Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 30316
Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oils
Giambattista De Ghetto*, Francesco Paone, and Marco ViIla*, AGIP S.p.A.
* SPE Member
Copyright 1995, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Heavy 011 Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 19-21 June1995.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of Information contained In an abstract submitted by theauthor(s). Contents of the paper, as presented,
have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subjected 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.
Permission to copy Is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract shouid contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom
the paper Is presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P,O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX75083-3836, U.S.A. (Facsimile 214-952-9435).
ABSTRACT: The paper evaluates the reliability of the most common empirical correlations used for determining reservoir fluid properties
whenever laboratory PVT data are not available: bubblepoint pressure, solution GaR, bubblepoint OFVF, isothermal compressibility, dead-oil
viscosity, gas-saturated oil viscosity and undersaturated oil viscosity,
The reliability has been evaluated against a set of about 65 heavy and extra-heavy oil samples, About 1200 measured data points have been
collected and investigated. All measured data points are reported in the paper, For all the correlations, the following statistical parameters have
been calculated: a) relative deviation between estimated and experimental values, b) average absolute percent error, c) standard deviation:
Oil samples have been divided in two different API gravity classes: extra-heavy oils for 0 API:S:; 10, heavy oils for 10< 0 API:S:; 22.3.
The best correlations for each class of API gravity have been evaluated for each oil-property,
The functional forms of the correlations that gave the best results for each oil property have been used for finding a better correlation with errors
reduced, on average, by 10%. In particular, for extra-heavy oils, since no correlations are available in literature (except for viscosity), a special
investigation has been performed and new equations are proposed.
647
INTRODUCTION
The calcuiation of reserves in an oil reservoir or the determination of
its performance and economics, requires a good knowledge of the
fluid's physical properties. Bubblepoint pressure, GaR, OFVF and
compressibility are of primary importance in material balance
calculation, whereas viscosity plays an important role in production
test interpretation and in well problem analysis. Ideally, these
properties are determined from laboratory stuclies on samples
collected from the bottom of the well bore or from the surface. Such
experimental data are however not always available because of one or
more of these reasons: a) samples collected are not reliable, b)
samples have not been taken because of cost saving, c) PVT analyses
are not available when needed. This situation often occurs in
production-test interpretation in exploration wells.
In such cases PVT properties must be determined by using empirical
derived correlations. Obviously the accuracy of such correlations is
critical for the above mentioned calculations and it is not often
known in advance.
Despite the great number of work performed in the past 50 years on
PVT correlations, each of them seems to be applicable with a good
References and illustrations at end of papaer
reliability only in a well-defined range of reservoir fluid
characteristics. This is due to the fact that each correlation has been
developed by using samples belonging to a restricted geographical
area, with similar fluid compositions and API gravity. In particular
for oils with gravity less than 22 0 API the literature is very poor and
nearly absent for oils with gravity less than 10 0 API.
This work is aimed at analysing the reliability of literature
correlations, listed in table I, relevant to heavy and
Agip's reservoir fluid samples, shown in table 2.
This will make it possible to evaluate the use of some correlations in
ranges of API gravity in which no correlations have been proposed
yet (except for viscosity): for oils with density lower than 10
0
API.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The following presents a review of the most known correlations
published in literature. The range of input data used by each Author
in developing his correlation are provided in tables 3 and 4.
2 PRESSURE-VOLUME.TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS FOR HEAVY AND EXTRA HEAVY OILS SPE30316
In 1947 Standlng/ll2/31 published two correlations for determining, analyses of bottomhole fluid samples were available for the
respectively,. thebubblepoint pressure (Pb) and the oil-formation development of correlations. Only the correlation for Pb has been
volume factor (OfiVF) at bubblepoint, from known values of, considered in this work.
reservoir. temperature (Tr), solution gas-oil ratio (GOR) at bubble In 1988 Asgarpour, McLauchlin, Wong and Cheung
ll11
presented
point, oil gravity ('Yo) and gas gravity ('Yg). In all, 105 experimentally a new set of correlations to estimate Pb, OFVF and GOR (atand
determined data points on 22 different crude-oil/natural-gas mixtures below bubblepoint) as a function of 'Yg, 'Yo, Tr and The
from California were used. correlations were based on more than 310 different crude oil samples
In 1958 Lasater
/41
presented a new correlation for Pb. In all, 158 from Western Canada. Because the physical properties of each
experimentally measured bubblepoint pressures from 137 geological formation in Western Canada exhibited different
independent crude oil systems from Canada, western and mid- behaviour, It was necessary to. develop correlations for 3. different
continental U.S" and South America were used in his work. geological formations. Although the average errors of the correlations
In 1959 Chew and Connally/51 proposed a correlation to predict the are very low, the paper has not been considered In this work since
gas-saturated' oil viscosity (1101) as a function of dead.oil viscosity information about the geological formation of crude oil samples Were
not available, and because this information is not easy to gain on
(/-lod) and GOR. The correlation was developed from 457 crude oil field.
samples from Canada, USA and South America. The study showed
that at a fixed GOR, the relation between 11
0
1and the corresponding 11 In 1989 Labedl
/121
published a new set of equations for estimating
od is a straight line on logarithmic co-ordinates. OFVF, oil density at and below bubblepoint, and Co of the African
reservoir fluids, as a function of easily-measurable field data as first-
In 1975 Beggs and Roblnson
/61
published two new correlations for stage separator pressure and GOR, API, PI' and Tr. PVT datafor 128
calculating /lodand llot. The equations resulted from a study of 2533 samples were collected from Libya, Nigeria and Angola reservoirs.
viscosity measurements involving 600 different crude oil systems. An Only the compressibility correlation has been considered in this
accuracy of -0.64% for the dead-oil viscosity correlation was found stUdy.
when tested against the data used for its work. When tested against II .
93 cases from literature, the average error increased to 114,27%. The In 1990. Kartoatrnodjo . presented' new empirical correlations (or
Authors did not explain the reason for the large errors but simply predicting OFVF, Pb, llod, /lol, 110 and Co asa function of
warned that the extrapolation outside the range of the data used to measurable parameters such as Tr, separator gas gravity (GGPsp),
develop the correlation should be done. with care. API and GOR. A total of about 1400 different samples were used to
develop the correlations. Most of them were extracted byPVT
In 1977 Vasquez and Beggs/7/ presented correlations for predicting reports from South East Asia, California and Alaska and a reason.able
GORand OFVF of a gas-saturated crude oil, as a function of crude group from literature. The new correlations were developed using the
oil API gravity, 'Yg, reservoir temperature and pressure (Pr). In total, functional form ofthe previously published ones which gavethe best
. 6004 data points were use", distributed into two groups (less than 30 estimate. The Author also presented a correlation to .convert OFVF
oAPI and greater than 30 0 API) because ofvarilltions in the voilltility lIOd GOR from differentilll to flash liberation process at the separator
of crude oil. The Authors found 'Yg to be a strong correlllting condition. The OFVF, GOR .1Ind Pbcorrelatlons were developed
pllrameter in the development of the GOR correlation. Because 'Yg is using both f1l1sh vllporlsation data and differentilll vllporislltiondatll,
dependent on the conditions under which theglls is separated from (the latter converted to f1l1sh using tile above mentioned conversion
oil, a correlation to normalise 'Yg to a separation pressure of 114.7 factor). KlIrtoatmodjostated that these correlations are applicable to a
psia was also developed by the Authors and tested agllinst 124 data flash process only. Applying these equations to a differentilll process
points from 27 different fluids, Vasquez and Beggs' also investigated might lelld to errors of up to 20%.
the viscosity (f.lo) and the isothermal compressibility (Co) of under In 1990 Majeed, Kattan arid SaIman
/141
proposed a newgenetal
saturllted oils. using 4486 data points for the Co correlation lind 3593 corre1lltion for estimating /l0 liS 1I function of PI', Pb, 1101, GOR and
data points for the 110 correlation. API. The correlation was developed using 253 experimentally
In 1980 GIaso
/81
presented correlations for estimating Pb, OFVF find determined oil viscosity values on 41 different oil samples from
llod, as a function of Tr, total surface gas grllvity, GOR and API North Afrlcll and Middle-East oil reservoirs. The correlation is
gravity. Because the first two correlations were developed using datll derived from plotting (Pr-Pb) VS(/lo·ll0l) on 1I 10g,.log pllper. The
from 45 oil samples with parafflnicities equivalentto North Sea oils, plot shown a of strllig.t lines of a constant slope whose
an adjustment to the API gravity term was suggested for using the interpepts could be represerted as a function of API lind GOR.
correllltions with oilsofa different compositional nature, Olaso 1I1so In 1990 McCain Jr. and Creeger
llSI
devel,oped an
provided a method for correcting the predicted Pbfor the presence of empirical equation to estimllte stock-tank GOR liS a function .of
C02, N2 and H2S in the totlll surface gllSes. The correlation for /lod separator pressure lind temperature (Psp, Tsp), API lind G(}Psp. The
was developed from data obtained from 26 crude 011 samples! correlation was obtained using a logarithmic model on a totlll of 301
In 1988 Egbogah and ,}acW
91
proposed two different correlations for blllck oilsampll)s. The solution GOR, obtllined by lidding the stock-
estimating /lod, The first one was a modified Beggs and Robinson tank GOR from equlltion to the field-determined separator GOR, has
correllltion obtained by using 394 011 systems from Illboratories of been affected by an average error of less than 3%.
AGAT EngIneering, Ltd. The second one introduced a new pammeter In 1992 Labedj/161 published a new set of correIlItlons to predict /lod,
to estimate the llod: the pour point temperature (Tp) which is, by /lol and 110. The data-bank for the development of correlations
definition, the lowest temperature at which the oil is observed to consisted of lIbout one hundred Illboratory lInalyses, the
flow. Because Tp seemed to be related to crude oil paraffin content (it fluids of the entire producing reservoirs in Libya. Each equation
increases with the pamffin conten!), the Authors believed that developed is a function of easily"obtainable dlltll, such as API,Pr and
important chemical compositional lIspects of crude 011 could be Tr. In particulllr, with regard to the 1101 correilltion, all equations
considered in the viscosity correlation by introdUcing this parameter. previously published correlate /lol to llod lind GOR In this study /lol
The average error of the equation with Tp was slightly lower thlln the is a direct function of llod, API and PI', parameters more easily-'
modified Beggs lind Robinson correlation (-4,3% vs. -5.13%). Since measurllble in the field than GOR. Labedi also publishedll
Tp is not an easlly-mellsurable pllrameter on field the latter relationship between differential and flash API. Even if the API used
correlation has not been investigated in this study. in all of the oil viscosity correlations developed in this study WllS
In 1988 Marhoun
/lOI
published empirical correlations for estimllting obtained by flashing the fluid sample to the atmospheric pressure,
Pb, OFVF lit bubblepoint and totlll OFVF for the Middle East crude which can be easily done in the field by flashing the well directly to
oils, as 1I function of Tr, 'Yg, GOR. and API. A total of 69 PVT the stock-tank, this reilltion makes it possible to. utiliSe the viscosity
648
SPE 30316 G. DE GHETI'O, F. PAONE, M. VILLA 3
(3)
(2)
RESULTS OF RELIABILITV ANALYSIS PERFORMED ON AGiP'S SAMPLES
Li:,[EI - Em]2
SD =,,-==.J.:=..__---=:....
N-I
The correlation providing the smallest Em value was judged to be the
best. When equal Em was found for more correlations, the lowest
standard deviation value defined the best one. Table 6 provides the
best results obtained from the statistical analysis, for the different
parameters estimated, for the two API gravity classes.
Below is a discussion of the results obtained for each property
estimated.
• in the past few years, oil companies have become increasingly
interested in reservoirs with the extra-heavy oils/
35
/
37
/,
• there are no correlations in literature which cover the range of oils
with 0 API S; 10, except for viscosity.
The reliability of each correlation and for each parameter was
therefore tested for each API gravity class. No analyses were made
for the whole group because it is plausible that samples belonging to
the same class are physically and chemically more comparable than
samples from different classes,
The reliability study was carried out using graphic and statistical
instruments. Calculated (Ci) vs. measured (Mi) - value diagrams were
created for each parameter studied in order to have a clear and
immediate view of the behaviour of each correlation. For reasons of
space, not all the calculated-value vs. measured-value graphs, relative
to each correlation, have been included in this paper. Instead, it was
decided to show a single diagram which gathers the best results
obtained for individual classes of oil . The diagrams for each property
estimated are shown in figures 1,3,5,7,9,11,13 and 14.
The qualitative analysis carried out by means of diagrams was
accompanied by a statistical analysis, of which the starting point was
therelative deviation between estimated and experimental value (Ei),
thus defined:
(1)
After having calculated the Ei for all the available samples, results
were subjected to a statistical analysis calculating the average
arithmetical value (Em) of the Ei and their standard deviation (SD),
i.e., the dispersion ofthe Ei around their average value Em' using the
following equations:

