil Show
CONF (Manamah, Bahrain, 3/15 –18/97) PROC V1, pp 109-120,
1997.
28. Ali, J. K.:”Neural Networks: A New Tool for the Petroleum
Industry” SPE 27561, European Petroleum Computer Conference
(Aberdeen, U.K.), 15-17 March 1994.
29. Gharbi, R. B. and Elsharkawy, A. M.: “Neural-Network Model
for Estimating the PVT Properties of Middle East Crude Oils,”
SPE 37695, SPE Middle East Oil Show CONF (Manamah,
Bahrain, 3/15 –18/97) PROC V1, pp 151-166, 1997
30. Gharbi, R. B. and Elsharkawy, A. M.: “Universal Neural-
Network Model for Estimating the PVT Properties of Crude
Oils,” SPE 38099, SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas CONF (Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 4/14-16/97) PROC pp 619-628, 1997.
31. Ostermann, R. D., Ehlig-Economides, C. A. and Owalabi, O. O.:
“ Correlation for the reservoir fluid properties of Alaskan
crudes,” SPE paper 11703, SPE Californian Reg. Meet., Ventura,
March 23-25 (1983).
32. Sutton, Roberts P. and Farshad, F.: ” Evaluation of Empirically
Derived PVT Properties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils” SPE
13172, (1990).
33. Sutton, Roberts P. and Farshad, F.: ”Supplement to SPE 1372,
Evaluation of Empirically Derived PVT Properties for Gulf of
Mexico Crude Oils” SPE 20277, Available for SPE book Order
Dep., Richardson, TX.
34. McCain, W. D.: “ Reservoir fluid property correlations-State of
the Art,” SPE Reservoir Engineering, (May 1991), pp 266-272.
35. Ghetto, Giambattista. De, Paone, Francessco. and Villa, Marco.:
“Reliability Analysis on PVT correlation,” SPE 28904 (1994).
36. Elsharkawy, A. M. Elgibaly, A. and Alikhan, A. A.: “Assessment
of the PVT Correlations for Predicting the Properties of the
Kuwaiti Crude Oils,” 6th Abu Dhabi Inter Pet Ex & Con 16-19
Oct 1994.
37. Mahmood, M. M. and Al-Marhoun, M. A.: “Evaluation of
empirically derived PVT properties for Pakistani crude oils,”
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 16(1996) 275-
290.
38. Hanafy, H. H., Macary, S. A., Elnady, Y. M., Bayomi, A. A. and
El-Batanoney, M. H.: “ Empirical PVT Correlation Applied to
Egyptian Crude Oils Exemplify Significance of Using Regional
Correlations,” SPE 37295, SPE Oilfield CHEM. INT. SYMP
(Houston, 2/18 –21/97) PROC pp 733-737, 1997.

Appendix:

Table A.3: Data Summary.

Geographical Location Index PbMin PbMax BoMin BoMax RsMin RsMax γgMin γgMax γoAPIMinγoAPIMax TMin TMax Count
Alaska Ref 31 515.0 1802.0 1.129 1.236 140.0 435 0.853 1.094 25.40 37.10 122.0 180.0 8
All Over the World Ref 35 71.0 6613.8 1.034 2.887 8.6 3298 0.624 1.789 6.00 56.80 80.6 341.6 195
All Over the World Ref 29 408.0 6358.0 1.098 2.887 104.0 3020 0.669 1.188 27.49 52.03 100.0 306.0 22
All Over the World Ref 9 0.0 0.0 1.028 2.042 9.0 1664 0.511 1.351 9.50 59.50 75.0 294.0 420
All Over the World Ref 14 126.0 5148.0 1.011 1.962 9.0 1664 0.511 1.041 15.30 59.50 75.0 294.0 259
Colombia Ref 21 31.7 4137.7 1.045 2.064 6.0 1719 0.657 1.731 18.00 46.50 95.0 260.0 104
Kuwait Unpublished 334.7 2985.0 1.040 1.390 50.5 711 0.750 1.190 15.00 35.17 94.0 176.0 48
Malaysian Ref 24 790.0 3851.0 1.085 1.954 142.0 1440 0.612 1.750 26.60 53.20 125.0 280.0 93
Middle East Ref 8 130.0 3573.0 1.032 1.997 26.0 1602 0.752 1.367 19.40 44.60 74.0 240.0 160
Nigerian Ref 12 58.0 2514.9 1.023 1.723 7.0 1164 0.564 0.929 15.74 43.62 123.0 190.0 48
North Sea & World wide Ref 6 150.0 7127.0 1.087 2.588 90.0 2637 0.650 1.286 18.10 47.70 80.0 280.0 63
Pakistan Ref 37 15.0 4975.0 1.067 2.916 92.0 2496 0.825 3.445 29.00 56.50 182.0 296.0 185
UAE Ref 17 590.0 4640.0 1.216 2.493 181.0 2266 0.798 1.290 28.21 40.31 190.0 275.0 51
USA Ref 1 499.0 3950.0 1.070 1.706 6.0 1313 0.575 1.386 21.80 63.70 58.0 255.0 53
14 A. A. AL-SHAMMASI SPE 53185

