Generalized Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations Oistein Glas6, SINTEF/NTH Trondheim Introduction Pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) correlations are important tools in reservoir technoiogy. These measurements form the basis for estimating the amount of oil in the reservoir, production capacity, and variations in produced gas/oil ratios during the reservoir’s production life. PVT relations also are a requirement for calculating the recovery efficiency of Especially during the prospection phase, when only produced fluid properties are available from flowing tests, one can resort to empirically derived PVT relations. It is, of course, of great importance that such estimations be as accurate as possible. From PVT correlations published until now, Standing’s! work is perhaps the most widely used. His correlations were developed for California oils, and make no corrections for oil type or nonhydrocarbon content. Other PVT relations developed for oils from other parts of the world, based on Standing’s work, yield “best-fit lines” ordinarily parallel-shifted. Their differences can be understood from two factors not included in Standing’s original correlations: (1) crude oils from other regions have different paraffinicity ~ i.e., they contain varying amounts of paraffinic oil com- ponents (saturated hydrocarbons in open chains), and (2) the surface gases from some reservoirs contain relatively large amounts of nonhydrocarbons (CO, Np, and HS). 0749.21 a80900s 0168025. By considering the variation in these parameters, this paper develops generalized PVT correlations: my =9[(2) ee | o By =*, [e(iey* 0.9687] @ 8, = 65[a(- Dry agriremens yt), Gig) GB) These equations were derived from laboratory data, exclusively sampling North Sea oils. However, they should be valid for all types of gas/oil mixtures after correcting for nonhydrocarbons (CO2, Nz, and HS) in the surface gases and paraffinicity of the oil as defined by the K yop factor. Procedure PVT Measurements Six reservoirs fluid samples were made from two North Sea separator liquid and gas samples. These reservoir samples were labeled Al, BI, and Cl and A2, B2, and C2. Fig. 1 shows ‘the experimental procedure used in the PVT analysis Pressure-volume measurements for each reservoir op Wo pen the apie! won PESTS Empirical equations for estimating saturation pressure, oil formation volume factor (FVF) at saturation pressure, and two-phase FVF were derived as a function of reservoir temperature, total surface-gas gravity, producing GOR, and stock-tank oil gravity. These equations should be valid for all types of oil/gas mixtures after correcting for nonhydrocarbons in surface gases and paraffinicity of oil. MAY 1980 785Fig. 1 ~ Experimental procedure flowchart sample yielded these data: (1) saturation pressure at cach temperature, (2) volume at saturation pressure, 3) compress ‘of undersaturated oil (above saturation pressure), and (4) the Y factor below saturation pressure used to describe the volumetric behavior of both gas and liquid phases. Each sample then was flash-separated in two stages, with separation conditions held constant as follows. First Stage. p = 400 psig (2758 kPa), and T = 125°F (51.7°C). Second Stage. p = 0 psig (6.895 Pa), and T 617°C). From the flash separations of each sample, these parameters were determined: (1) gas/oil ratio, (2) specific gravity of the gas at each stage (and, thus, average gravity for all surface gases), (3) oil gravity (specific and API), and (4) volume of the stock-tank oil to calculate FVF's. Standard conditions for all measurements were 14.7 psia (6.895 Pa) and 60°F (15.5°O). Tables 1 through 4 show the results of all flash separations taken from the six samples. 