m N
All the results are discussed with reference to Table 6 and to figures
1,3,5,7,9, II, 13 and 14.
Bubblepoint pressure
Standing's correlationIl/
2
/
3
/ has given the best results with average
errors of 9.1% for extra-heavy oils and 15.1% for heavy oils.
Solutio" gas-oil ratio
The best results are provided by the Standing and Vasquez-Beggs
correlations with errors of 13.7% for extra-heavy oils and 25.7% for
heavy oils.
Oil formatio" volume factor at bubhlepoint
Of the seven properties analysed, this one was estimated in the best
way. The highest errors did not exceed 1.5%. Vasquez-Beggs's
correlatt.17? gave errors of less than half of those indicated by the
Authors .
[sot/,ermal compressibility
The estimation errors range from 25.5% for heavy oils to 38,7 for
extra-heavy oils. Vasquez-Beggs's correlation gave the best
performance for the both classes,
Dead-oil viscosity
The estimation of this property exhibited the highest error, the lowest
errors being greater than 30%. The errors are very high, especially
649
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ON LITERATURE CORRELATIONS
This work analyses the most well-known correlations described in
literature for estimating PVT properties such as bubblepoint pressure,
oil formation volume factor and solution gas-oil ratio at bUbblepoint,
dead-oil viscosity, gas-saturated oil viscosity, under saturated oil
viscosity and isothermal compressibility. It does not however include'
those correlations which require, as input data, parameters which are
not easily measurable on field or not obtainable from PVT reports.
Table I shows schematically the Authors and the relative correlations
considered for each property examined,
Starting exclusively with the PVT studies carried out over the last 30
years on Agip oils, a selection was made excluding those lacking all
the input data necessary to use PVT correlations. In this way, a very
heterogeneous sample of 63 crude oils was Set up, representative of
diverse reservoir conditions, in order to ensure that the conclusions
obtained from this analysis would be generally valid and have an
extensive applicability to wide range of operative situations.
The 63 oils come from the Mediterranean Basin, Africa and the
Persian Gulf. Table 2 lists the range of input and output parameters of
all Agip's oil samples While Table 5 reports the experimentally-
measured PVT data involved in the present study (about 1200 data
points).
Tables 3 and 4 list the range of input and output parameters upon
which each Author based the development of his correlation
(Author's defined range).
The density of an oil is a fundamental characteristic as it reflects its
chemical composition, on which all the fluid's main properties
depend. For this reason, the API gravity was chosen in this study
among all the different parameters used for classifying oils; therefore
Agip's oil sample was divided into 2 different classes of API gravity
as follows:
• extra-heavy oils 0 API S; 10
• heavy oils 10< 0 API S; 22.3
The second class correspond to a standard classification of
oils/
30
/
311
0n the basis of the API gravity; the extremes of the ranges
which identify the class can vary as there is no universally recognised
classification. Even if the class of "extra heavy oils" does not
compare in the standard classifications,. in this study it was decided to
analyse separately oils with API < 10 mainly for the following
reasons:
• variations in the properties of crudes depend chiefly on the
presence of the most heavy hydrocarbons
126127
/:18/39/40/
data from the samples that are not flashed to the atmospheric
pressure, but differentially liberated. The new correlations can be
applied to other geographical areas such as the Middle East, the
North Sea and some parts of North and South America, but they
should be used within the limit of input data; in particular they
should not be extrapolated for crudes of less than 32 °API. In this
study it was decided to extent the Labedi's correlations to heavy and
extra heavy oils. This was made because no literature correlations are
available for oils with API < 14.4 (see tables 3 and 4), except for
dead-oil viscosity (Egbogah-Jack correlation). For this reason all the
analysed correlations were applied over the range of input data
reported by the Author's,
In 1993 Petrosky and Farshad/
17
/ presented new empirical PVT
correlations for estimating Pb, GOR, OFVF and Co, as a function of
commonly available field data. Atotal of 81 laboratory pvr analysis,
made on crude oils extracted from reservoirs offshore Texas and
Louisiana were used to develop the correlations, Authors found that
their correlations could predict the PVT properties with average
absolute errors ranging from 0,64% for OFVF to 6.66% for Co. The
correlations were developed specifically for Gulf of Mexico crude
oils but Authors said that the same equations could be used in other
regions of the world. Only the compressibility correlation has been
considered in this work.
4 PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE CORRELAnONS FOR HEAVY AND EXTRA HEAVY OILS SPE 30316
with regard to the class of heavy oils. This behaviour is justifiable
bearing in mind that the correlations estimate this property with only
two input variables: 0 API and reservoir temperature. The correct
measurement of this property is difficult to achieve even in the
laboratory.
Gas.sahtrated oil viscosity
The average errors of the best correlations range between 14% and
16%. The best results were provided by Kartoatmodjo's correlations,
with Nfprs comparable with those found by the Author in his own
work .
Figure 9 shows the distribution of the points calculated with the beSt
correlations where the input varlables (dead-oil viscosity and solution
ratio) are measured values obtained from PVT reports.
Figure 14 shows the results of the same corr('llations where the
Calculated value was used as input data of the' dead-oil viscosity.
Noteworthy is the increase in dispersions ofthe points around the
bisector which corresponds to an average error increase of morethlln
15 percentage points. The difference is due to the fact that by
including a calculated rather than a measured input in an equation,
the estimation error of the equation in some way combines with that
made on the calculated input even if the latter has been calculated
with the best correlation. The greater the error on this inpllt,the
greater the correlation error. Since the correlations which estimate the
viscosity values at different pressures are all the
lower the estimation error of the dead-oil viscosity, the better the
estimation ofthe gas-saturated oil viscosity. The same applies to the
correlations. relative to the undersaturated oil viscosity which have
the gas-saturated oll viscosity among the inputs. This proves' the
importance of correctly determining the dead-oil viscosity, which on
the other hand, is the property calculated in the worst way. The
observations made can be naturally and easily extended to al1 the
other properties; in fact, a quantity estimated by using measured input
variables will undoubtedly be more reliable than one estimated with
calculated inputs.
Undersaturated oil viscosity
The best correlations showed a maximum error of 12.3% (Labedi,
extra-heavy oils). Note that Labedi'scorrelation
/16
/which had in fact
been gauged with oils with °API >32 (Tab. 4), showedexcel1ent
results even for the other classes of oil. It should also be pointed out
that the error in estimating the viscosity normally beCOmes smaller
and smal1er as we go from atmospheric pressure viscosity to reservoir
pressure viscosity. It is likely that the input variables which estimate
the reservoir oil viscosity (bubble point pressure, reservoir pressure
and GOR), characterise the phenomenon better than the inputs of the
dead-oil viscosity COAPI and reservoir temperature).
DEVELOPMENT OF MODIFIED CORRELATIONS
The results obtained from the above-explained reliability analysis
shows that, except for the OFVF correlation, the average errors in