Table A.4: Bubble Point Pressure Correlations Average AbsoluteError for Geographical Data Groups

Unpublished

North Sea &

All Over the

All Over the

All Over the

Middle East

Worldwide
Malaysian
Colombia

Nigerian

Pakistan
Kuwait
Alaska
World

World

World
UAE
USA
Coefficients Classification and Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref Ref
Correlation Name
35 31 8 21 1 29 24 12 6 37 17 14
Original Coefficients
Farshad, Leblance, Garber & Osorio 19.08 16.49 36.85 31.59 15.75 19.91 15.32 13.49 71.09 16.08 44.06 34.32 21.12
Dokla and Osman 33.46 20.47 12.43 20.73 16.48 25.70 14.61 18.64 58.64 29.58 34.40 7.62 26.46
Al-Marhoun 26.81 16.28 11.39 3.67 16.30 20.38 22.24 26.43 122.89 13.65 31.50 17.97 19.67
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 20.31 14.63 18.30 18.09 15.92 16.49 22.90 13.47 36.15 18.50 67.10 50.88 17.39
Standing 16.89 17.91 12.36 12.08 13.83 14.37 17.48 12.50 41.85 14.72 45.67 33.56 16.19
Laster 20.52 17.00 19.03 23.87 54.64 21.57 11.43 15.04 39.93 19.62 165.21 41.05 21.80
Petrosky & Farshad 136.87 37.12 60.06 162.22 639.62 29.12 12.63 17.58 297.11 72.53 181.97 19.24 111.16
Omar & Todd 21.94 16.64 24.02 25.52 19.17 1133.4 11.28 7.97 48.40 19.061536.89 39.36 17.64
Almehaideb 33.26 20.91 35.14 28.85 28.64 72.61 12.67 17.92 78.13 17.53 43.87 13.67 25.50
Macary & El Batanoney 23.96 21.49 20.68 34.45 59.70 26.27 8.69 17.77 89.09 24.63 120.30 43.74 32.47
Vazquez & Bagges 17.14 14.74 18.81 18.29 13.37 15.62 19.08 14.16 53.33 15.40 55.34 43.95 16.24
Glaso 28.47 15.37 32.56 25.22 19.97 19.61 13.75 17.75 57.40 10.58 32.08 40.91 22.56
New Coefficients Based On Global Data
Al-Marhoun 18.13 16.41 11.23 9.85 11.98 14.33 14.91 14.42 71.80 13.85 31.11 26.28 15.32
Al-Shammasi 17.56 16.56 16.08 18.20 13.60 15.44 14.21 12.18 44.56 17.40 15.85 30.00 16.58
Standing Modified (Liner) 17.75 16.77 13.22 13.55 11.07 15.33 15.80 12.36 46.14 15.99 42.54 26.84 16.22
Farshad, Leblance, Garber & Osorio 17.75 16.77 13.22 13.55 11.07 15.33 15.80 12.36 46.14 15.99 42.54 26.84 16.22
Vazquez & Bagges 18.25 17.41 13.37 13.02 11.09 14.75 15.61 12.28 46.49 15.25 44.64 26.98 15.87
Macary & El Batanoney 17.34 14.40 16.64 16.34 34.65 13.61 8.18 11.90 74.42 15.67 24.49 34.93 18.30
Petrosky & Farshad 99.82 51.34 75.83 144.64 248.05 48.52 51.42 32.40 264.90 83.09 225.41 42.90 94.90
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 18.25 17.41 13.37 13.02 11.09 14.75 15.61 12.28 46.49 15.25 44.64 26.98 15.87
