SPE 103144

Undersaturated Oil Viscosity Correlation for Adverse Conditions

D.F. Bergman, BP America, and R.P. Sutton, Marathon Oil Co.

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

⎡ r ⎤
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and qo μ o Bo ⎢ln ⎛⎜ e ⎞⎟ − 0.75 + s ⎥
⎣ ⎝ rw ⎠ ⎦ ........................ (1)
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 24–27 September 2006.
pr − pwfs = −3
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of 7.0815 ×10 k h
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 For situations above bubblepoint in a reservoir, the fluid
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 composition and temperature remain constant and properties
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 vary only with pressure. Viscosity changes range from 5-
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 35%/1000 psi as shown in Fig. 1. On the other hand, density
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. or formation volume factor above bubblepoint changes range
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
from 0.5-2.8%/1000 psi. An examination of Eqn. 1 shows
pressure drop is directly proportional to change in viscosity
Abstract and formation volume factor. Clearly viscosity changes are
The determination of viscosity is required for evaluation of the the most significant property and must be accurately
pressure drop resulting from flow through porous media, quantified.
tubing or pipelines. Viscosity is a necessary property to
ascertain well productivity or to properly size tubing, pipelines Fluid flow in pipes8 is characterized by
and pumps. Numerous methods exist to estimate viscosity for
computer calculations. Oils encountered in deep water
Δp 1 ⎡ f ρ o v 2 ρ o v Δv ⎤
environments are often highly undersaturated – in some cases = ⎢ ρ o cos θ + + ⎥ ......................... (2)
in excess of 15,000 psi. For transport, the dead oil must be ΔL 144 ⎢⎣ 2gd g ΔL ⎥⎦
pumped in an environment with temperatures as low as 35°F.
At this temperature, the dead oil atmospheric viscosity can be where the three parts of the equation describe the hydrostatic,
in excess of 500 cp. The pressure required to pump oil frictional and kinetic energy losses in the system, respectively.
through pipelines from deep water can exceed 3000 psi at the The friction factor, f, is defined by the Moody Friction factor
pump on the platform and over 5000 psi at the sea floor. The chart as a function of Reynolds Number and pipe roughness.
pressure effect on viscosity results in a significant additional The Reynolds Number is calculated
increase in this property which can adversely affect pipeline
performance. The existing methods for estimating 1488 d v ρ
Re = ................................................................. (3)
undersaturated viscosity were not developed using data that μ
encompasses the pressure or viscosity range that are currently
encountered by the industry. A large database comprised of For laminar flow at Reynolds Numbers less than 2000, the
1,399 oils and 10,248 data points was constructed to evaluate friction factor is defined
the accuracy of existing correlation methods. Pressure
differentials up to 25,000 psi and viscosity in excess of 1000 64
f = .............................................................................. (4)
cp are included in the database to ensure that viscosity at both Re
typical conditions and the extreme conditions encountered in
deep water are represented. The existing methods are shown Therefore for situations of single phase laminar oil flow in
to be inadequate over this wide range of conditions. A new pipelines, the pressure drop is directly proportional to changes
method was developed that offers improved accuracy and in viscosity and density. As viscosity is most sensitive to
consistency over the expanded range of viscosity and pressure changing pressure, it is the most important term to accurately
differential. quantify with changing pressure.

Introduction Numerous correlations have appeared in the literature for

Viscosity is an important parameter necessary for the
determination of the pressure drop associated with fluid flow.
For radial flow through porous media, the relationship
between flow rate and pressure drop is described by Darcy’s
law8.
estimating the viscosity of undersaturated oil. These methods
are reviewed by Lake30; however, a more complete summary
table is provided in the Appendix because of updates due to
recently published correlations.
2 SPE 103144

A large database comprised of 1,399 oils and 10,248 data
points was constructed to evaluate existing correlation
methods. Pressure differentials up to 25,000 psi and viscosity
in excess of 1000 cp are included in the database to ensure
viscosity at both typical conditions and the extreme conditions
such as those encountered in deep water is represented. The
data was obtained from both
sources5,7,9,10,12,14,17,22,23,25,29,31 and internal reports26. This data
is summarized in the table below.
Property Minimum
Oil gravity, °API 6 61.2
Gas-oil ratio, scf/STB 0 4630.6
Dead oil viscosity, cp 0.204
Temperature, °F 32
Pressure, psia 115
Bubblepoint pressure, psia 14.5
Pressure differential, psi 9 25,000
Bubblepoint viscosity, cp 0.063
Undersaturated viscosity, cp 0.067
In some instances, the data obtained from public sources was
incomplete so the table above is reflective of the information
available. In addition to crude oil data, lubricant oils,
Canadian bitumen, n-decane, n-undecane, n-dodecane, n-
tetradecane, n-pentadecane, n-hexadecane, n-octadecane, n-
butylbenzene, n-hexylbenzene, and n-octylbenzene are
represented in the database. The data is plotted as a function
of pressure in Fig. 2. In general, the data is linear with log of
viscosity; however, some downward curvature is noted at
pressure differentials above 5000 psi. Furthermore, the slope
of the lines increases as bubblepoint viscosity increases.
Correlation Development
A total of 18 methods have appeared in the literature.
Methods fall into a category that either use pressure ratio
(pressure divided by bubblepoint pressure) or pressure
differential (pressure minus bubblepoint pressure) as the
primary correlating parameter. In addition, bubblepoint
viscosity is a common correlating parameter. Some methods
also use solution gas-oil ratio, oil API gravity and dead oil
viscosity as correlating parameters. One of the more widely
used equation forms for correlating undersaturated oil
viscosity was proposed by Barus6 in 1893. The equation
describes a linear relationship resulting from a semilog plot
(Fig. 2) of undersaturated oil viscosity with pressure.
made use of this equation form and correlated α with
bubblepoint viscosity. Khan19 and Orbey-Sandler24 also
utilized the Barus form of equation but instead determined
constants for the viscosity-pressure coefficient. The API4
found results similar to Kouzel and provided an update to that
method. Various correlation forms suggested by Hershey and
public Hopkins15 and Roelands27 as well as other formulations in
Table A-1 were tested against the database and it was
concluded that the Barus form equation showed the most
promise.
Maximum
Data from the database was plotted using the functional
equation form offered by Eqn. 6, as shown in Fig. 3. The data
14,200 actually represents several slopes representing different ranges
425 of bubblepoint viscosity. Fig. 4 illustrates this for three coarse
25,015 data groupings. If a more detailed examination is made of the
11,195 slopes, a definite relationship with bubble point oil viscosity is
observed, as shown in Fig. 5. The relationships proposed by
14,200 Kouzel, the API, Khan and Orbey-Sandler are provided for
24,180 reference in this plot. The results would indicate that a
method such as Orbey-Sandler might provide accurate results
for oil with a bubblepoint viscosity less than 1 cp, but would
be increasingly inaccurate as bubblepoint viscosity increased.
The Barus equation was originally limited in applicability to
lower pressure differentials. Kouzel suggested a limit of 5000
psi while the API update to his equation contradicted the
recommendation and specified a limit of 20,000 psi. Orbey-
Sandler determined a limit of 5800 psi which is closer in
agreement to Kouzel.
Examination of the equation shows that it can be linearized by
adding an exponent, β, to the pressure term to account for the
slight downward curvature observed at higher pressure
differentials.
μ o = μ ob eα ( p − pb ) ............................................................ (7)
β
Values of β averaged approximately 0.9 for the entire
database. However, if only high pressure differential data is
used, a trend is observed as shown in Fig. 6, even though there
is still significant scatter present.
A nonlinear regression routine was used to determine the final
form of the Bergman-Sutton method based on Eqn. 7. The
coefficient, α, and exponent, β, are defined as