determining PVT properties are still high, especially.when oils are
beyond the Author's defined range. For this reason the need to
improve the reliability of the literature correlations has been
recognised.
The functional forms of the correlations that in the previous
reliability analysis on Agip's samples gave the best results, for each
PVT property, have been used as models for a best-fit activity aimed
at improving the accuracy of literature correlations in predicting PVT
properties for typical Agip's oils.
Maintaining the same Junctional pattern of the starting model, the
numerical coefficients of the different equations were re-calculated
by applying multiple, linear and non-linear regressions by means of
the SAS program which carries out these regression analyses using
the minimum squared m(lthod.
The modified were obtained for (lach class ofd(lnsity into
which the Agip's oil sample was divided. In fact oils from the same
class are more comparable than oils from different classes, and then
the availability of two different equations. one for each class, to
estimate the same property, is certainly more reliable than a single
correlation for all the sample. For this reason, new equations were
proposed only for each API gravity class and not for all the group of
Agip'soils. '
In order to test the reliability of the modified,equations, the same
grap!\ic-statistical .instruments as those in the previous stpdy were
used. The results obtained are shown in Table 7 and in fig. 2, 4, 6,8,
10, and 12, prepared in the same way as those for the analysis on the
litlJrature equations, in order to be able to compare the two sets of
graphs, more adequately. In some cases, it was necessary to eliminate
some samples from the class being analysed in order to make the
regression more reliable; however, the exclusions never exceeded 5%
of the entire group. The study did not take into consideration the
cOt1:(llations which estimate the oil formation volume factor at bubble
point .as the estimation of t'1is property carried out using the
equations chosen(rom literature was felt to be very satisfactory..
Appendix Ashows the analytical form o( the new correlations.
RESUJ"TS OF RELIAPIl,lTY ANALYSIS Pf;RFORMED ON MODIFIED
CORRELATIONS.
The results of Tab. '7 obtained for the different properties are shown
below, and are Compared with those of Table 6.
Bubblepoint pressure
The starting models used for improving the estimate of this property
was Standing's correlations for the both classes of oils. The new
correlations reduced the estimation errors of 4.9 percentage points
(see Tab. 6 and 7) for the class of heavy oils. Regression in the class
of extra-heavy oils, having given results worse than the starting
model, ,is not shown,. Standing's correlation was ,considered
slJf,ficiently reliable, for estimating oils' bubblepoint pressure with
oAPI < 10. Comparing diagrams in fig. I and 2 it Can be seen that
the most significant improvement in the new correlation is in the
pressure range below 2000 psia.
In order to allow an easy interpretation of the results obtained with
the reliability.studies performed in this work, the best results of the
statistical analyses, are compared in a histogram for each PVT
property (see fig.15 to 20).
Each histogram shows the value of the most important statistical
parameter (Em' average absolute error) for the two classes of oil·' into
which the sample was divided.
Solution gas-oil ratio
The equl;ltions used ,as model were those of Standing for extra-heavy
oils and for heavy oils. The regression of Vasquez-
Beggs' equation was carried out keeping fixed the equation of the
'Ygcorr. provided by the Authors; this was done every time the starting
model was a Vasquez-Beggs correlation. The new equations redl1ced
the estimation error from a minimum of 7.,2 to a maximum of 8.7
percentage points. The comparison between the diagrams in fig.3 and
4 shows that the most obvious improvements were in the GOR range
beJow2?0 scf/STB.
l,vothermal compressibility
The mode] to regress was Vasquez-Beggs' correlation for both the
classes of oils. This set of new equations provided the most
significant improvements. Theerror decre.ased from a minimum Of
10 to a maximum of 30 percentage points for extra-heavy oils..
Comparing the diagrams in fig.5 and 6 it can seen that the greatest
improvements were obtained for compressibility between 5 and I0 x
10"6 psia" I.
Dead-oil viscosity
The models chosen was' Egbogah-Jack's correlation for the both
classes. The dead-oil viscosity is the most critical property to estimate
with empirical' equations. In fact, although' the errors dropped down
to 13 percentage points with, (he new, equations (extra heavy oils),
values higherthan30% (heavy oils), are still present. On the other
hand, the viscosity, not being a state property also depends on the
behaviour of the fluid. All the correlations assume that the fluid can
be considered Newtonian, but this is not always true, especially
where high viscosity are concerned. To attempt to estimate a quantity
650
SPE 30316 G. DE GHETTO, F. PAONE, M. VILLA 5
of this kind using equations which only use two input variables (0API
and reservoir temperature) becomes even more difficult. In any case,
not even laboratory measurements of viscosjty can be considered
completely reliable: in fact, particularly in the range of high viscosity,
differences of 10% between .two measurements taken on the same
sample by two different equipment, gauged in the same way, are
normal. The diagrams in figures 7 and 8 compare the trend between
the old and the new equations. They reveal that the most significant
improvements are to be found in the range of viscosity greater than
10cp.
Gas-saturated oil viscosity
The starting model for the regression was Kartoatmodjo's correlation
for the both classes. For the Kartoatmodjo's correlation, the multiple
non·linear regression was carried out by keeping the equation
supplied by the Author fixed for the input variable ygcorr. This
procedure was also followed for the other properties whenever the
starting model was one of Kartoatmodjo's equations. The regression
reduced the estimation error from a minimum of 2.1 (extra heavy
oils) to a maximum of 403 (heavy oils) percentage points (see Tables
6 and 7). Diagrams in fig. 9 and 10 show that the new correlations
improve the estimate in the range between 10 and J00 cpo
Undersaturated oil Vi.fcosity
The models to regress were Labedi's correlation for extra heavy oils
and Kartoatmodjo's correlation for heavy oils. The new equations
brought the maximum estimation error to 6% (Tab. 7). The diagrams
in fig. 1I and 12, which compare the trend of the old and new
equations, show that the improvements are distributed along the
entire viscosity range.
CONCLUSIONS
• The reliability analysis of the literature PVT correlations carried
out on 63 oil samples from Mediterranean Basin, Africa and
Persian Gulf, gave the best results for the estimate of the OFVF,
with maximum errors lower than 1.5%. The estimates of Pb, !lol
and ~ l O exhibited maximum errors of about 15%, 16% and 12%
respectively. The GOR, Co and !lod estimates were less precise:
the maximum errors were about 26%, 39% and 42% respectively.
• The new PYT correlations proposed in the paper gave errors
lower, on average, than 10 percentage points when compared with
the best literature correlation for each PVT property. In particular,
for the isothermal compressibility of extra-heavy oils, the new
correlation revealed an error lower than 30 percentage points.
It is believed that the new correlations are sufficiently extendible
as they were obtained on a very heterogeneous sample of oils.
• Adeep literature review has shown that, except for viscosity, there
are no PVT correlations for extra-heavy oils (0API :s; 10). The
proposed new equations for such oils provide average error of
6.5% for solution GOR, 8.5% for isothermal compressibility,
17.4% for dead-oil viscosity, 12.6% for gas-saturated oil viscosity
and 4% for undersaturated oil viscosity.