Glaso 19.07 15.45 13.52 13.47 14.74 13.96 9.98 13.69 45.25 13.34 48.70 29.24 16.31
New Coefficients Based On Data Group
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 15.92 13.57 11.01 10.12 11.47 27.63 16.37 11.91 9.93 13.88 29.31 8.04 16.65
Glaso 22.20 10.59 11.37 14.12 17.21 17.46 12.00 19.14 12.51 11.69 28.87 8.34 16.97
Standing Modified (Liner) 14.13 9.66 10.60 10.21 11.51 23.61 16.62 11.76 9.34 14.78 25.97 7.68 16.63
Vazquez & Bagges 15.92 13.57 11.01 10.12 11.47 27.63 16.37 11.91 9.93 13.88 29.31 8.04 16.65
Petrosky & Farshad 99.70 46.85 69.19 177.30 302.52 58.45 79.68 34.67 174.81 127.56 145.93 62.17 16.63
Macary & El Batanoney 22.20 5.71 11.54 5.07 31.95 17.94 16.37 19.19 10.98 11.80 17.48 8.81 17.33
Al-Marhoun 14.18 10.51 10.58 3.67 11.41 22.72 15.88 10.86 9.47 13.11 19.32 7.61 16.18
Farshad, Leblance, Garber & Osorio 14.13 9.66 10.60 10.21 11.51 23.61 16.62 11.76 9.34 14.78 25.97 7.68 16.63
Al-Shammasi 15.59 10.26 10.85 7.84 13.78 19.80 15.31 11.86 9.94 12.98 16.17 8.53 16.92
Least Average Absolute Error Correlation for Coefficients Class
Table A.5: The New Neural Network Configurations.
Neural Network Configurations
Number of Neurons in the 1st Layer 5 Bubble Point Pressure = (Pb - 31.7)/(7127.0 - 31.7) psia
Number of Neurons in the 2nd Layer 3 Oil Gravity = (γoAPI - 6.0)/(63.7 - 6.0) API Gravity
Transfer Functions in sequence Logsig-Tansig-Purelin Gas Gravity = (γg - 0.5110)/(3.4445 - 0.5110) Ratio
Scaling Equations and input squence Solution Gas Oil Ratio = (Rs – 6.00)/(3298.66 – 6.00) scf/STB
Temperature = (T - 74)/(342 - 74) DEGF
Input Layer Wij
I/j 1 2 3 4 bi
1 6.9034887E-01 -3.4058821E+00 -2.9867396E+00 -1.4185840E+00 -1.4472446E+00
2 1.1353468E+03 -1.8433542E+02 -7.8829016E+01 -1.5478570E+03 -8.2189797E+01
3 -2.0444180E+02 1.2435331E+02 2.0866545E+02 -3.7839824E+02 2.5398983E+02
4 6.7947059E-01 1.4064212E-01 -2.6620731E+00 -1.2751906E+00 -5.3829891E+00
5 8.4152913E+00 4.3780299E+00 -5.9760835E+00 -3.1949745E+00 -9.0647785E+00
Hidden Layer Wij
I/j 1 2 3 4 5 bi
1 -4.8702239E+00 -2.1260691E+00 -1.3751097E+00 1.6480909E+02 4.8912092E+00 1.7825986E+00
2 3.9248888E+00 2.2639621E+00 1.2526170E+00 -1.3133382E+02 -3.6489790E+00 -1.8079009E+00
3 8.1338728E-01 -2.6349341E+00 -7.4970684E-01 -4.5163111E+01 8.2960003E-01 1.8541653E+00
Output Layer Wij
I/j 1 2 3 bi
1 -7.6032107E+01 -1.0647084E+02 -3.0838271E+01 3.6603679E-01
15 A. A. AL-SHAMMASI SPE 53185