25°F Viscosity Measurements Viscosity measurements were performed on crude oils from six North Sea reservoirs at varying tem- peratures and atmospheric pressures. Results are shown in Table 5, along with the stock-tank oil API aravity for each sample. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Analysis An earlier work? found that the paraffinicity of the oil influences the gas/liquid equilibrium of methane- containing mixtures. The concentrations of paraffins, naphthenes, and aromatics were determined by NMR analysis for three reservoirs in the North Sea. Concentrations were expressed as a volume percent of the total mixture for each component. The results are shown in Table 6. Kop Factor The Kyop factor, another indicator of paraffinicity, was determined for four North Sea reservoirs. Table 76 7 shows the results of Kyop calculations that used UOP Method 375-59* from distillation experiments. Effects of Nonhydrocarbons on Saturation Pressure An initial sample was prepared in the PVT cell using a 0.72-gravity hydrocarbon gas and a 25 or 45°API. stock-tank oil. The saturation pressure for this hydrocarbon sample was determined at various temperatures and represents pp,_a5 defined in Eqs. 14,15, and 16. ‘The pressure then was lowered, removing a given volume of hydrocarbon gas and replacing the same volume with a nonhydrocarbon gas (CO, Np, of H)S). The saturation pressure of this nonhydrocarbon mixture was determined at various temperatures and represents... Pp,» and p a8 defined in Eqs. 14,15, and 1627728 By varying the above parameters, it was possible to determine the effect of nonhydrocarbon mole percent in separator gas on saturation pressure and. how this effect changed with temperature and API gravity of the stock-tank oil. PVT data and oil samples from North Sea reservoirs were collected from wells in the region 56 to 62°N. Other PVT data analyzed in this paper are from the Middle East, Algeria, and several areas in the U.S. Results Regression Analysis, Bubble-Point (Saturation) Pressure. Standing! reported the following general relation between saturation pressure of an oil and gas system with its fluid and reservoir properties. Po = OR igs Tap T)s “@ Using graphical methods and regression analysis the following relations were developed from the data for North Sea oils. Ryoais ©) rag = 5) a ~ (Sa) a 172, @* aerate (Sb), Fe! nn Po 0.989 > = i, 1989 2... (Se) (2) srorm iene i Thus, Ryosie 7-172 v= s[(#) oe 6) Using data from Eq. Sd, Mixtures Al, BI, Cl, A2, B2, C2, and other North Sea samples were plotted on. a log-log coordinate system resulting in a parabolic curve (Fig. 2). Regression analysis on this data yielded the following equations. 1.7669 + 1.7447 log p,* ~ 0.30218 (log py*)?, ++ (6a) JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY JoepTABLE 1 ~ EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED SATURATION PRESSURE FOR MIXTURES At, B1, AND C1 At Bt oo Reservoir temperature, *F 750215 260 160-215-260 180-218 280 Saturation pressure, psia «1,804 2,012 2,154 4,109 4,352 4441 6,684 6.932 7,127 ‘TABLE2 - EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED SATURATION PRESSURE FOR MIXTURES A2,B2, AND C2 a2 82 c2 Reservoir temperature, “F 150215 280 150-215-280 150218 280 Saturation pressure, psia «2,278 2,517 2673 4586 4,787 4,850 6,278 6.356 6,415, ‘TABLE 9 ~ SEPARATOR TESTS OF RESERVOIR FLUIDS A1, B1, AND C1 mt BI co ‘Total gasioil ratio, scfiSTB 474 1252.0 2036.0 Specitic gravity of total ‘os19 ‘0.820 0.760 ‘Surface gases (air = 1) Specific gravity of stock tank 36.85 36.00 36.18 ll yar, Resenolrtemperature,"F 150-215 280 150215280 150215280 OllFVE at saturation 1.253 1908 1.963 1631 1708 1.763 1.915. 