μ o = μ ob eα ( p − pb ) ..............................................................(5) α = 6.5698×10 −7 ln (μ ob )2 −
......................... (8)
1.48211×10 −5 ln(μ ob )+ 2.27877 ×10 −4
This equation can be rearranged as follows where the term, α,
is the viscosity-pressure coefficient which is simply the slope
of the viscosity ratio – pressure differential relationship. β = 2.24623×10−2 ln (μob ) + 0.873204 ................................ (9)

⎛ μ ⎞ Comparison of the statistical accuracy of the proposed

ln⎜⎜ o ⎟⎟ = α ( p − pb ) .........................................................(6) Bergman-Sutton method along with existing published
⎝ μ ob ⎠ methods is summarized in Tables 1-10. The database
contained a total of 10,248 measurements. Most of the
Use of this equation typically involves the determination of correlations require only pressure, bubblepoint pressure and
the viscosity-pressure coefficient for a given oil. Kouzel20 bubblepoint viscosity to determine the undersaturated
SPE 103144 3

viscosity. Methods with a data point count of less than 10,248
require additional data such as dead oil viscosity, API gravity
or solution gas-oil ratio. Unfortunately, this data was not
always available from published sources so these methods
could not be tested against the full database. Furthermore,
results from the Abdul-Majeed1 method were found to be
severely degraded below a gas-oil ratio of 50 scf/STB (see
note Table 3). The results below this value were excluded to
provide a meaningful comparison of statistics. Additionally,
methods proposed by Kartoatmodjo17,18 and De Ghetto10
resulted in negative viscosity values for cases involving high
bubblepoint viscosity and high pressure differentials.
Errors for methods that use pressure ratio as a correlating
parameter tend to show higher errors than methods that use
pressure differential as a correlating parameter. Tables 2 and
3 provide a summary of correlation evaluations for
bubblepoint pressures greater than and less than 50 psia
respectively. In the latter case, a significant portion of the data
is comprised of gas free oils with a bubblepoint pressure set to
atmospheric pressure. The Bergman-Sutton method performs
well in both environments.
Tables 4 and 5 examine the effect of temperature on
correlation accuracy. This was actually more of a test of data
quality. Many of the oils found in the Gulf of Mexico exhibit
a cloud point of approximately 100 °F. Below this
temperature wax crystals appear which can disrupt viscosity
measurements and result in non-Newtonian behavior in the oil.
The average absolute error for the Bergman-Sutton method in
these cases was found to increase from 3.64% (for data above
100°F) to 5.56% (for cooler temperatures). It is felt that this
change is not significantly impacted by measurement issues
below cloud point.
Tables 6-9 provide correlation statistics for various ranges of
bubblepoint viscosity. The Bergman-Sutton method is found
to be more accurate for all of the viscosity ranges investigated.
Conclusions
1. A comprehensive database of undersaturated crude oil
viscosity has been created for evaluating the accuracy of
existing methods and developing improved viscosity
estimation methods.
2. Methods using pressure ratio as a correlating parameter
were found to be not as accurate for determining the
pressure effect on the viscosity of undersaturated crude
oils. This is most apparent for undersaturated crude oils
that are gas free or have low saturation pressure.
3. Methods developed by Kartoatmodjo and De Ghetto can
evaluate a negative viscosity under situations of high
bubblepoint viscosity and high pressure differential.
Extreme caution should be exercised if these methods are
used for general application in computer programs.
4. A new method has been proposed which provides more
accurate results over a wider range of bubblepoint
viscosity and pressure differentials than existing methods.
The new method derives undersaturated viscosity using
only bubblepoint viscosity and pressure differential. The
correlation can be satisfactorily used on oils that contain
solution gas or are gas free. The data used to derive the
correlation included samples with bubblepoint viscosity
from less than 0.1 cp to in excess of 14,000 cp. Accuracy
is maintained over this wide range of values.
5. As a practical limit, a maximum pressure differential of
20,000 psi is recommended. Although there is an
increased error at higher differentials, the Bergman-
Sutton method still offers superior results than those
obtained from all of the currently available published
correlations.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the management of Marathon
Oil Company and BP America for permission to publish this
paper. Finally, the primary author would like to thank his
wife, Nancy. Without her patience and understanding, this
would have never been written.

Table 10 examines the effect of high pressure differential on Statistical Quantities

correlations accuracy. Figs. 7-25 graphically depict AE = average error, %
correlation error as a function of pressure differential. The 100
N
X icalc − X imeas
Bergman-Sutton method shows increased error at high
pressure differentials mainly due to the scatter in the pressure
AE =
N i =1 ∑ X i meas
exponent correlation (Fig. 6). Results show an average AAE = average absolute error, %
absolute error of 7.71% with only 25% of the data exhibiting N
X icalc − X i meas
100
absolute errors greater than 10%. At pressure differentials in
excess of 20,000 psi, the average absolute error increases to
AAE =
N ∑ i =1
X imeas
13.2% with a standard deviation of 10.7%. None the less, the S = standard deviation
Bergman-Sutton method still out-performs all of the available
∑ (X )2
N
published methods. −X
i
i =1
Correlation error is visually displayed in Fig. 26-44. The plots S=
N −1
were constrained to values up to 1000 cp so that visual
comparisons could be made. A further comparison of the X = generic dependent variable
various methods is shown in Figs. 45-46 for reservoir fluids N = number of observations
only and for the entire database. The consistency of the
Bergman-Sutton method is clearly evident over the range of Nomenclature
pressure differential and bubblepoint viscosity depicted in the d = pipe diameter, ft
graphs. f = friction factor
4 SPE 103144