Authors Correlation Samples No of Data Bo T Rs API γg Author Author Author

Origin Points Used Range Range Range Range Range Average Average Standard
Bbl/stb DEGF scf/stb API ratio Error % Absolute Deviation
Error %
2,10,11
Standing (1947) Bo = a1+ a2[ Rs( γg /γγο)a 3 + a4T ]a 5 California 105 1.0240- 100-258 20-1425 16.5- 0.59- 1.17
2.150 63.8 0.95
a1 = 0.972, a2 = 1.472e-4, a3 = 0.5, a4 = 1.25, a5 = 1.175
Vazquez & Bo = 1+ a1 Rs + a2 ((γγο API / γg)( T –60)) + a3 All Over the 6004 1.028- 75-294 0-2199 15.3- 0.511-
Beggs5 (1980) (Rs(γγοAPI / γg) (T –60)) World 2.226 59.3 1.35
γο API <=30 a1 = 4.677e-4, a2 = 1.751e-5, a3 = -1.8106e-8 γο API >30 a1 = 4.67e-4, a2 = 1.1e-5, a3 = 1.337e-9
Glaso6 (1980) Bo = 1+ 10[a1+ a2 (log G) - a3 (log G)2] North Sea 41 1.032- 80-280 90-2637 22.3- 0.65- -0.43 2.18
G = Rs( γg /γγο) a 4+ a5 T 2.588 48.1 1.28
a1 = -6.58511, a2 = 2.91329, a3 = 0.27683, a4 = 0.526, a5 = 0.968
Al-Marhoun8 (1988) Bo = a1+ a2 (T +460) + a3 M + a4 M2 Middle East 160 1.032- 74-240 26-1602 19.4- 0.75- -0.01 0.88 1.18
M = Rs a 5 γg a 6 γο a 7 1.997 44.6 1.37
a1 = 0.497069, a2 = 0.862963e-3, a3 = 0.182594e-2, a4 = 0.318099e-5, a5 =0.74239, a6=0.323294, a7 = -1.20204
Majeed & Al-Marhoun8 (1988) - 420 1.028- 75-290 0-1664 9.5-59.5 0.51- -0.24 1.4 1.91
Salman9(1988) New calculated constants 2.042 1.35
a1 = 0.9657876, a2 = 7.73e-4, a3 = 4.8141e-5, a4 = -6.8987e-10, a5 =1.2, a6= - 0.147, a7 = -5.222
Dokla & Al-Marhoun8 (1988) U.A.E 51 1.216- 190-275 181-2266 28.2- 0.80- 0.023 1.225 1.681
Osman17 (1992) New calculated constants 2.493 40.3 1.29
a1 = 0.431935e-1, a2 = 0.156667e-2, a3 = 0.139775e-2, a4 = 0.380525e-5, a5 =0.773572, a6=0.404020, a7 = -0.882605
Petrosky & Standing 2,10,11 (1947)New calculated constants Gulf of Mexico 90 1.118- 114-288 217-1406 16.3- 0.58- -0.01 0.64 0.58
Farshad25 (1993) Bo = a1+ a2[ Rsa 3 ( γg a 4/γγοa 5) + a6T a 7]a 8 1.623 45.0 0.85
a1 = 1.0113, a2=7.2046e-5, a3 = 0.3738, a4 = 0.2914, a5 =0.6265, a6=0.24626, a7 = 0.5371, a8 = 3.0936
Farshad, Leblance, Glaso6 (1980)New calculated constants Colombia 107 1.060- 95-260 6-1645 18.0- 0.66-1.7 13.32 37.02
Garber & Osorio21 Bo = 1+ 10[a1+ a2 (log G) - a3 (log G)2] 2.064 44.9
(1992) (Single Stage) G = Rs a 4 γg a 5γο a 6+ a7 T
a1 = -2.6541, a2=0.5576, a3 = 0.3331, a4 = 0.5956, a5 =0.2369, a6 = -1.3282, a7 = 0.0976
Al-Marhoun20 (1992) Bo = 1+ a1 Rs + a2 Rs(γγg / γο) + a3 Rs (1- γο) (T - All Over the 4012 1.010- 75-300 0-3265 9.5-55.9 0.575- 0.00 0.57 0.6787
60) + a4 (T -60) World 2.960 2.52
a1 = 0.177342e-3, a2 = 0.220163e-3, a3 = 4.292580e-6, a4 = 0.528707e-3
Omar &Todd24 (1993) Standing 2,10,11 correlation with one change Malaysian 93 1.085- 125-280 142- 26.6- 0.612- 1.44 1.88
Bo = a1+ a2[ Rs( γg /γγο) a 3+ a4T]x 1.954 1440 53.2 1.32
X = b1+b2 (γγοAPI/ γg)+ b3 γg
b1 = 1.1663, b2 = 0.762e-3, b3 = -0.0399
Almehaideb27 (1997) Bo = a1+ a2 Rs T / γο 2 UAE 62 1.142- 190-306 128-3871 30.9- 0.75- 1.35 5.17
3.562 48.6 1.12
a1 = 1.122018, a2 = 1.41e-6
Macary & Bo = [a1+ a2 T] N Gulf of Suez 90 1.20- 130-290 200- 25-40 0.70- 0.52 7.04
El-Batanony22 (1992) N = EXP[a3 Rs + a4 (γγο /γγg)] 2.00 1200 1.00
a1 = 1.0031, a2 = 0.0008, a3 = 0.0004, a4 = 0.0006
Kartoatmodjo, Standing 2,10,11 (1948) New calculated constants All Over the 5392 1.007- 75-320 0-2890 14.4- 0.38- -0.104 2.025
and Schmidt 26 Bo = a1+ a2[ Rsa 3 γg 100 a 4/γγοa 5+ a6T]a 7 World 2.144 58.9 1.71
(1994) Exactly as Petrosky and Farshad25
a1 = 0.98496, a2 = 0.0001, a3 = 0.755, a4 = 0.25, a5 = 1.5, a6=0.45, a7=1.5