2011-2110 Pressure, Bp, BIST TABLE 4 — SEPARATOR TESTS OF RESERVOIR FLUIDS 2,82, AND C2 ——— —— Total gasioil ratio, sofiSTB 305.4 10518 1688.6 Specific gravity of total 0785 746 0.738 ‘surface gases (air = 1) Specific gravity of stock tank 34.32 3380 36.12 ol, ap Reservolrtemperature,"“F 150215280150. 215280150. 215280 Oil FVF at saturation 1268 1318 1.969 1.447 1512 1583 1.716 1807 1.913 Pressure, Byy, ISTE ‘TABLES ~ EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED OIL VISCOSITY, 147 psia ____ Viscosity, ep ReseroirField 100° (60°F 20°F © 250F S00°F yan, — 1127 «0871 0616 © 36.6 Ekotisk 3522351490 1.083 dS MB. 127 0923 0758 35.1 Stattjord 395-721-1124 0.832 0848 38.3 1.068 0818 © 0.700 37.6 Forties 327 1.760 1.28 «08730873 35.9 Velhall 4752751652 1.123 O54 33.3 cop 111307550573 0413 OMB 458 30728 S143 7.75475 DON TABLE6 — EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED PARAFFINICITY FROM NMR ANALYSIS ‘TABLET ~ CALCULATED Kop FACTORS ParallinsNaphthenes Aromatics Reservoir Field —— Kyop Factor “APL Reservoir Field —_(vol%) —_ol%) (vol) Stattjord 11.89 382 Statfiord ett 207 782 Ekotisk 1184 363 Forties 62.1 269 110 W. Ekotisk 11.98 352 Ekofisk 587 235 78 Forties 1188 388 MAY 1980 m1Fig.2 = Prediction of saturation pressure from gasioll ratio, total surlace-gas gravity, stocktank il gravity, and resorvoir temperature, where bs ¢ ys Oilfield units are used in Eqs. 6a and 6b, where pp is the bubble-point (saturation) pressure in psia, R is the producing gas/oil ratio in scf/STB, 7, is the average specitic gravity of the total surface gases, Tis, the reservoir temperature in °F, and “API is the stock-tank oil gravity. The term pj is the “correlating number” to calculate bubble-point pressure. oan, yar? = (6b) FVF at Saturation Pressure. The bubble-point oil EVE Byp, is used for estimating the shrinkage of oil liquid Volume as oil is produced from the reservoir to the surface when the reservoir is at saturation (bubble-point) conditions. Based on Standing’s correlation, vey eo. GD) and using regression analysis, the constants a and 6 were determined to be a .526 and b ).968. Fig. 3 shows a log-log plot of data from the six samples Al, Bi Al, B2, and C2) and several other North Sea reservoir oils. log (Boy 1) = — 6.58511 +2.91329 log B3y —0.27683.(log B3,)?, .. Bop o@ - (Ba) where a i no Fig. 3 — Prediction of oll FVF at saturation pressure from {gasioll ratio, total surtace-gas gravity, stock tank Oil gravity, and reservoir temperature. 788 fin = R( 2 yr 10.968.7. (8b) ‘The same units apply for R, “igs Yo» Yapi, and Tas in Eqs. 6a and 6b. By, isin RB/STB, and Boy is a “correlating number” to calculate Bop as defined in Eq. 8b. ‘otal FVF Below pz. While oils at the bubble-point pressure seldom have producing gas/oil ratios higher than 3,000 scf/STB, a two-phase reservoir below its bbubbie-point pressure may produce up to 100,000 sef ‘gas/bbl of stock-tank oil. For this reason, the total EVE, B, , covers a considerably wider range than the FVF at saturation pressure, Boy. ‘The equation for total FVF. By . is = CPS a9n10-somre 51.1089 By=ky(Re Gots “0 ) -0) ‘A log-log plot of this function vs. experimental values can be found in Fig. 4. Using regression analysis, the following equations