g = acceleration due to gravity, ft/sec2 and Temperatures up to 473 K,” Int. J. of Thermophysics,
h = net reservoir thickness, ft Vol. 25 (2004) 1339-1352.
k = effective permeability, md 10. De Ghetto, G., Paone, F. and Villa, M.: “Reliability
L = length, ft Analysis on PVT Correlations,” paper SPE 28904
p = pressure, psia presented at the European Petroleum Conference in
pb = bubblepoint pressure, psia London U.K. (Oct. 25-27, 1994).
pr = average reservoir pressure, psia 11. Dindoruk, B. and Christman, P.G.: “PVT Properties and
p wfs = flowing sandface pressure, psia Viscosity Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Oils,” paper
qo = oil flow rate, STBPD SPE 71633 presented at the 2001 SPE ATCE in New
re = drainage radius, ft Orleans, LA (Sept 30-Oct 3, 2001).
Re = Reynolds Number 12. Ducoulombier, D., Zhou, H., Boned, C., Peyrelasse, J.
Rs = solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB Saint-Guirons, H., and Xans, P.: “Pressure and
rw = wellbore radius, ft Temperature Dependence of the Viscosity of Liquid
s = skin factor Hydrocarbons,” J. Phys. Chem., Vol. 90, No. 8 (1986)
T = temperature, ˚F 1692-1700.
v = velocity, ft/sec 13. Elsharkawy, A.M. and Alikhan, A.A.: “Models For
α = Barus equation viscosity-pressure coefficient Predicting The Viscosity of Middle East Crude Oils,”
β = pressure exponent Fuel (June, 1999) 891-903.
γAPI = oil API gravity 14. Farshad, F.F., Leblanc, J.L., Garber, J.D. and Osorio,
ρo = oil density, lbm/ft3 J.G.: “Empirical PVT Correlations For Colombian Crude
μod = dead oil viscosity, cp Oils,” unsolicited paper SPE 24538 (June, 1992).
μob = bubblepoint oil viscosity, cp 15. Hershey, M.D. and Hopkins, R.F.: Viscosity of
Lubricants Under Pressure, ASME, New York, NY
μo = oil viscosity, cp
(1954).
θ = angle, degrees from vertical
16. Hossain, M.S., Sarica, C., Zhang, H.Q., Rhyne, L., and
Greenhill, K.L.: “Assessment and Development of
Heavy-Oil Viscosity Correlations,” SPE/PS-CIM/CHOA
References
97907 PS2005-407 presented at the 2005 SPE
1. Abdul-Majeed, G.H., Kattan, R.R. and Salman, N.H.:
International Thermal Operations and Heavy Oil
“New Correlation for Estimating the Viscosity of
Symposium, Calgary, Canada (Nov. 103, 2005).
Undersaturated Crude Oils,” J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (May-
17. Kartoatmodjo, R.S.T.: “New Correlations for Estimating
June, 1990) 80-85.
Hydrocarbon Liquid Properties,” MS Thesis, University
2. Al-Khafaji, A.H., Abdul-Majeed, G.H. and Hassoon, S.F.:
of Tulsa (1990).
“Viscosity Correlation For Dead, Live and
18. Kartoatmodjo, R.S.T. and Schmidt, Z.: “New Correlations
Undersaturated Crude Oils,” J. Pet. Res. (Dec., 1987) 1-
For Crude Oil Physical Properties,” Unsolicited Paper
16.
SPE 23556 (Sept, 1991).
3. Almehaideb, R.A.: “Improved PVT Correlations for UAE
19. Khan, S.A., Al-Marhoun, M.A., Duffuaa, S.O., and Abu-
Crude Oils,” paper SPE 37691 presented at the 1997
Khamsin. S.A.: “Viscosity Correlations for Saudi
Middle East Oil Conference and Exhibition in Manama,
Arabian Crude Oils,” paper SPE 15720 presented at the
Bahrain (Mar. 17-20, 1997).
5th SPE Middle East Oil Show in Manama, Bahrain (Mar
4. API Technical Data Book – Petroleum Refining: API,
7-10, 1987).
Washington DC 6th ed, (April, 1997) Chap 11.
20. Kouzel, B.: “How Pressure Affects Liquid Viscosity,”
5. ASME Pressure-Viscosity Report: Viscosity and Density
Hyd. Proc., (March 1965) 120.
of Over 40 Lubricating Fluids of Known Composition at
21. Labedi, R.M.: “PVT Correlations of the African Crudes,”
Pressures to 150,000 psi and Temperatures to 435 F, Vol.
PhD Thesis, Colorado School of Mines (May, 1982).
I and II, ASME, New York, NY (1953).
22. Mehrotra, A.K. and Svrcek, W.Y.: “Viscosity of
6. Barus, C.: “Isothermals, Isopiestics and Isometrics
Compressed Athabasca Bitumen,” The Cdn. J. of Chem.
Relative To Viscosity,” The American Journal of Science,
Eng. (Oct., 1986) 844-847.
Vol. XLV, No. 266 (1893) 87-96.
23. Mehrotra, A.K. and Svrcek, W.Y.: “Viscosity of
7. Beal, C.: “The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas,
Compressed Cold Lake Bitumen,” The Cdn. J. of Chem.
Crude Oil and Its Associated Gases at Oil Field
Eng. (Aug., 1987) 672-675.
Temperatures and Pressures,” SPE Reprint Series No. 3
24. Orbey, H. and Sandler, S.I.: “The Prediction of the
Oil and Gas Property Evaluation and Reserve Estimates,
Viscosity of Liquid Hydrocarbons and Their Mixtures as
SPE, Richardson, TX (1970) 114-127.
a Function of Temperature and Pressure,” The Cdn. J. of
8. Brill, J.P. and Mukherjee, H.: Multiphase Flow in Wells,
Chem. Eng. (June, 1993) 437-446.
Monograph 17, SPE, Richardson, TX (1999).
25. Petrosky, G.E., Jr.: “PVT Correlations for Gulf of
9. Caudwell, D.R., Trusler, J.P.M., Vesovic, V., and
Mexico Crude Oils,” M.S. Thesis, University of
Wakeham, W.A.: “The Viscosity and Density of n-
Southwestern Louisiana (1990).
Dodecane and n-Octadecane at Pressures up to 200 MPa
26. Reservoir Fluid Database (RFDbase), GeoMark Research,
Inc., Houston, TX (2006).
SPE 103144 5

27. Roelands, C.J.A.: “Correlational Aspects of the 32. Vazquez, M.E. and Beggs, H.D.: “Correlations for Fluid
Viscosity-Temperature-Pressure Relationship of Physical Property Prediction,” J. Pet. Tech. (June, 1980)
Lubricating Oils,” PhD Thesis, University of Delft, The 968-970.
Netherlands (1963).
28. Standing, M.B,: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil SI Metric Conversion Factors
Hydrocarbon Systems, 9th Printing, Society of Petroleum 141.4/(131.5+°API) = g/cm3
Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX (1981). bbl × 0.1589873 = m3
29. Stephan, K. and Lucas, K.: Viscosity of Dense Fluids, ft3 × 0.02831685 = m3
Plenham Press, New York, NY (1979). cp × 1.0E−03* = Pa•s
30. Sutton, R.P..: Petroleum Engineering Handbook, (°F–32)/1.8* = °C
General Engineering, Vol. 1, J. Fanchi and L.W. Lake psi × 6.894757E+00 = kPa
(eds.) Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX °R × 5/9* = °K
(2006) 257-331. *Conversion factor is exact
31. Vazquez, M.E.: “Correlations for Fluid Physical Property
Prediction,” M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa (1976).