• A further investigation of the new modified correlations,
performed on a new different group of oil samples (from literature
and Agip's reports), has shown that the results obtained with the
new equations have a general validity. This analysis involved only
the viscosity correlation because of lack of literature data about
the estimation of the others PVT properties.
FURTHER INVESTIGATtON ON THE NEW MODIFIED CORRELATION
THAT ESTIMATE THE VISCOSITY
The new modified correlations have been obtained analysing Agip's
oils sample. For a more general validity of the results obtained in the
previous analysis, it was decided to test the new equations using a
new group of oils collected from literature. A deep literature review
has shown that the Author's are usually reluctant to pUblish the oil
data bank used for testing their correlations. For this reason it was
possible to collect from literature only 10 oil samples, with data
available for the only viscosity correlation analysis. To make more
representative the results of this analysis, a group of 45 oils samples,
collected from the Agip's viscosity measurements reports, has been
added to the oils from literature. In this wayan heterogeneous sample
of 55 oils has been obtained. The complete data bank is given in
Table 8. Since the extra heavy oils are only 5, results obtained in this
class have to be considered not as representatives as those of the
heavy oils class (50 samples). The results of the statistical analysis,
performed on this sample using the same statistical index as before,
are given in Table 9. Comparing this results with those listed in Table
7 and, secondly, Table 6, we can say that:
• Dead 011 viscosity : the Em increased by about 9 percentage
points for extra heavy oils and decreased by 2.4 points for heavy
oils. The result for the heavy oils is very good and confirm the
general validity of the new corresponding correlation. For the
extra heavy oils the poor number of samples makes the results
less representatives. However results by Table 9 for extra heavy
oils are better than the corresponding by Table 6, relatives to the
best literature correlations.
• Saturated oil viscosity: Em increased by 7,2 percentage points
for extra heavy oils and by 8.7 points for heavy oils.
• Undersaturated oil viscosity : an increase of 1.9 percentage
points for the Em in the class of extra heavy and a decrease of OJ
points in the class of heavy oils confirm the general validity of
the new corresponding correlations.
NOMENCLATURE
API
Ci
Co
Ei
Em,AAE
GOR, Rs, Rtot
Log
Ln
Mi
N
OFYF, Bo, Bofb
Pb
Pr, P
Psp
Rst
Rsp
S.D
Tr, T
Tp
Tsp
YC02
YH2S
YN2
yg, GG(av)
ygcorr, GGcorr
651
Stock-tank oil gravity, °API
Calculated value
Isothermal compressibility of undersatutated oil,
psia-
I
Relative deviation between estimated and
experimental value, %
Average absolute error, %
Solution gas-oil ratio from flash'test, scf/STB.
Logarithm on base 10
Natural logarithm
Experimental value
Number of data points
Bubblepoint oil formation volume factor.
bbl/STB
Bubblepoint pressure, psia.
Reservoir pressure, psia.
Separator pressure, psia.
Stock-tank gas-oil ratio, scf/STB.
Separator gas-oil ratio, scf/STB.
Standard deviation
Reservoir temperature, OF.
Poor point temperature, OF
Separator temperature, OF.
Mole fraction of C02 in total surface gases, %
mol: Glaso's/4/ bubblepoint correlation.
Mole fraction of H2S in total surface gases, %
mol: G1aso's/4/ bubblepoint correlation.
Mole fraction of N2 in total surface gases, %
mol: Glaso's/4/ bubblepoint correlation
Average specific gravity of total surface gases.
Gas Specific gravity at separator pressure of
114.7 psia.
6 PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS FOR HEAVY AND EXTRA HEAVY OILS SPE 30316
ygPsp, GG(Psp),ysp Gas Specific gravity at any separator pressure.
yo, yost Stock-tank 011 specific gravity.
Vo Unqersalurated oil viscosity, cp.
!-lod, Vod Dead-oil or gas-free oil viscosity, cp..
!-lol, Vol Gas-saturated oil viscosity, cp.
81 FACTORS
• '( 141.5) =g/cm
3
131.5+° API ,
• Nm
3
/m
3
x 5.5519 = scf/STB
• KPa x 0.14504= psia
• psia - 14.7 = psig
• °C x 1.8 +32 =OF
• KPa -Ix 6.894757 = psia -I
• cp x 1,0 = mPa x s.
• bbl x 0: 1589873 = m
3
REFERENCES,
Standing MR: "Volumetric and Phase Behaviour of Oil Field
Hydrocarbon System", SPE-A.IMB, Ninth Printing(1981).
2 Standing M.B.: "Oil-System Correlations" PetrQl!Jwn Pro,d"ction
HandhQok, Frick 1'.C.(ed.), SPE, Richardson, TX (1962) Vol. 2,
Cap 19.
3 Standing M.B.: "A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for
Mixtures of California Oils and Gases," Drill & Prod, Prac:t., API
(1947), pp 275-87.
4 Lasater J,A.: "Bubble Point Pressure Correlation," Transaction
AIME (1958) 21.3, pp 379-81.
5 Chew J. & Connally C.A.:i'A Viscosity Correlation for Gas-
Saturatecl Crude Oils" Transactions AIMS, (1959) Vol. 216, pp
23-25. ,
6 Beggs RD. & Robinson J.R.:"Bstimating the Viscosity of Crude
Oil Systems" JPT, (September 1975), pp 1140-41.
7 Vasquez M.E. & Beggs H,D::"Correlations for Fluid Physical
Property Prediction," SPE 6719, (1977).
8 Glaso 0,: "Generalised Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Correlations" JPT (May 1980), pp 785-95.
9 Egbogah E.O. & Jack T.Ng: "An Improved Temperature-
Correlation for Crude Oil Systems," Journal of Petroleum Sc,ence
and Engineering,S (1990), pp 197-200.
10 AI-Marhoun M.A.: "PVT Correlations for Middle East Crude
Oils," JPT (May 1988), pp 650-66.
II Asgapur S., McLauchlin L., Wong D., Cheung V,: "Pressure-
Volume-Temperature Correlations for Western Canadian Gases
and oils" Petroleum Society of CIM, paper No 88-39-62 (1988),
pp 62-1/62-24.
12 Labedi R: "Use of Production Data to Estimate Volume Factor,
Density and Compressibility of Reservoir Fluids," Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 4 (1990), pp 375-90.
13 Kartoatmodjo T. "New Correlations for Estimating Hydrocarbon
Liquid Properties" (Thesis), The University of Tulsa, The
Graduate School, (1990)
14 Majeed G.H.A., Kallan R.Rand Salman N.H.: "New correlation
for estimating the viscosity of under saturated crude oils", Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology, (May-June 1990), Vol 29,
No.3, pp 80-85.
15 Rollins J.B., McCain W.DJr., Creeger J.T.: "Estimation of
SOlution GORof Black Oils", JPT (January 1990), pp 92-94.
16 Labedl R "Improved correlations for predicting the viscosity of
light crudes", Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 8
(1992), pp 221-234.
17 Petrosky G.B. Jr., Farshad F,F.: "Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils," SPB 26644, (1993),
pp 395-406.
18 Beal C.: "The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas, Crude Oil and
Its Associated Gases at Oil. Field Temperatures and Pressures," Oil
and Gas Property Evaluation and Reserve Estimates, Reprint
Series, SPE, Richardson, TX, (1970).
19 Siotle ill Frick T.C.: "Petroleum Production Handbook" SPE-
AIME, (1962), Vol 2.
20 Calhoun J.e. Ir: "Fundamental of Reservoir Engineering,"
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK (1947) 35.
21 Trube A.S.: "Compressibility, of Under saturated Hydrocarbon
Reservoir Fluids," Transaction AIMB (1957) 210, pp341-44.
22 Majeed G.H.A. & Salman N.H.: "An empirical Correlation for Oil
FVF Prediction," Joamal of Petroleum Technology.
23 Obomanu DA & Okpobori GA: "Correlating the PVT
Properties of Nigerian Crudes," Transaction ASME (987) Vol
109, pp 214-16.
24 Ali J.K.: "Evaluation of Correlation for Estimating the Viscosity
of Hydrocarbon. Fluids," Jo/lmal of Petroleum Science and
Engineeting, 5 (1991), pp 351-69.
25 Sutton RP. and Farshad F.: "Evaluation of Empirically Derived
PVT Properties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils," SPB Reser:voir
Engineering, (February 1990), pp 79-86.
26 Callegari A., De Ghetto G.:"Studio di Affidabilita di Correlazioni
per la Stima delle Proprieta di Oli di Giacimento," Agip (internal
report), (Gennaio 1992).
27 Lang KoR., Donohue D.AT., P.H.D., J.D" Senior Series
Editor:"PE 406-PetroleumEngineering IHRDC E and P Video