were derived from the same North Sea data in the pressure range of 400 to 4,000 psia (2758 to 27 579 kPa). log B, .0135.10-? + 4,7257.10-! slog B} + 1.7351-10~ '(log Bt)? , (aay where JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY(10b) B, isin RB/STB and By is its associated “correlating number.” All other units are the same as previously stated, Correcting Flash API Gravity for Paraffinicity Fig. 5 shows the relation between dead oil viscosity, API gravity, and temperature. The curve is specifically for North Sea oils (i.e., for oils with a Kop factor of 11.9) in the temperature range of $0 to 300°F. The equation that gives a best-fit of Fig. Sis Hop = clog yap) - - - where c = 3.141(10!9(7)~34 and d = 10.313(log T) ~ 36.447. Rearranged, Eq. 11 can be solved directly for dead oil gravity, Yhpt.corr = antilog[(auop)*] .-- (12) where a = 3.184107" \T)>4 and b = [10.213¢08 7) ~ peeing Using Fig. 5 or Eq. 12, one can correct the API gravity of stock-tank oil from a reservoir with paraffinicity not characterized with a Kyop factor of 11.9, extending the use of the developed PVT correlations (Eqs. 6, 8, and 10) toa oil types. ‘The method for correcting the stock-tank a gravity requires (1) differential separation visco: and (2) residual off gravity. Using the following relation, together with Fig. 5 or Eq. 12, one can calculate the corrected flash stock-tank oil gravity, “Yaptcore 10 be used in Eqs. 6, 8, and 10: aprcore = TAPE yap 5. hPL where yap = gravity of residual oil! from dif- ferential separation, yApr,corr = corrected gravity of residual oil from differential separation, taken from Fig. 5 or Eq. 12, using differential dead oil viscosity measured at reservoir temperature and atmosphi pressure, and y,pr = gravity of stock-tank oil from flash separation. Table 12 illustrates the use of Eq. 13 and Fig. $ for 20 samples from various regions of the world. If the Kop, factor is assumed to be constant within a specific region, the determined ratio (7hpt.corr/YApI) in Eq. 13 also is a constant and can be used to correct other samples in that region to a K op factor of 11.9 (North Sea) for use in the present correlations -(13) Correcting Saturation Pressure for Nonhydrocarbons The effect of nonhydrocarbons on saturation pressure can range from minimal to extreme, depending on the type of nonhydrocarbon, the quantity with which it is found in the reservoir oil temperature, and stock-tank oil gravity. Specifically, this study analyzed the effects of MAY 1980 Tt T bi boii {otal surfacegas gr reservoir temperature, Fig. 5 ~ Viscosity of gastree crude alls at atmospheric pressure vs, API gravity and temperature, 19‘TABLE 8~SURFACE PROPERTIES AND EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED BUBBLE-POINT PRESSURE AND FVF Average Experimental Surface Corrected fovoir BubblePalst Experimental Gasioll GasGravity, SlockTank Stock Tank ture, "Pressure, Bubble Poi Patio. OulGravity —_O1 Gravity r Pe FVF, Bop Sample (scHST8) Tap 70 abc Joc __ CAL (estoy (eousr8} 1 425 0819 280 4434 abe 2 381 0809 230 S801 ae = 1824 380 0.95 245, a7 2210 4 960 ‘By Oger 20 3801 ‘509 5 1423 380 0829 250 5405. 