Fig. 1 – Change in undersaturated oil viscosity with pressure

Fig. 2 – Measured undersaturated oil viscosity

6 SPE 103144

No. of μo μob
Author Correlation Origin Data Range Range p Range pb Range ARE SD AARE
Points (cp) (cp) (psia) (psia) (%) (%) (%)
Beal
7,28
μ o = μ ob + [0.001 ( p − pb )] 0.024 μ ob
1. 6
( 0.56
+ 0.038 μ ob ) USA 26
0.16 to
315
0.142
to 127
na na 2.7 na na
(1946)

μ o = μob e[(5.50318 ×10 )

( p − pb ) ]
20 −5
Kouzel + 3.77163 ×10 −5 μ ob
0.278
95
1.78 to 1.22 to 423 to
14.7 -4.8 12.4 10.7
na 202 134 6,015
(1965) (exponential form of equation)
Vazquez and ⎡ ⎛⎜ −3.9 × 10−5 p − 5 ⎞⎟ ⎤
⎢ 2.6 p1.187 10 ⎝ ⎠⎥ 0.117 126 to
Beggs
31,32
⎛ p ⎞⎢ ⎦⎥ Worldwide 3,593 Na na -7.541 na na
μ o = μ ob ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎣ to 148 9,500
(1976) ⎝ pb ⎠
21 μ 0.9036 p 0.6151 ⎛ p ⎞ 0.115
Labedi μ o = μ ob + od b ⎜ − 1⎟⎟ 91 na na 60 to 6,358 -3.1 27.19 na
(1982) 10 (2.488 + 0.01976 γ API ) ⎜⎝ pb ⎠
Libya to 3.72

⎛ p ⎞
Labedi
21 0.7374
μ o = μ ob + 0.0483 μ od ⎜ − 1⎟⎟ 0.098 715 to
⎜ Nigeria and Angola 31 na na -6.8 41.07 na
(1982) ⎝ p b ⎠ to 10.9 4,794

μ o = μ ob e9.6 x10 ( p − pb )
19
Khan −5 0.13 to 0.13 to 107 to
Saudi Arabia 1,503 na 0.094 2.999 1.915
71.0 77.4 4,315
(1987)

2 X = − 0.3806 − 0.1845 γ API + 0.004034 γ API 2

− 3.716 ×10 −5 γ API
3
0.093
Al-Khafaji
μ = μ + 10 [ X + 1.11 log [0.07031 ( p − pb )]] na 210 to na na na 0.0578 0.713 0.44
(1987) o ob 7.139

X = 1.9311 − 0.89941 (ln Rs ) − 0.001194 γ API

2
+
0.0092545 γ API (ln Rs )
1
Abdul-Majeed North America and 0.096 0.093 498 to
253 na -0.0193 1.978 1.188
to 28.5 to 20.5 4,864
(1990) μ o = μ ob + 1000 ×10 [ X − 5.2106 + 1.11 log [6.894757 ( p − pb )]] Middle East

X 1 = log (μ ob ) 0.211
25
Petrosky 0.22 to 1,600 to 1,574 to
X 2 = − 1.0146 + 1.3322 X 1 − 0.4876 X 12 − 1.15036 X 13 Gulf of Mexico 404
4.09
to
10,250 9,552
-0.19 4.22 2.91
(1990) 3.546
μ o = μ ob + 1.3449 × 10 −3
(p − p b )10 X2

Indonesia, N.
μ o = 1.00081 μ ob + 1.127 × 10 −3 ( p − p b )
Kartoatmodjo 0.168 0.168
17,18 America, Middle 25 to
3,588 to to 25 to 4,775 -4.29 na 6.88
(− 6.517 ×10 )
and Schmidt 6,015
−3 1.8148 1.59
(1991) μ ob + 0.038 μ ob East, and Latin 517.03 184.86
America
Orbey and
24
μ o = μ ob e α ( p − pb ) Pure component
Sandler
α = 6.76×10 −5 psi -1 parriffinic hydrocarbons data nC6-nC18, 0.225 0.217 740 to
(1993) 377 14.5 na na 4.8
α = 7.24 ×10 -5 psi -1 akylbenzes and cyclic hydrocarbons Alkylbenzenes and to 7.3 to 3.1 14,504
Cyclic
α = 6.89 ×10 -5 psi -1 average Hydrocarbons

Table A-1 – Summary of published undersaturated oil viscosity methods

SPE 103144 7

No. of μo μob
Author Correlation Origin Data Range Range p Range pb Range ARE SD AARE
Points (cp) (cp) (psia) (psia) (%) (%) (%)
Extra heavy oil (°API ≤ 10)
⎛ p ⎞ 10 −2.19 μ od
1.055 0.3132
pb
μ o = μ ob − ⎜⎜1 − ⎟
⎝ pb ⎟⎠ 10 (0.0099 γ API )
Heavy oil (10 < °API ≤ 22.3)
μ o = 0.9886 μ ob + 0.002763 ( p − pb )×
xh 3.4
xh 4.0 h 7.2
De Ghetto
10 (− 0.01153 μ 1.7933
ob
1.5939
+ 0.0316 μ ob ) Mediterranean
Basin, Africa, .13 to
h 6.0 m 3.7
Light oil (°API > 31.1) 195 na na na m 3.5 lght na
Persian Gulf and 354.6
(1994) lght 6.3 16.8
⎛ p ⎞ 10 −3.8055 μ od
1.4131 0.6957
pb North Sea agip 6.4 agip
μ o = μ ob − ⎜⎜1 − ⎟
⎝ pb ⎟⎠ 10 (−0.00288 γ API ) 6.6
Agip Model
⎛ p ⎞ 10 −1.9 μ od
0.7423 0.5026
pb
μ o = μ ob − ⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎟
(0.0243 γ API )
⎝ pb ⎠ 10

3
⎛ p ⎞
(0.134819 + 1.94345×10 −4
Rs − 1.93106 ×10 −9 Rs2 )
Almehaideb United Arab
μ o = μ ob ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
328 na na na na na 4.07 2.885
(1997) ⎝ pb ⎠ Emirates

μ o = μob e[(−2.34864 ×10 )

( p − pb ) ]
Kouzel – API −5
+ 9.30705 ×10 −5 μ ob
0.181
4
Modified na 1,279 na na na na 9.5 na na
(1997) (exponential form of equation)