Library" edizione in Lingua Italiana a cura di G.Fiammengo
(LACH) e ADFO.M.R
28 Davis J,C.:"Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology", JoIln Wiley
& Sons, New Yark (1973), pp 54-127
29 Spiegel: "Statistics", Coli ana Schaum, (May 1976).
30 Chierici G.t.; Ciucci G,M., Sclocchi Vertical
Flow in Oils Wells-Prediction of pressure Drop," JPT (August
1974), pp 927-38, Transaction AIMS, 257. .
3rChierici G.L.:"Principi di Ingegnerla deiOiacimenti Petroliferi,"
Vol I, Agip-S.P.A, (settembreI 99l).
32 Paone F.: "Studio di Affidabilita delle Correlazioni che Stimano Ie
Praprietadegli Oli di Giacimento", Tesidi Laurea in Ingegneria
Minerarla, Universita degli Studi di Bologna, (13 ottobre 1993).
33 Closmann PJ., Seba R.D.: "A correlation of viscosity and
molecular weight," The Journal of Canadian Petroleum
Technology, (July-August 1990), Vol. 29, No.4, pp 115-116.
34 McCain W.D. Jr., "Reservoir-fluid property correlations-State of
the Art," SPE Reservoir Engineering, (May 1991), pp 266-272.
35 PUllagunta V.R., Miadonye A, B. Singh : "Simple .concept
predicts viscosity of heavy oil and bitumen," Oil & Gas Journal
(Mar. I, 1993), pp 71-73.
36 AI-Blehed M.S., Sayyouh M.H., Desouky S.M.: "API Gravity and
Viscosity Determine. Crude Oil Sulphur Concentration,"
Petroleum Engineer International, (June 1993), pp 56-60.
37 Singh B., Miadonye A, Puttagunta V.R.: "Heavy oil viscosity
range from one test," Hydrbcarbon Processing, (August 1993), pp
157-162.
38 McCain W,D. Jr.: "Chemical Composition Determines Behaviour
of Reservoir Fluids," Petroleum Engineer International, (October
1993), pp 18-25,
39 McCain W.D. Jr.: "Black Oils and Volatile Oils-What's the
Difference?" Petroleum Engineer Intemational, (November 1993),
pp 24-27.
652
SPE 30316 G. DE GHElTO, F, PAONE, M, VILLA 7
(A - 10)
• Heavy oils: Modified Kartoatmodjo's correlation
= 0.9886, ll
o
l +0,002763' (p - Pb),
-( -0,01153' +0,0316, (A - II)
where
YI?COI'r = YI?Prp '[1 + 0.1595, API 0.4078 '(TIP r0.2466, WI? ( P.rp J]
, '114,7
• Heavy oils: Modified Kartoatrnodjo'scorreJation
2
!-tol =-0,6311+1.078·F-O.003653·P (A-9)
where
F = (0.2478+ 0.6114 .10-0.000845' Rs), +0.5158· Y)
Y = 10-0.00081, Rs
[
0.4078 ( )- 0.2466 (P
sp
)]
Yl?corr=YI?Prp' 1+0.1595·API . TIp ·!.AII? --
, '114,7
6-Undersaturated oil viscosity:
• Extra-heavy oils: Modified Labedi's correlation
= [10-
2
.
19
. ,PbO,3132]]
Pb 10°,0099' API
2- Solution GOR:
• Extra-heavy oils: Modified Standing's correlation
(
Pb I (O,OI69'API-O,00156'T))1.1128
Rs =Y . --, ° (A - 2)
g 10.7025
• Heavy oils: Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation
1.2057
Rs= Ygcorr,Pb ,10
1O
.
9267
,API/(T+460) (A-3)
56.434
where
YI?corr = YI?PSP' [I +0.59t2' APT ·T.rp 'wI? (I }0-4]
3-Isothermal CompressiblIity:
• Extra-heavy oils: Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation
- 889,6+ 3, 1374, Rs+ 20, Tg - 627,3' YgcolT -81.4476· API (A _4)
Co = -----------:;----""''''''-----
Pg .10
5
t-Bubblepoint Pressure:
• Heavy oils: Modified Standing's correlation
[
0.7885
Y
R
g
S
100,0020'T
Pb = 15.7286, --..,...,-,.,....,..,-::- (A - 1)
I00,0 I42,API
APPENDIX A - MODIFIED CORRELATIONS
40 McCain W.O. Jr.. Bridges B.: "Volatile oils and Retrograde
Gases-What's the Difference?" Petroleum Engineer International,
(January 1994), pp 35-36,
= 2,3945+0,8927'F+O,001567'F
2
(A - 8)
where
(
1 1
-0,000845.RS) (0.5798+0.3432'y)
F= -0.0335+ .0785, 0 '!-tod
====================
y = 10-0,00081, Rs
YI?corr = YI?Prp '[I + 0, 1595, API 0.4078 , (T
rp
r0,2466 , [..<II? ( P
sp
)]
, '114,7
where
[ (
Poll' ) -4]
YI?COl'r = YI?PSP' 1+ 0.5912· API . T,rp . LOI? 114.7 10
• Heavy oils: Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation
-2841.8 +2, 9646· Rs+ 25.5439' Tg -1230.5· YgeOff +41.91· API
Co =-----------:;-----"':.::..:...---
Pg'10
5
(A - 5)
where
[ (
P.w J -4]
YI?COl'r = YI?Psp' 1+ 0,5912, API· T.rp . UII? 114.7 10
4-Dead-oil viscosity
• Extra-heavy oils: Modified Egbogah-.Tack's correlation
log .Iog(rl od + I) = I. 90296 - 0.012619· API - 0. 61748, log(Tg)
(A- 6)
• Heavy oils: Modified Egbogah-.Jack's correlation
log' log(1l od + I) = 2.06492 - 0.0179, API - 0, 70226.log(Tg) (A - 7)
5-Gas-saturated oil viscosity
• Extra-heavy oils: Modified Kartoatmodjo's correlation
653
TABLE 1: FLUIO PROPERTY CORRELATIONS
Fluid Property Correlation
BUbblepoint pressure Standing Lasater/'ll, Glaso
Kartoatmodjo 113/,Al_Marhoun1101
Solution GOR Standing, Vasquez-Beggs I'f/,
Kartoatmodjo,
Rollins-McCain-Creeger 1151
OFVFStanding, Vasquez-Beggs, Glaso,
Kartoatmodjo
Isothennal
compressibility
Dead-oil viscosity
Gas-saturated oil
viscosity
Undersaturated oil
viscosity
Vasquez-Beggs, Kartoatmodjo,
Labedi 1121, Petroslcy-Farsha<y1
71
Slotte flY/, Beggs-Robinson /l>!,
Glaso, Kartoatmodjo,
Egbogah-Jack!91, Labedi 116/
Chew-C01mally Beggs-Robinson,
Kartoatmodjo, Labedi /161
Vasquez-Beggs, Kartoatmodjo,
Majeed-Kattarl-Sahnan 1141,
Labedi 1161
TABLE 2: AGIP'S RANGE FORPVf PROPERTIES SAMPLE
Tank-oil gravity (0API) 6t022.3
Reservoir prl$$ure (psia) 1038.49 to 7411.54
Reservoir temperature (OF) 131.4 to 250.7
Solution GOR(sofYSTB) 17.21 to 640.25
Bubblepoint pressure (psia) 208.86 to 4021.96
Separator (psia) 14.5 to 752.2
SeparatQr temperature (OF) 59 to 177.8
Separator GOR(sofYSTB) 1I.l to $7$.62
Stock-tankGOR(set/STB) 4.39 to 311.41
Total sulface gas gravity (alr=l) 0.675 to 1.517
Separator gas gravity (alr=1) 0.623 to 1.517
Mole fraction ofCOz intotal gases (%mol.) 0.5 to 98.8
Mole fraction ofNz intotal gases (%mol.) Ot063.32
Mole fraction ofHZS intotal gases (%mol.) Oto 1.99
Oil formation volume fact9r (bbl/STB) 1.057to 1.362
Isothermal (psia-1x 10 6) 3.02· to 42.9
Dead-oil viscosity (cp) 7.7 to 1386.9
Gas-saturated oil viscosity (cp) 2.1 to 295.9
Undersaturated oil viscosity (cp) 2.4 to 354.6
654
0)
C1I
(]I
TABLE3: AUTIIOR'S DEFlNED RANGE FORBUBBLEPOINTPRESSURE, SOLUTION GOR, OFVF AND COMPRESSffiILITYCORRELATIONS
Standing Lasater Glas<> Kanoatmocljo Vasquez-Beggs Al-Mamoun Rollins-McCain Petrosky-Farsbad Labedi
Creeger
Tank-oil gravity (0API) 16.5 to 63.8 17.9 to 51.1 22.3 to 48.1 14.4to 58.95 15.3 to 59.5 19.4to 44.6 18to 53.5 16.3 to 45 32.2to 48
Bubb1epoint pressure (Psia) 130 to 7000 48 to 5780 165 to 7142 Oto6040 15 to 6055 130 to 3573 - 1574to 6523 520 to 6358
Reservoir temperature (OF) 100 to 258 82 to 272 80 to 280 75 to 320 170 (mean) 74to 240 - 114to 288 128to 306
OFVF at bubblepoint (bbl/STB) 1.024to 2.15
-
1.025 to 2.588 1.022 to 2.747 1.028to 2.226 1.032 to 1.997 - 1.1178 to 1.6229 1.088 to 2.92
Solution GOR(scf7STB) 20to 1425 3 to 2905 90 to 2637 Oto2890 Oto2199 26to 1602 - 217to 1406 -
Separator gas gravity (air-1)
- - - 0.4824to 1.668 0.511 to 1.351 - 0.579 to 1.124
- -
Total surface gas gravity (air-1) 0.59 to 0.95 0.574to 1.223 0.65 to 1.276
- - 0.752 to 1.367
- 0.5781 to 0.8519
-
Separator pressure (psia) 265 to 465 15to 60S 415 (mean) 100 60 to 565 - 29.7to 314.7
-
34.7to 789.7
Separator temperature (OF) 100 (mean) 34to 106 125 (mean) 38 tQ 294 76to 150
-
60 to 150
- 60 to 220
Reservoir pressure (psia) - - -
10 to 6000 141 to 9515 20to 3573 - 1700 to 10692
-
Stock-tank GOR(scf7STB) - - - - - - 4to220
- -
Separator GOR(scf7STB) - - - - - - 12 to 1742 - -
TABLE 4: A U f H O ~ S DEFlNED RANGE FORVISCOSITY CORRELATIONS
Beggs-Robinson Glas<> Kartoatmodjo Eg1>Ogah-Jack Labedi Chew-connany Vasquez-Beggs Majeed-Kattan
Salman
Tank-oil gravity (OAPI) 16to 58 20.1 to 48.1 14.4to 58.95 5to58 32.2to 48
-
15.3 to 59.5 15 to 51
Reservoir temperature (OF) 70 to 295 50to 300 80to 320 59 to 176 100 to 306 72to 292
- -
Reservoir pressure (psia) 15 to 5265 - 15 to 7171
- - - 141 to 9515 711 to 7112
Solution GOR(scf1STB) 20 to 2070
-
Ito 2044
- - 51 to 3544 9.3 to 2199 60 to 1334
Bubblepoint pressure (psia) - - - -
60 to 6358 132to 5645 498 to 4864
Dead-oil viscosity (cp)
-
0.616 to 39.1 0.5062 to 682 - 0.66 to 4.79 0.38 to 50
-
Gas-saturated oil viscosity(cp) - - 0.096 to 586 - 0.115 to 3.72 - 0.117to 148 0.093 to 20.5
TABLE5: EXPERIMENTALLY MEASUREDPVTDATA
18.0'
2l,21
5,8
2,1
4,;0j
8,8:
6,11
8.l!
2,61
295,91
90,3
171,41
2D8,S'
1Sl,8]
106.1:
2.40.0:
U8,O
lu,ol
116;31
85,6
106,S1