138 8 ‘09 380 08s ia 3706 134 7 1230 388 082 180 ar 188 8 ‘052 374 0888 183, fon srr ° 030 302 Ome 210 358 1595 0 2.080, 335 O82 254 Bt 2186 u 150 223° oat Bas 98 13 2 ‘a ars sar 400 ‘00 ae, 3 ‘0 378 088 30 150 tow 4 338 429° Bt 155 1,000 i204 3 169 45 Eta 80 ‘250 087 8 2 382 08ae 109 500 1108; 7 380 378 O87 192 3.683 6 1381 ars Ose 20 Be rea o "256 ara Ons? 25 169 tae 2 war 37s Oss? 100 S282 Ey 1328 382 O84 180 2510 2 a 332 ose 200 38 2, 2038 352 O.ed 20 rer 210 zat ‘980 325 0.860 270 55 res at 26 Be oes? 250 5.405, 260 at 2a? 388 0.51 254 Bent 2588 me mm area oa a0 seer 1.450 Us sss a4 om ur 2420 vars us 459 0.850 oo om Sena 1230 zu per 473 oars 210 126 tar 2K 1158 ost 230, 2850 1515 ee 42881083 oes 200 ane 158 2S 11281029, os 50 3a 1880 Fae eo 18 a0 bo 381 1500 peat sor 5 087 200 4215 1380 Pea eer 8 oa = 200 220 aio eas 47181000, oa 5 ‘0 1996 cei* 1850 1.053 oa a a6 278 as be 16 oa 20 ‘31 ee Toxas 7800888 omer 220, 2620 aaa Texas 620 (ers oss 0 205 1382 cess seas oot 8 sD e50 Gr2®tas2 1004 0503249 rec 01 ccaiiomia "6880730 os ae Ss 208 Mississippi 3260.83 ed 528 528 nfo anes mats 8 tal sce nes CO, Nz, and HyS on saturation pressure. The following relations resulted, Phos Poaicor™ “py “Phew Sa Pos Phan = Dy PPew pau Pons Poasaes= py ‘Phos (to) Php, represents the estimated saturation pressure calculated from Eq. 6. This value is corrected for content of CO3, Np, and/or HS in surface gases by correction factors Ppcg,/Poxs Phyy/Pbys and/or Poss,» Fespectively, developed from laboratory tests: The resulting values are corrected estimations of saturation pressure using Eqs. 14, 15, and 16. Figs. 6 through 8 plot “correction factors” vs. 790 mole percent of CO, Np, and HS in total surface ‘gases. The following is a discussion of each figure. For systems containing large quantities of CO, fone would, according to Lasater,? have higher saturation ‘pressures than calculated from PVT correlations since CO. is less soluble in oil than hydrocarbon gases. Lasater determined that 9.1 ‘mol% CO> in surface gases resulted in a saturation pressure $% higher than estimated from his own correlation. This study determined that the effect of CO gas has the opposite influence on saturation pressure, as is shown in Fig. 7. From this study, both CO, mole percent in the surface gas and reservoir temperature ‘were found to affect saturation pressure. Nitrogen influences saturation pressure in two ways. Due to low solubility of Np gas in the liquid phase of hydrocarbons, higher pressures are required to force the gas into solution. The second effect of Nz is that the pressure- JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYtemperature phase diagram at saturation pressure has a lower slope than in a system without Np. Based on this fact, Jacobsen* has derived a correction factor for Np gas on the saturation pressure. However, he did not correct for other fluid and reservoir properties. Laboratory results for Ng from this study are shown in Fig. 6. These curves are significantly dif- ferent from what was reported by Jacobsen. It was found that not only Nz mole percent in surface gases affected saturation pressure but also reservoir temperature and API gravity of the stock-tank oil. The effect of HS on saturation pressure is shown in Fig. 8. The only parameter to alter the effect of HS on saturation pressure was API gravity of the stock-tank oil. Best-fit equations are given here for Figs. 6 through 8. Nitrogen (Fig. 6) Por, ~~ 10+ [(= 2.65% 10-4 yap, 45.5 Poy 107 3)T+ (0.0931 yap: ~ 0.8295)] “Yn + (1.954% 10-4 api 49) +00.027 yap) ~ 2.366)]n,)? » nen a7) where yy, is mole fraction Np in total surface gases. Carbon Dioxide (Fig. 7) Peo 22 = 1.0-693.8y¢0,-T 158, rr Yoo, where ¥qo, is mole fraction CO, in total surface gases. Hydrogen Sulfide (Fig. 8) Poss Poy ++ (18) 1.0— (0.9035 +0.0015 yapi)'x,5 +0.01945 — yap)0'n,s)?