10 −2.0771 ( p − pb ) μ od
13
Elsharkawy 1.19279 0.2 to 1,287 to
254 na na -0.9 6.2 4.9
μ o = μ ob + 0.40712 0.7941
Middle East 5.7 10,000
(1999) μ ob pb

X = a1 + a2 log(μ ob ) + a3 log(Rs ) + a 4 μ ob log(Rs ) + a5 ( p − pb )

μ o = μ ob + a6 ( p − pb )10 X
Dindoruk and where 0.211 0.161 926 to
11
Christman Gulf of Mexico 95 na -0.83 8.42 5.99
a1 = 0.776644115 a 4 = 0.009147711 to 10.6 to 8.7 12,230
(2001)
a 2 = 0.987658646 a5 = − 0.000019111
a3 = − 0.190564677 a6 = 0.000063340

Hossain
16
μ o = μ ob + [0.004481 ( p − pb )]
(2005) (0.555955 μ 1.068099
ob
1.063547
− 0.527737 μ ob ) Worldwide
390
3 to
517
3.6 to
360
300 to
3,400
121 to 6,272 na na 52.5

Table A-1 (continued) – Summary of published undersaturated oil viscosity methods

8 SPE 103144

Min % Max % >10% Error

Method # Pts % AE Std Dev % AAE Std Dev
Error Error Count
Beal 10248 -2.25 33.39 10.29 31.84 -65.45 866.84 2568
Kouzel 10248 5.62 16.17 8.07 15.10 -33.40 271.90 2186
Vazquez & Beggs 10248 83.89 352.06 86.23 351.50 -38.89 3381.93 3594
Labedi (Libya) 7769 4.19 18.69 9.19 16.80 -75.20 206.01 1882
Labedi (Nigeria/Angola) 7811 116.75 387.44 128.19 383.81 -62.10 3035.30 2888
Khan 10248 2.43 13.22 7.08 11.43 -63.37 171.33 2132
Al-Khafaji 10017 -11.83 17.72 14.08 15.98 -94.74 120.67 4425
Abdul-Majeed 8498 3.72 42.34 15.30 39.65 -84.78 698.89 2778
Petrosky 10248 -2.95 15.97 9.14 13.43 -94.82 97.86 2665
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 10248 -9.70 19.15 11.65 18.03 -583.20 62.81 4055
Orbey & Sandler 10248 -5.23 9.18 6.27 8.51 -78.91 49.80 1856
De Ghetto 8125 -3.34 109.79 18.18 108.32 -3892.79 795.35 1947
De Ghetto - Agip 7769 6.03 28.30 10.98 26.77 -75.43 578.38 2248
Almehaideb 10248 13.48 58.64 26.67 53.94 -84.96 237.33 3570
Kouzel API Modified 10248 -0.28 12.42 5.97 10.89 -38.03 256.79 1585
Elsharkawy 7811 31.46 107.20 39.28 104.59 -61.95 795.20 2652
Dindoruk & Christman 10248 4.65 20.12 11.42 17.20 -88.26 121.60 2876
Hossain 10248 3.89 8.47 6.33 6.83 -69.40 47.03 2095
Bergman & Sutton 10248 -0.50 6.29 3.88 4.97 -36.40 40.53 891

Table 1 – Statistical accuracy of viscosity methods for entire database

Min % Max % >10% Error

Method # Pts % AE Std Dev % AAE Std Dev
Error Error Count
Beal 8996 -4.74 15.24 7.22 14.23 -62.02 543.42 1940
Kouzel 8996 4.14 12.15 6.79 10.89 -33.40 139.47 1740
Vazquez & Beggs 8996 9.25 23.10 11.92 21.85 -38.89 311.09 2412
Labedi (Libya) 6525 4.06 16.97 8.57 15.20 -47.53 206.01 1543
Labedi (Nigeria/Angola) 6567 -5.64 12.49 7.93 11.17 -62.10 187.17 1670
Khan 8996 2.02 9.78 5.79 8.14 -59.47 76.79 1549
Al-Khafaji 8765 -9.45 15.90 11.93 14.14 -90.62 120.67 3393
Abdul-Majeed 8498 3.72 42.34 15.30 39.65 -84.78 698.89 2778
Petrosky 8996 -2.18 14.37 8.26 11.96 -91.21 97.86 2134
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 8996 -8.79 12.37 9.96 11.45 -283.66 62.81 3146
Orbey & Sandler 8996 -4.72 7.87 5.61 7.27 -69.37 27.22 1474
De Ghetto 6881 2.37 65.86 11.94 64.82 -2296.62 795.35 1468
De Ghetto - Agip 6525 1.97 11.07 6.84 8.92 -54.41 76.10 1475
Almehaideb 8996 -6.07 13.53 8.71 12.00 -84.96 64.32 2334
Kouzel API Modified 8996 -0.99 8.92 5.15 7.36 -38.03 86.66 1235
Elsharkawy 6567 -1.61 12.84 7.25 10.72 -61.95 135.74 1512
Dindoruk & Christman 8996 1.29 11.88 6.91 9.74 -73.74 121.60 1745
Hossain 8996 3.86 8.22 6.16 6.67 -57.04 47.03 1761
Bergman & Sutton 8996 -0.39 6.24 3.83 4.95 -36.40 34.52 762

Table 2 - Statistical accuracy of viscosity methods for bubblepoint pressure > 50 psia (ie reservoir fluid systems)
SPE 103144 9

Min % Max % >10% Error

Method # Pts % AE Std Dev % AAE Std Dev
Error Error Count
Beal 1252 15.66 84.23 32.35 79.33 -65.45 866.84 628
Kouzel 1252 16.31 30.84 17.23 30.33 -20.64 271.90 446
Vazquez & Beggs 1252 620.15 826.78 620.15 826.78 -1.10 3381.93 1182
Labedi (Libya) 1244 4.85 25.90 12.45 23.23 -75.20 202.46 339
Labedi (Nigeria/Angola) 1244 762.82 667.44 763.02 667.21 -26.46 3035.30 1218
Khan 1252 5.38 27.08 16.32 22.26 -63.37 171.33 583
Al-Khafaji 1252 -28.50 20.57 29.19 19.57 -94.74 99.37 1032
Abdul-Majeed 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
Petrosky 1252 -8.50 23.86 15.50 20.03 -94.82 41.12 531
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 1252 -16.30 43.05 23.81 39.40 -583.20 50.49 909
Orbey & Sandler 1252 -8.85 15.16 10.98 13.70 -78.91 49.80 382
De Ghetto 1244 -34.94 231.49 52.74 228.09 -3892.79 143.68 479
De Ghetto - Agip 1244 27.27 61.83 32.71 59.13 -75.43 578.38 773
Almehaideb 1252 153.91 66.11 155.73 61.70 -73.06 237.33 1236
Kouzel API Modified 1252 4.80 25.70 11.89 23.29 -26.55 256.79 350
Elsharkawy 1244 206.03 187.24 208.41 184.58 -56.00 795.20 1140
Dindoruk & Christman 1252 28.80 40.46 43.83 23.34 -88.26 96.19 1131
Hossain 1252 4.11 10.08 7.57 7.82 -69.40 39.43 334
Bergman & Sutton 1252 -1.27 6.56 4.23 5.17 -31.18 40.53 129

Table 3 – Statistical accuracy of viscosity methods for bubblepoint pressure < 50 psia
(Note: Abdul-Majeed was not evaluated as all data had a GOR < 50 scf/STB.
Including this data, the method has an average error of 33,445%.)