:1
19.11
81.7
8.31
19.8!
2l,3'
3S,3
2l,8,
23,3,
30,8
:1
65.4
69,4
69,9,
43,3'

Vol
0,00
0.10
0.001
0,00
0.001
0,001
,0.001
0.00
0;00,
O.OOi
0;00
0.001
0.00;
0.00
0,001
0.00,
0.00
0.001
0.
00
1.
0.00
0,00
0.001
O.OO!
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.001
0;00'
0,00
0.001
0.00
0,00
0.001
0,001
0,00.
0,00
0.001
0.00
1,82
0.10
0.41\
0,00'
0,00
0,001
0.00'
0;00
0,001
0.41,
0.00'
0,011
.
0,00.
1
'
0,32
0,00
0,91,
0.00
0;00
0.101
l.99
'0.00
0.001
YIi2s
0.65]
2,611
YII2
1,131
1,09
79.19
80,311
8031
82,38'
29.119
8U41
u.so
8,20
25.931
13,61'
47.01
14,561
64,56'
22,SO
4.89,
O.SO
66,49
13.86
13.751
66,01
'8l.64"
81.so
76,33'
19,59'
46,40'
55.119
G.4
1
1
0.48
2,90
49.741
0,53'
G.41
IG.951
0.60
11,51
so.041
31,83'
14.08
22,41,
12.511
=1
12,15,