> +9) where yy,5 is mole fraction HS in total surface gases, ‘Standard Deviations ‘The standard deviations from the _ present correlations for estimated saturation pressure, oil FVP at saturation pressure, and two-phase FVF were calculated from percentage deviations shown in Tables 9 and 10 for North Sea oils. Results are found in Table 11. For these North Sea samples and samples from different regions of the world, a.comparison was made between estimated PVT paraineters from Standing’s correlations and the North Sea correlations. Volatile Oil Four samples (Nos. 3, 24, 25, and 26) included in this, MAY 1980 Effect of Nz on saturation pressure for two API: gravity oils at various temperatures es astpeme jenna (mea Fig. 7 ~ Effect of CO, on saturation pressure for two API ‘ravity olls at various temperatures. a rc as ner eh, yt ~ Effect of HyS on saturation pressure for two API gravity oils temperature nas no effect), areport were volatile oils. It was found that the temperature effect introduced in Eq. 6b gave an estimated bubble-point pressure too high for these samples. This effect is expected due to the flattening of the pressure-temperature phase diagram near the critical point. By a slight change in the temperature exponent, it is possible to estimate the bubble-point pressure for volatile oil within a deviation similar to that for black oils. The alternative equation to calculate the bubble- point pressure correlation number for volatile oils is 70130 Pb = Fag * = (20) General Applicability The PVT relations, as derived for North Sea oils (Eqs. 6, 8, and 10), can be modified for other types Of gas/oil mixtures from all geographical areas by correcting for paraffinicity and content of nonhydrocarbons. Twenty reservoir samples from fields in different regions of the world with varying paraffinicties and relatively high CO, Np, and/or HS concentrations in the surface gases were used to test the reliability of the North Sea correlations. Using Eq. 13 and Fig. 5, the API gravity of each sample was corrected, combining /,pi.corr with R, ‘q+ and Tto calculate saturation pressure and FVF.* ‘The saturation pressure then was corrected for content of CO2, Nz, and/or HS in the surface gases using Figs. 6, 7, and 8 and Eqs. 14, 15, and 16, respectively. TABLE 9—COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED BUBBLE-POINT PRESSURE AND FVF FROM PRESENT STUDY AND STANDING'S CORRELATIONS sie sant sit aver SEES, RRB our PSNI eee fh can cc fee rea a oo ; hy Sty Ter Same 8g Sie i HB UE a ge Ts #8 mo ee ; HE ef 8h Be : He eI He ; ag oe ee ; ue oe NEOs ; i oie ee ; Ha we Bg 3 Hg i Re OB : ue Se Te us : He ie Hee 3 He 8g 8 é 2B es HE # ae is ie per e B if 8 Hg i @ WB ug ug 3 a : 8 2 3 z iB 0 ape 8 z is 9 ig ng & iB ig Hg & is ike BR ae 1 ist act ig 3 Siw ut pe Be es a ee oe Ge A i Pa 1 He Me a 3 me Ie ae 3 ii Reg Ee 8 iB ee He Be is ue es & ete Ea 8 ug ee 8 SB fe 2 i 1B aE @ is iki, HEB Bs te correcta API roty nina present crete, eval bubble pessr remot Cop anass ma gS ntl suace sat eximols Kpinclal autac aes 192 jealoh mambetpeset su) sing 2 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYTABLE 10-COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL AND ESTIMATED TWO-PHASE FVF'S FOR average Gasion Surtace Reservoir alo Gravity, Stock Tank Temperature, a ae OlGrawty, Sample (sctSTE) a 2 eos 0762 at 180 2% 1003 omaT OAT 180 moog as 180 m0 1220788 OAD 180 3 19m ogs5 oss 28 1) 4450-0703 tt 2s + 14090700 ots 200 st Yes oat Oba 200 2 738 0759 sea 20 a 9980 er 230 2 or sana 28 33 dee 128 Bas 2 5 16230781 0880 20 a LL 180 7 1200 078082 180 Conelusions 1. Pressure-volume-temperature correlations for North Sea oils have been developed, based on