Table A.1: Formation Volume Factor Correlations.

16 A. A. AL-SHAMMASI SPE 53185

Authors Correlation Samples No of Pb T Rs API γg Author Author Author

Origin Data Range Range Range Range Range Average Average Standard
Points psia DEGF scf/stb API Ratio Error Absolute Deviation
Used % Error
%
2,10,11
Standing (1947) Pb = a1 [( Rs/ γg) a 2 10(T a 3 - γοAPIa 4 ) - a5 ] California 105 130-7000 100-258 20-1425 16.5-63.8 0.59-0.95 4.8
a1 = 18.2, a2 = 0.83, a3 = 0.00091, a4 = 0.0125, a5 = 1.4
Vazquez & Beggs5 Pb = [( a1 Rs/ γg) antilog (-a3 γο API /(460+T)) ]a 2 All Over the 6004 15-6055 75-294 0-2199 15.3-59.3 0.51-1.35
(1980) World
γο API <=30 a1 = 27.64, a2 = 1.0937, a3 = 11.172 γο API >30 a1 = 56.06, a2 = 1.187, a3 = 10.393
Glaso6 (1980) Pb = antilog[ a1+a2 log(G) – a3 (log(G))2 ] North Sea 41 165-7142 80-280 90-2637 22.3-48.1 0.65-1.28 1.28 6.98
G = (Rs/ γg) a 4 Ta 5 γο API a 6
a1 = 1.7669, a2 = 1.7447, a3 = 0.30218, a4 = 0.816, a5 = 0.172, a6 = -0.989
Al-Marhoun8 (1988) Pb = a1 Rs a 2 γg a 3 γο a 4 ( T+460) a 5 Middle East 160 20-3573 74-240 26-1602 19.4-44.6 0.75-1.37 0.03 3.66 4.536
a1 = 5.38088e-3, a2 = 0.715082, a3 = -1.877840, a4 = 3.143700, a5 = 1.326570
Dokla & Osman17 (1992) Al-Marhoun8 (1988) U.A.E 51 590-4640 190-275 181-2266 28.2-40.3 0.80-1.29 0.45 7.61 10.378
New calculated constants
a1 = 0.836386e4, a2 = 0.724047, a3 = -1.01049, a4 = 0.107991, a5 = -0.952584
Petrosky & Standing 2,10,11 (1947)New calculated constants Gulf of Mexico 90 1574- 114-288 217-1406 16.3-45.0 0.58-0.86 -0.17 3.28 2.56
Pb = a1 [( Rs a 2/ γg a 3) 10x - a4 ]
25
Farshad 6523
X=(a5 Ta 6 – a7 γο API a 8 )
a1 = 112.727, a2=0.5774, a3 = 0.8439, a4 = 12.340, a5 = 4.561e-5, a6=1.3911, a7 = 7.916e-4, a8 = 1.5410
Lasater3 (1958) Pb = [(Pf)(T+459.67)]/ γg Canada West & 158 48-5780 82-272 3-2905 17.9-51.1 0.57-1.2 3.8%
Yg =( Rs /a1)/ [( Rs /a1) +(a2 γο/Mο)] mid-cont U.S.
Mo = a3 – a4 γοAPI+ a5 γο API2 &SA