8,11
98,88

38.78'
3l.3S
69.781
v_
59,0
104.0
90.0
133.
5
1
lS8.0,
::1'
,129,2
lS8.0'
1S8,O
158,0
118,81

115.
5
1
116,0
16,1
IS8,O
161,0
161.0'
161.0
122,
0
1
134.6,
18.8
116,6
86,01
122,0
IP4.0

100.4!
100.4
:':r
69.81
69.81
8M
69.81
10G,4
84,2
122,01
,5,2
1l,6
80.61
100,4'
15,6
69.8
104;0:
68,0,
100.4
86,0
0.6961
0;615:
l,429'
1,1
34
1
0;156
l.4'
0.7.
1.
4
151
1,491
1,334!
1,
410
1
l,419
1.
035
1
l,Z63,
l,29S
1,178
l,301l
1,344'
1,064
l,Z161
0.788
0.784!
1,188
l,S11:
'aY." T!
1,129
l,236]
0,81S
0.
810
1
0.735
1,2S3,

0.7161
0.1141
l,323:

1,206

1,292'
G.914
1,>###BOT_TEXT###21
1.
412
1
-1,406'
1,411
1.059
1,>11
1,.169
1,lilSl
1.0921
l,336'
. l,3411
1,333:
1.2S61
1,005
G.96:
1.06.
1,>1:
4,
14,881
10,27'
7.44

18.
49
1
6;05!
44;
42
1
53,58,
6,111
7,71
37.64
33.371
36.36,
30,31
11,05
34,53
33.03'
6,
72
1
28,2D,
$,94'
4,39
:1
48,19)
5.11
U,05
14.491
12,60'
U,66
11,55
311,41
12,88
88;83
31,651
3O,;6Si
l3,94
49,41
U,66:
12,TlI
16,54
U,6O
3G.1S
l3,2l
93.441
10.44,
S2,S8
lS,SS
31.65:
l3,2l
7.so
42,36
96,05'
168.3)1
16,32
11,10:
Rs
3121,13
1209,63
3598,44
6Z12,98
1149.18:
3428,15
5391,14
4808,081
4132,66:
3563.63'
4143.14
SSl8.11
4494.79'
4708.001'

4883.so:
4996,63
4908.IS]
4808.
08
:
4895.10'
2850.04'
2916,151
2893.551
S139.23'
2916.15
28S0,
04
1
Z8S8.14
48U,88'
2916,7;
430S,18
4519.4S!
4410.61:
2552.
10
1
3684,02
3121,53,
3121.53'
3784.09
4281,58
3328,61
1lS3,01
741l,S41
4813,34:
1411.54
104.'.49 .•1
1806.41
6SS1,2j;!
1792,26
1593.
12
1
187l',S4
1649.98:
721l.39
1934;4O
S305,5!i'
4238,01!
6921.11
187l',S4
ID7.421
1806.
41
1
1149.41
6856,04
Pr
I£.-.
141.
165;2
Z10,2

Z03,9:
165;2
215,
6
1
ZI0,2,
ZlS.6'
Z12,°1
Zl'7.4
=0
Zlo.°l
ZI'.4
154.8
161 .•0

154.81
153.1
ZI0,2]

208,0:
=.6'
Z11,6
183.ZI


201.7
1
214.01
203;0'
13l,4I'
ZI1,3
188,1
140.0'
250"1
194.0
2.44.4
163.4,
211.4
165,2:
l.Sll,0!
154.4
112,4
2.40.8,
171.8,
118.71
161.0:
231,81
17.G.6
2.44.0
163,41
lSO.8:
231,8:

19G,4,
188;81
179,6
134.1
6,
6,3]
6;51
7,3
7,5.
1,91
1,9:
8,0:
8,0
8.31

8.9
9.01
9;61
10.0,
10.5
1
IG.9
11,0
Il,O!


12,4
12,6
12,8]