similar work by Standing. Eqs. 6, 8, and 10 form the basis for calculating the _bubble-point (saturation) pressure, oil FVF at saturation pressure, and total oil FVF below saturation pressure. Input parameters for these three equations are, from flash data, the producing GOR, R, total surface averaged gas gravity, 7, stock-tank oil gravity, ¥,4p1 OF YAPI,corr and reservoir temperature. Note that. these correlations cannot be used differential separation data. 2. Eqs. 6, 8, and 10 were developed specifically for North Sea oils but can be used for estimating the same PVT parameters for all types of gas/oil mix- tures in various regions of the world. A correction for paraffinicity has been developed that corrects the flash stock-tank oil gravity to an equivalent corrected value, which then is used in the North Sea correlations. Corrections for the effect of nonhydrocarbons on saturation pressure also were studied and the results are correction factors for €O,, No, and HS, presented graphically and in equation form. 3. Average deviations from experimentally determined data were lower for estimated data based con North Sea correlations than for estimations based con Standing’s correlations. This was the case for North Sea oil samples, which have a Kyop factor almost equal to California oils, as well ‘4s for oil samples from fields in various regions of the world. 4. Using the North Sea correlations, standard deviation of estimated saturation pressures. from experimental values was 6.98% in the pressure range (of 150 to 7,000 psig (1034 to 48 263 kPa) and 3.84% MAY 1980 NORTH SEA OILS Experimental Estimated Two Phase Twophase FF, Be PVF, By Deviation oslo’ (a OO 1000 2000 "eoo 1.000 2.000 — G00 1.000 2000 498 DENG 1825 4963 2867 1785 O68 181 3Be 5465 3215 1929 4948 3219 1932 420 006 0.16 800 1,000 3000 00 1,000 3.000 00 1,000 3000, sear 4515 2018 5300 4411 1808 453 290 268 8262 3771 1876 4608 Sas 1710 1127 290 885 4900 3.000 4.900 1,900 3.0900 $000 1,000 3000 4,000 6392 2820 2290 6240 2510 2052 ‘O19 420 1070 Soe 2169 1901 4960 2048 1705 792 Gat 1124 1.000 4.000 +000 sate 4352 ‘x8 e410 6568 2a 546 1.000 3089 546 1.000 3089 548 1,000 3.089 52< 3087 sot age? 2800 1341 1058 7.10 1068 5772 3960 1604 5598 3919 180 Sor 148 907 11000 1.000 11900 a9 130 158 1389 138 132 1,900 3.000 4,000 3,000 11900 3,00 See 2474 5702 2351 an sr 400 1,000 3000 400 1000 3000 400. 1,000 3,000 ees Son 1826 6610 3002 1415 312 (201 788 600 1000 3.000 600 1000 3000 600 1,000 3.000 rigs 4263 1908 6208 4012 1765 1362 ‘589 740 TABLE 11 — CALCULATED STANDARD DEVIATION FOR ESTIMATED SATURATION PRESSURE, OIL FVF AT p, AND TWO-PHASE FVF Pressure Average. Standard Range” Deviation aviation ___ Parameter {ai s Saturation pressure Bot 7 00 138 Saluration pressure 2900107000 070 OHV at saturation te0to7o00 043 pressure ‘Twoophase FVF 40104000 456 6SH in the pressure range of 2,000 to 7,000 psig (1379 to 48 263 kPa). 5. Using the North Sea correlations, standard deviation of estimated oil FVF’s at saturation pressure from experimental values was 2.18% in the pressure range of 150 to 7,000 psig (1034 to 48 263, kPa). 6. Using the North Sea correlations, standard deviation of estimated two-phase FVF’s below saturation pressure from experimental values was 6.540% in the pressure range of 400 to 4,000 psig (275810 27 579 kPa). Nomenclature oil FVF bubble-point Gaturation) pressure, RB/ STB (res m3 /stock-tank m3) for cal. Boy at ob correlating number culating Boy total oil FVF below saturation pressure, RB/STB (res sm? /stock-tank m*) Juj = Volume fraction of component i Koo = (X Siv-Tw!