Pf = a6 – a7 Yg + a8 Yg 2
a1 = 379.3, a2 = 350, a3 = 725.32143, a4 = 16.03333, a5 = 0.09524, a6 = 0.38418, a7 = 1.20081, a8 = 9.64868
Omar &Todd24 (1993) Standing 2,10,11 correlation with one change Malaysian 93 790-3851 125-280 142-1440 26.6-53.2 0.61-1.32 7.17 9.54
Pb = a1 [( Rs/ γg) X 10(T a 3 γοAPI a 4 ) - a5 ]
X = b1+b2 Bo+ b3 γg+b4 Bo2+ b5 γ g2+b6/ ( Bo γg)
b1 = 1.4256, b2 = -0.2608, b3 = -0.4596, b4 = 0.04481, b5 = 0.2360, b6 = -0.1077
Farshad, Leblance, Standing 2,10,11 (1947)New calculated constants Colombia 43 32-4138 95-260 6-1645 18.0-44.9 0.66-1.73 -3.49 14.61
Garber & Osorio21 Pb = a1 ( Rs/ γg) a 2 10(a 3 T - a 4 γοAPI)
(1992) (Single Stage)
a1 = 33.22, a2=0.8283, a3 = 0.000037, a4 = 0.0142
Farshad, Leblance, Glaso6 (1980)New calculated constants Colombia 43 32-4138 95-260 6-1645 18.0-44.9 0.66-1.73 13.32 37.02
2
Garber & Osorio 21 P b = antilog[ a1+a2 log(G) – a3 (log(G)) ]

(1992) (Single Stage) G = γg a 4 Rsa 5 10 (a 6 T – a 7 γοAPI)

a1 = 0.3058, a2= 1.9013, a3 = 0.26, a4 = -1.378, a5 = 1.053, a6= 0.00069, a7 = 0.0208
Macary & Pb = a1 K[Rs a 2 - a3] Gulf of Suez 90 1200- 130-290 200-1200 25-40 0.70-1.00 0.52 7.04
El-Batanony (1992)
22 K = EXP [a4T- a5 γο API - a6 γg ] 4600
a1 = 204.257, a2= 0.51, a3 = 4.7927, a4 = 0.00077, a5 = 0.0097, a6= 0.4003
Almehaideb27 (1997) Pb = a1+ a2 Rs γο / (γγg Bo a 3) + a4T UAE 62 501-4822 190-306 128-3871 30.9-48.6 0.75-1.12 4.997 6.56
a1 = -620.592, a2= 6.23087, a3 = 1.38559, a4 = 2.89868
Kartoatmodjo, Vazquez & Beggs5 correlation (1980) All Over the 5392 15-6055 75-320 0-2890 14.4-58.9 0.38-1.71 3.34 20.17
and Schmidt 26 New calculated constants World
(1994) Pb = [Rs/(a1*γg a 2 * 10 (a 3 γο API /(460+T) )]a 4
γο API <=30 a1 = 0.05958, a2 = 0.7972, a3 = 13.1405, a4=0.9986 γο API >30 a1 = 0.03150, a2 = 0.7587, a3 = 11.2895, a4=0.9143

Table A.2: Bubble Point Pressure Correlation

17 A. A. AL-SHAMMASI SPE 53185