Min % Max % >10% Error

Method # Pts % AE Std Dev % AAE Std Dev
Error Error Count
Beal 8846 -4.37 18.46 7.46 17.44 -65.45 686.96 1919
Kouzel 8846 4.34 12.83 6.76 11.74 -33.40 184.52 1606
Vazquez & Beggs 8846 80.35 355.78 82.49 355.29 -35.82 3381.93 2817
Labedi (Libya) 7045 4.64 17.65 8.71 16.03 -63.82 206.01 1626
Labedi (Nigeria/Angola) 7045 111.32 390.73 122.84 387.26 -62.10 3035.30 2375
Khan 8846 3.54 12.60 6.60 11.30 -50.15 171.33 1657
Al-Khafaji 8793 -9.22 15.28 11.79 13.40 -92.75 120.67 3465
Abdul-Majeed 7661 6.38 43.31 14.68 41.24 -70.29 698.89 2277
Petrosky 8846 -0.25 11.95 7.00 9.69 -93.04 97.86 1846
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 8846 -9.87 15.23 10.90 14.51 -583.20 53.29 3366
Orbey & Sandler 8846 -3.87 7.04 5.04 6.25 -71.21 49.80 1206
De Ghetto 7288 1.14 22.40 8.62 20.71 -717.76 199.90 1540
De Ghetto - Agip 7045 6.66 28.03 10.48 26.83 -59.39 578.38 1941
Almehaideb 8846 12.28 55.72 23.77 51.87 -80.37 237.33 2738
Kouzel API Modified 8846 -1.65 8.22 4.97 6.75 -38.03 94.71 1146
Elsharkawy 7045 30.24 107.68 37.48 105.38 -61.95 795.20 2177
Dindoruk & Christman 8846 5.52 18.59 10.20 16.50 -72.06 121.60 2123
Hossain 8846 4.04 7.58 5.91 6.23 -62.50 47.03 1656
Bergman & Sutton 8846 -0.35 5.90 3.64 4.65 -36.40 34.52 662

Table 4 - Statistical accuracy of viscosity methods for temperature > 100 °F

10 SPE 103144

Min % Max % >10% Error

Method # Pts % AE Std Dev % AAE Std Dev
Error Error Count
Beal 1224 12.90 81.18 31.31 76.00 -57.78 866.84 622
Kouzel 1224 15.82 29.54 18.11 28.19 -31.50 271.90 563
Vazquez & Beggs 1224 121.16 347.28 124.63 346.05 -38.89 2591.50 745
Labedi (Libya) 724 -0.15 26.42 13.92 22.45 -75.20 135.38 256
Labedi (Nigeria/Angola) 724 176.53 359.71 187.18 354.27 -48.16 1827.63 501
Khan 1224 -4.69 15.62 10.81 12.21 -63.37 94.99 453
Al-Khafaji 1224 -30.57 22.17 30.57 22.17 -94.74 -0.16 960
Abdul-Majeed 837 -20.60 19.32 20.98 18.91 -84.78 15.89 501
Petrosky 1224 -21.89 25.90 24.69 23.24 -94.82 27.19 765
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 1224 -9.48 37.11 17.78 33.92 -514.67 62.81 649
Orbey & Sandler 1224 -14.91 15.23 15.05 15.09 -78.91 11.78 609
De Ghetto 795 -44.85 341.76 106.52 327.80 -3892.79 795.35 398
De Ghetto - Agip 724 -0.12 30.14 15.88 25.61 -75.43 234.04 307
Almehaideb 1224 24.80 78.49 50.39 65.08 -84.96 226.07 782
Kouzel API Modified 1224 9.90 26.06 13.43 24.42 -31.95 256.79 420
Elsharkawy 724 45.40 104.34 58.80 97.41 -56.00 504.19 466
Dindoruk & Christman 1224 -2.28 28.35 20.07 20.15 -88.26 77.89 669
Hossain 1224 3.15 13.30 9.63 9.70 -69.40 42.74 416
Bergman & Sutton 1224 -1.37 8.50 5.56 6.58 -35.49 40.53 214

Table 5 – Statistical accuracy of viscosity methods for temperature < 100 °F

Min % Max % >10% Error

Method # Pts % AE Std Dev % AAE Std Dev
Error Error Count
Beal 4326 -2.43 4.93 3.60 4.15 -34.20 14.74 312
Kouzel 4326 0.58 6.20 3.44 5.19 -33.40 83.44 333
Vazquez & Beggs 4326 44.93 225.00 46.91 224.60 -33.40 3170.56 1054
Labedi (Libya) 3876 1.67 9.49 4.97 8.25 -43.23 146.78 529
Labedi (Nigeria/Angola) 3883 105.08 355.82 111.81 353.77 -45.42 3035.30 863
Khan 4326 2.55 8.38 4.47 7.53 -32.20 160.35 495
Al-Khafaji 4245 -2.26 11.67 7.31 9.38 -63.56 120.67 1001
Abdul-Majeed 3646 2.43 13.80 6.12 12.61 -36.80 236.70 570
Petrosky 4326 1.82 6.06 3.78 5.08 -33.00 97.86 364
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 4326 -8.68 8.15 8.68 8.15 -63.59 1.37 1393
Orbey & Sandler 4326 -1.90 4.95 3.32 4.14 -34.60 37.78 267
De Ghetto 3883 -0.77 8.38 4.62 7.04 -49.69 138.54 463
De Ghetto - Agip 3876 3.77 16.61 6.64 15.68 -41.15 419.33 730
Almehaideb 4326 21.43 63.69 25.55 62.15 -39.64 237.33 869
Kouzel API Modified 4326 -3.95 5.36 4.37 5.03 -38.03 16.58 492
Elsharkawy 3883 30.09 95.87 33.19 94.84 -46.25 795.20 895
Dindoruk & Christman 4326 6.75 17.12 8.93 16.09 -33.00 108.92 822
Hossain 4326 2.20 5.72 4.13 4.52 -32.00 38.48 404
Bergman & Sutton 4326 -0.59 4.98 3.08 3.96 -33.40 23.29 235

Table 6 - Statistical accuracy of viscosity methods for bubblepoint viscosity 0-1 cp