®) 2 Yo 193TABLE 12 ~ API GRAVITY CORRECTED TO Kygp FACTOR FOR NORTH SEA OILS = 11.9 Flash Differential Flash Separation Ditterential Separation __ Separation Separation ‘asl api” Viscosity Temperature Yarieaw Tabvcor Sample @ @ te) o o ME 488137 us 363 us 39337108 385 422 us #3300 «07st BS 409 us 23 22 6st 225 237 2KU 3433181980 280 306 2K4 417382610 345 387 2Ka 408 = 392608 Bas 359 2K5 45 388 400 380 385 Far 279 08a 215 349 PBS 21 2803850 260 261 PBA 24 8338.10 250 261 ust 326 322888 305 308 Eo 424383381 370 410 ee." 4030 383362 370 389 Texas 2908 2B 230 2a Texas oe 351120 345 507 cut" 481 200 305 452 Le a7 418 088 249 390 447 Califomia 368 41.20 242 335 3a Mississippi «37233808. 253 355 378 fh From Fi. paraffinicity characterization factor log = logarithm to base 10 P = absolute or gauge pressure, psia or psig (kPa) Pp = bubble-point (saturation) pressure, psia (kPa) i = correlating number for caleu- lating bubble-point pressure R = total producing gas/oil ratio from flash separation, sef/STB (std m* /stock-tank m) Se T = temperature, *F (°C) boiling point temperature of component i, *R (K) X = parameter value mole fraction COz surface gases in total Jin, = Mole fraction No in total surface gases Jus = mole fraction HS in total surface gases ‘apt = (1415/79) — 131.5 = stock- tank ‘il gravity’ from flash separation residual oil. gravity from dif- ferential separation “Taptcorr = corrected stock-tank oil gravity from flash separation corrected residual oil gravity from differential separation APL ‘YAP I, corr 194 ‘ig = average spetific gravity of total surface gases from flash separation (air = 1) Yo = specific gravity of stock-tank oil from flash separation, 60/60°F Semp ~Xest a= (= exp average deviation fo | Xeap Kes 2S [SS h100, ” exp average deviation gas-free oil viscosity at reservoir temperature and atmospheric pressure from separation, cp (Pas) © = function G Hop Subscripts CO; = sample containing carbon dioxide est = estimated exp = experimental ht = sample containing only hydro- carbons HS = sample containing hydrogen sulfide Nz = sample containing nitrogen nh = sample containing a nonhydro- carbon: CO, Np, or HS Acknowledgments I am grateful to Phillips Petroleum Co., Mobil Exploration Norway, British Petroleum Co., and Core Laboratories Inc. for permission to use data from released PVT reports. 1 also thank M.B ‘Standing for many helpful suggestions pertaining to JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGYcue the experimental work and C. Whitson for his contribution in preparing the paper and developing equations from Figs. 5 through 7. References 1. Standing, M.B. Correlation for Mixtures of California Oils and Gases,” ““A__ Pressure-Volume-Temperature il spor Equilibrium in Light Hydrocarbon-Absorber Oll Systems,” Chem. Eng. Prog. Sym. ‘Ser 48 (1952) No.3, 93. 3, Lasater, J.A.2 “Bubble Point Pressure Correlation,” Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 379. 4. Jacobsen, HA: “The Effect of Nitrogen on Reservoir Fluid ‘Saturation Pressure," J. Can. Pet. Tech. (Suly-Sept. 1967) 101. ‘MAY 1980 Fig. 9 - Bubblepoint pressure correlation for North Sea hydrocarbon systems ~ flash separation. Fig. 10 — FVF of bubbie-point liquid correlation for North Sea hydrocarbon systems ~ flash separation 5. “Generalized Presure-Volume-Temperature Correlations," paper SPE 8016 submitted for publication Dec. 1978. Metric Conversion Factors bbl x 1.589 873 E-O1 = cp x 10° E-0 = cuft x 2.831 685 E-02 degree API 141,5/(131.5+°APD degree F (*F—32)/1.8 psi x 6.894 757 E+00 4 8