SPE 103144 11

Min % Max % >10% Error

Method # Pts % AE Std Dev % AAE Std Dev
Error Error Count
Beal 3048 -7.12 8.98 7.26 8.83 -47.74 10.03 764
Kouzel 3048 4.52 14.43 6.16 13.44 -31.48 119.35 535
Vazquez & Beggs 3048 73.64 538.27 75.11 537.83 -29.92 3381.93 993
Labedi (Libya) 2079 5.27 21.20 9.55 18.85 -33.50 202.46 582
Labedi (Nigeria/Angola) 2095 81.43 552.43 94.85 547.10 -45.65 2893.09 785
Khan 3048 3.73 16.71 5.68 15.74 -31.52 171.33 464
Al-Khafaji 2994 -11.38 13.65 11.48 13.32 -72.86 99.37 1275
Abdul-Majeed 2721 11.85 60.91 19.49 58.71 -38.95 698.89 867
Petrosky 3048 4.28 7.47 5.81 5.98 -30.00 41.12 573
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 3048 -9.81 12.86 9.86 12.81 -59.33 5.40 1064
Orbey & Sandler 3048 -3.83 6.18 4.33 5.24 -34.60 49.80 278
De Ghetto 2178 4.84 24.62 11.11 21.84 -46.55 273.36 579
De Ghetto - Agip 2079 6.54 43.98 10.46 42.54 -34.22 578.38 621
Almehaideb 3048 5.94 60.22 18.20 55.53 -55.60 237.12 904
Kouzel API Modified 3048 -1.20 6.18 3.38 4.87 -34.28 38.05 195
Elsharkawy 2095 21.57 154.63 31.05 150.78 -43.84 781.49 659
Dindoruk & Christman 3048 5.37 22.39 8.62 20.46 -42.01 121.60 592
Hossain 3048 5.50 7.16 6.33 6.08 -29.75 39.43 665
Bergman & Sutton 3048 0.18 5.47 2.96 4.20 -32.03 30.10 128

Table 7 – Statistical accuracy of viscosity methods for bubblepoint viscosity 1-5 cp

Min % Max % >10% Error

Method # Pts % AE Std Dev % AAE Std Dev
Error Error Count
Beal 1334 -3.53 18.98 8.77 15.21 -65.45 56.30 396
Kouzel 1334 8.66 23.58 12.24 20.95 -31.50 184.52 472
Vazquez & Beggs 1334 30.44 330.43 35.18 329.18 -31.21 2495.34 460
Labedi (Libya) 733 12.17 39.50 18.98 35.08 -34.29 206.01 305
Labedi (Nigeria/Angola) 749 20.04 251.30 41.07 244.02 -53.30 1518.65 435
Khan 1334 -3.11 15.96 7.25 11.37 -38.12 123.98 348
Al-Khafaji 1261 -23.22 22.83 23.22 22.83 -82.89 0.18 901
Abdul-Majeed 1119 -15.37 58.18 17.29 50.44 -63.04 679.53 633
Petrosky 1334 -23.40 20.98 23.41 20.61 -84.08 18.41 946
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 1334 -2.18 20.29 8.39 16.06 -65.82 54.01 384
Orbey & Sandler 1334 -10.78 11.41 11.11 11.01 -51.51 13.76 577
De Ghetto 936 17.65 93.42 21.72 91.55 -51.95 795.35 315
De Ghetto - Agip 733 5.39 34.56 14.45 30.20 -36.46 312.27 321
Almehaideb 1334 -2.33 47.22 22.15 37.56 -75.56 203.48 662
Kouzel API Modified 1334 5.50 16.29 9.70 13.69 -33.59 88.57 416
Elsharkawy 749 2.80 74.06 19.58 67.46 -55.27 409.97 399
Dindoruk & Christman 1334 5.90 22.25 12.13 15.59 -63.00 76.85 559
Hossain 1334 5.94 13.87 9.67 10.46 -43.71 47.03 468
Bergman & Sutton 1334 -0.07 10.83 6.47 8.09 -33.47 34.52 290

Table 8 - Statistical accuracy of viscosity methods for bubblepoint viscosity 5-100 cp

12 SPE 103144

Min % Max % >10% Error

Method # Pts % AE Std Dev % AAE Std Dev
Error Error Count
Beal 253 131.64 182.47 132.27 169.67 -60.70 866.84 230
Kouzel 253 25.54 54.73 26.97 53.14 -29.69 271.90 153
Vazquez & Beggs 253 92.71 290.48 97.53 286.59 -38.89 1407.88 202
Labedi (Libya) 233 -4.56 23.65 11.91 18.07 -75.20 39.00 99
Labedi (Nigeria/Angola) 233 33.43 92.42 44.61 79.90 -62.10 326.02 195
Khan 253 -20.31 15.93 20.32 15.77 -63.37 6.33 189
Al-Khafaji 244 -34.98 31.21 34.98 31.21 -94.74 -1.10 222
Abdul-Majeed 58 -28.05 36.91 28.05 36.91 -84.78 -1.09 47
Petrosky 253 -34.72 31.36 34.72 31.36 -94.82 -0.81 227
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 253 -10.21 99.08 46.33 87.88 -583.20 62.81 210
Orbey & Sandler 253 -24.88 22.08 24.88 22.08 -78.91 -0.39 207
De Ghetto 244 -228.56 578.17 280.75 555.45 -3892.79 299.74 228
De Ghetto - Agip 233 -9.85 24.84 15.33 18.66 -75.43 47.57 124
Almehaideb 253 66.23 100.58 77.44 69.27 -84.96 206.65 217
Kouzel API Modified 253 21.87 48.57 23.32 46.96 -29.69 256.79 150
Elsharkawy 233 -6.61 27.20 14.68 16.34 -61.95 65.66 128
Dindoruk & Christman 253 -31.73 22.60 31.73 22.60 -88.26 -0.74 224
Hossain 253 2.62 23.79 8.34 17.90 -69.40 39.13 68
Bergman & Sutton 253 -3.33 13.15 6.89 9.76 -36.40 40.53 54

Table 9 - Statistical accuracy of viscosity methods for bubblepoint viscosity > 100 cp

Min % Max % >10% Error

Method # Pts % AE Std Dev % AAE Std Dev
Error Error Count
Beal 610 -29.59 12.37 30.09 11.12 -65.45 62.86 587
Kouzel 610 44.73 30.35 44.74 30.33 -2.75 271.90 594
Vazquez & Beggs 610 690.97 1040.63 692.09 1039.89 -38.89 3381.93 591
Labedi (Libya) 370 10.27 44.47 29.55 34.75 -75.20 202.46 233
Labedi (Nigeria/Angola) 370 788.10 966.29 810.03 947.92 -53.30 3035.30 338
Khan 610 26.25 34.26 34.65 25.72 -63.37 171.33 537
Al-Khafaji 610 -48.63 23.03 49.86 20.22 -94.74 99.37 595
Abdul-Majeed 417 50.20 130.82 83.61 112.41 -84.78 698.89 363
Petrosky 610 -17.63 34.59 26.73 28.15 -94.82 41.12 366
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 610 -38.13 10.10 38.20 9.84 -65.82 7.77 597
Orbey & Sandler 610 -12.87 21.30 18.15 17.01 -78.91 49.80 356
De Ghetto 372 7.47 101.93 35.92 95.67 -59.01 795.35 246
De Ghetto - Agip 370 40.56 90.04 53.51 82.98 -75.43 578.38 294
Almehaideb 610 -7.56 64.47 57.18 30.63 -84.96 165.01 601
Kouzel API Modified 610 14.95 31.42 18.83 29.25 -25.69 256.79 308
Elsharkawy 370 212.40 270.03 231.66 253.65 -56.00 795.20 333
Dindoruk & Christman 610 -7.76 39.09 34.53 19.84 -88.26 95.12 571
Hossain 610 -1.40 17.16 12.17 12.17 -69.40 39.43 259
Bergman & Sutton 610 -1.71 10.20 7.71 6.89 -31.18 40.53 150

Table 10 - Statistical accuracy of viscosity methods for pressure differential 10,000-25,000 psi
13 SPE 103144

Fig. 3 – Barus viscosity relationship Fig. 4 – Bubblepoint viscosity effect on Barus viscosity
relationship

Fig. 5 – Comparison of “Barus-type” methods with measured Fig. 6 – Pressure exponent to linearize viscosity equation (data
viscosity data from experiments with pressure differential in excess of
12,000 psi)

Fig. 7 – Error in calculated viscosity from Beal method Fig. 8 – Error in calculated viscosity from Kouzel method
14 SPE 103144

Fig. 9 – Error in calculated viscosity from Vazquez & Beggs Fig. 10 – Error in calculated viscosity from Labedi (Libya)
method method

Fig. 11 – Error in calculated viscosity from Labedi Fig. 12 – Error in calculated viscosity from Khan method
(Nigeria/Angola) method

Fig. 13 – Error in calculated viscosity from Al-Khafaji method Fig. 14 – Error in calculated viscosity from Abdul-Majeed
method
SPE 103144 15

Fig. 15 – Error in calculated viscosity from Petrosky method Fig. 16 – Error in calculated viscosity from Kartoatmodjo &
Schmidt method

Fig. 17 – Error in calculated viscosity from Orbey & Sandler Fig. 18 – Error in calculated viscosity from De Ghetto method
method

Fig. 19 – Error in calculated viscosity from De Ghetto - Agip Fig. 20 – Error in calculated viscosity from Almehaideb
method method
16 SPE 103144

Fig. 21 – Error in calculated viscosity from method Kouzel Fig. 22 – Error in calculated viscosity from Elsharkawy
API method method

Fig. 23 – Error in calculated viscosity from Dindoruk & Fig. 24 – Error in calculated viscosity from Hossain method
Christman method

Fig. 25 – Error in calculated viscosity from Bergman & Sutton Fig. 26 – Accuracy of Beal method
method
SPE 103144 17

Fig. 27 – Accuracy of Kouzel method Fig. 28 – Accuracy of Vazquez & Beggs method

Fig. 29 – Accuracy of Labedi (Libya) method Fig. 30 – Accuracy of Labedi (Nigeria/Angola) method

Fig. 31 – Accuracy of Khan method Fig. 32 – Accuracy of Al-Khafaji method

18 SPE 103144

Fig. 33 – Accuracy of Abdul-Majeed method Fig. 34 – Accuracy of Petrosky method

Fig. 35 – Accuracy of Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt method Fig. 36 – Accuracy of Orbey & Sandler method

Fig. 37 – Accuracy of De Ghetto method Fig. 38 – Accuracy of De Ghetto – Agip method

SPE 103144 19

Fig. 39 – Accuracy of Almehaideb method Fig. 40 – Accuracy of Kouzel – API method

Fig. 41 – Accuracy of Elsharkawy method Fig. 42 – Accuracy of Dindoruk & Christman method

Fig. 43 – Accuracy of Hossain method Fig. 44 – Accuracy of Bergman & Sutton method
20 SPE 103144

Undersaturated Oil Viscosity

Bubblepoint Pressure > 50 psi
50
All Data
Pdif 0-2500 psi
45
Pdif 2500-5000 psi

40 Pdif 5000-10,000 psi

Average Absolute Error, %

Pdif 10,000-25,000 psi

35 BP Vis 0.0-0.5 cp
BP Vis 0.5-1.0 cp
30 BP Vis 1.0-5.0 cp
BP Vis 5-100 cp
25 BP Vis > 100 cp

20

15

10

n
an
t

y
d
to
l

p
ed

n
a)
gs

y
ji
an

eb
a)
al

ze

le
id

tto
aw
ifie
sk

gi
fa

ai
et
Be

ol

nd
m

tm
by
eg

je
Kh
ou

id
-A
ha

ss
ro

Su
h
ng

k
od
ch
a

a
Li

Sa

ris
B

ar

o
K

et
-K

l-M

eh
/A

IM
i(

tto

&
lsh
&

Ch
e
P
Al

&
d

m
ia

D
&
du

he

an
z

be

AP

E
Al
er

ey
ue

&
jo
Ab

m
La

ig

od

rb

k
zq

el

rg
e

ru
(N

O
m

uz
D
Va

Be
do
at
di

Ko

in
be

rto

D
La

Ka

Fig. 45 – Summary of undersaturated oil viscosity methods for reservoir fluid systems only

Undersaturated Oil Viscosity

All Data
50
All Data
Pdif 0-2500 psi
45
Pdif 2500-5000 psi

40 Pdif 5000-10,000 psi

Average Absolute Error, %

Pdif 10,000-25,000 psi

35 BP Vis 0.0-0.5 cp
BP Vis 0.5-1.0 cp
30 BP Vis 1.0-5.0 cp
BP Vis 5-100 cp
25 BP Vis > 100 cp

20

15

10

0
r

n
an
y
t

d
to
el

a)

p
ed

n
gs

y
ji
an

eb
a)
al

le
id

tto
w
ifie
gi
sk
fa

ai
uz

et
Be

ol

nd
m

tm
by
eg

je
Kh

ka
id
-A
ha

ss
ro

Su
h
ng

od
Ko

ch
a

a
Li

Sa

ris
B

ar

o
et
-K

l-M

eh
/A

IM
S

tto
i(

&
&

lsh

Ch
e
P
Al

&
d

m
ia

D
&
du

an
he
z

be

AP

E
Al
er

ey
ue

&
jo
Ab

m
G
La

ig

od

rb

k
zq

el

rg
e

ru
(N

O
m

uz
D
Va

Be
do
at
di

Ko

in
be

rto

D
La

Ka

Fig. 46 – Summary of undersaturated oil viscosity methods for entire database