14,6
14,9,
15,1,
21.3:
2l,3'
22,0
°API
1
Z
3
4
5
6
1
11
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
11
18
19
2D
21
22
23
2.4
25
Z6
Z1
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3S
39
40
41
4Z
43
44
45
46
41
48
49
SO
51
52
53
54
55
56
51
58
59
60
61
6Z
63
iPVT
0)
01
0)
0>
01
.......
TABLE 6: BESTRESULTS OFSTATISTICALANAllSYS PERFORMEDONAGIP'S SAMPLES
(AAE =Average AbSolute Error, %; SD = StandardDeviation)
°APIRange Bubbleooint pressure SolutionGOR OFVF Isothemla1
..
Author Standing Standing Glaso Vasquez-Beggs
<=lO
O
API AAE 9.1 13.7 1.3 38.7
SD 9.8 17.9 1.2 21.9
Author Standing Vasquez-Beggs Vasquez-Beggs Vasquez-Beggs
10 < °API <= 22.3 AAE 15.1 25.7 1.4 25.5
SD 13.9 45.9 1.1 19.2
Dead-oil viscositv Gas-saturated oil viscosi1rv Undersaturated oil viscositv
Author Egbogah-Jack. Kartoatmodjo Labedi
<=10
o
API AAE 30.3 14.7 12.3
SD 24.4 13.0 7.8
Author Egbogah-Jack. Kartoatmodjo Kartoatmodjo
10<°API <=223 AAE 41.8 16.1 10.1
SD 24.9 16.5 10.5
TABLE 7 : STATISTICALANAIlSYS PERFORMEDONMODIFIED CORRELATIONS
(AAE=AvenI2e Absolute Error,%; SD=StandardDeviatiOD, M = modified)
°APlRange Bubbleooint pressure SolutionGOR OFVF Isothemml
..
Author Standing M-Standing not investigated M-Vasquez-Beggs
<=10
O
API AAE 9.1 6.5 8.5
SD 9.8 4.5 5.0
Author M-Standing M-Vasquez-Beggs not investigated M-Vasquez-Beggs
10 < °API <=22.3 AAE 10.2 17.0 15.6
SD 8.1 11.3 10.7
Dead-oil viscositY Gas-saturated oil viscosi1rv Undersatnratedoil viscositv
Author M-Egbogah-Jack. M-Kartoatmodjo M-Labedi
<=10
o
API AAE 17.4 12.6 4.0
SD 8.9 10.0 3.4
Author M-Egbogah-Jack. M-Kartoatmodjo M-Kartoatmodjo
10 <oAPI <=22.3 AAE 37.8 ll.8 6.0
SD 21.9 9.9 7.2
TABLE8 : EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURIDDATAIIORVlSCOSITY INVESTIGATION
(. =sample fi'om literature)
PVTRepori °API Tr("J!) Pr(psla) Rs (sdISTB) Pb(psla) Vol
I 7.1 212,0 4911,05 82.17 554.05 278.5 124,7 228.3
2 7,5 203,0 4565.86 24,26 121,83 451,5 360.1
3 8.2 218,7 4876.24 144.02 796,27 203,5 77,3 132.7
4 8,2 218.7 4876,24 786.70 4993,73 222,4 20,1 21.0
5 9,0 117.5 2671.64 208.75 2364,15 3340,0 528.0
6 10.2 211.1 4715,25 189,87 1934.83 125.8 41,7 75.0
7 10,5 154,8 2850.04 345.55 2574.46 99.0 16,0 16,4
8 10,6 212,0 4766.01 91.66 781,77 130,6 78,9 137.0
9 10,6 212.0 4766.01 725.08 4993,73 148,8 9,3 10,7
10 11,2 154,8 2850,04 376.92 2858,74 100.2 15,0 15.0
11 !l.3 210,2 4589.07 202,09 2319,19 111.7 42.0 64.0
12 11.3 154,8 2850.04 370.76 2475,83 110,0 17,2 18,0
13 12.3 204,8 4509,29 227.63 2261,17 105,6 37,7 50,0
14 12,6 208,0 4805,18 736.57 4993,73 103.1 7,3 7,4
15 13,0 212,0 4993,73 127,42 1151.62 59.3 30,2 54.0
16 13,0 212,0 4993,73 300,52 2858.74 60.6 . .l7,4 23.0
17 13,0 212.0 4993;73 479,63 4993,73 57,4 11.9 11.9
18 ·13.0 212,0 4993,73 493,45 2858.74 75,0 17.0 22,9
19 13,0 212,0 4993,73 788,04 4993,73 75,3 7.2 7,2
20 13.6 215,4 4281,58 208,75 1650,56 53,4 19,6 .25,8
21 14.8 211,3 4281;58 228,41 2261,17 36,9 16,2 24,5
22 14.8 211,3 4281.58 292,31 2858,74 41,3 13,6 16,1
23 14,8 21l,3 4281,58 315.90 2858,74 40,0 10,5 12,2
24 14,8 2!l,3 4281,58 419.00 2858,74 32,7 9.1 15,6
25 14,8 2U,3 4281,58 444.10 4281,58 37.3 9,6 9.6
26 14,8 211,3 4281,58 465.64 4281,58 39,8 8,1 8,1
27 14,8 21l,3 4281,58 753,17 4281,58 40.9 5,2 5.2
28 15,0 211.3 4281,58 463,75 4281,58 14,2 14,2
29* 15,0 194.0 4978,21 195,59 71'1,13 4,7 7.1
30 15.1 207,5 4281,58 182,10 1763,69 56.3 21,8 30,8
31 15.1 207,3 4281,58 191,98 1834,76 55.6 18,9 25,5
32 16,0 21l,3 4281,58 189,82 1778,19 37,0 15,5 20.6
33 16,0 211,3 4281.58 215,91 1991,40 38.6 13,8 18,3
34 .16,4 212,0 4808,08 143,68 1038,49 24.5 12,7 19.0
35 17;8 193.1 3723,18 73,62 683,14 70.3 40,0 60.3
36* 17,9 180.0 4978;21 260,11 2417.96 3,4 4,4
37* 18,0 100.0 6400,62 247,23 2450.02 20,5 25,4
38* 18,2 170.1 4978,21 290,14 68,29 2,6 3.6
39 19,2 118,0 1182,08 109,93 797.72 273,0 80,6 86.6
40 19,0 149.0 1330.02 113,59 668,63 54,5 23,3 .25.0
41 19,0 217,4 6557,26 152,07 725,20 15,9 8,0 16.1
42 19,0 163,4 1807,20 229,46 1393.83 52.7 13,7 15,6
43 19,0 163,4 1807,20 256,44 1807,20 52,7 11,7 11,7
44 19,6 195,8 3375,08 198,31 1012,38 20,S 7,6 9,6
45* 20,0 180,0 5333,85 197,81 1066,77 5,2 7,7
46* 21.1 190,0 4978,21 437,10 2062,47 2,0 2,5
47 21,3 179,6 6272,98 252,56 6272,98 12.9 7,8 7.8
48 21.3 179,6 6272,98 702,70 2104,53 16,1 2,5 3,6
49 21,3 179,6 6272,98 832,06 6272.98 '.12,8 2,2 2,2
SO 21,7 202,5 4000,20 189,21 960,16 12,1 4.1 5,4
51* 21,7 170,1 5689,48 378,64 3747,83 1.7 2.1
52 21;8 201,0 3450,50 185,88 918,10 12,0 5.1 6.6
53* 21,8 177,8 4978,21 521,38 3136,34
\.3
1,5
54* 22,0 181,0 4978,21 412,51 1422.41 1.7 2,3
55* 22,0 193.8 4978,21 494,45 2560,25 1,9 2,3
TA13LE 9 : Statisticol RQsults ofViscosity Investigation
(ME = Avcralle Abs.Error,% SO = Stand. Oev., M= Modified)
°APIRonlle Vod Vol Vo
Author M-Egbogah M-Kartoalm. M-Labedi
<= 10 ME 26,4 19,8 5,9
SO 17,1 22,3 1,3
Author M-Egbogah M-Kartoalm. M-I<artoolm.
10 - 22.3 ME 35,4 20,5 5,7
SO 18,2 13,5 7
658
-
4000
-
-- -
-
-
..
..
..
..
-
-..
1000
..
0.JL..---1-----I----+----l-----!
o
..
1000
Fig.!: Bubblepoint pressure, best correlations from literature Fig. 2: Bubblepoint pressure, present work
730,-----------------------;( 730,----------------------Jf
.lOll .lOll
I I
I
"
I
.
" ..
250 250
."
730
l\I!ASUlID (1.1181'8)
730
Fig. 3: Solution GOR, best correlations from literature Fig. 4: Solution GOR, present work
\l 10
MUSUlID(I",I'IA"")
o.JL..------+--------I--------l
o
13,----------------------.,(
10
MYABl,JIlID(1",... 11 &t,)
13,.---------------------.,(
! 10
r
o
~
"
~ 1
I I
I
••
t
Fig. S: Isothermal compressibility, best correlations from literature
659
Fig. 6: Isothennal compressibility, present work
100 100
i i
I

I
10 .0

1000 100 10
.000,.-------,-------r------'71
1000 100 10
I
I
.ooo-r-------,--------,-------,t
Fig. 7: Dead-oil viscosity, best correlations from literature Fig 8: Dead-oil viscosity, present work
.000 100 10
10 +------**'--.------1-------1
looo-r-------,-------,------'71
I
1000 '00 10
10+-_- -df-L-,..,.-- __;


I
Fig. 9: Gas-saturated oil Viscosity, best correlations from literature Fig. 10: Gas-saturated oil viscosity, present work
'00 100
i i
I I
10 10
1000 100 .0
1000 -r-'----I----,-------,------71
'000 100 '0
.ooo,------..,..------.......
Fig. 11: Undersaturated oil viscosity, best correlations froni literature
660
Fig. 12: undersaturated oil viscosity; presentwork
1000
1000,.-------,-------,-------7f
1,4 1,3
1,4
( I ~

§
Li
••
I
10
~ I
MrABUlDl lWJ$11l) MrMUlDl«,)
Fig. 13: Bubblepoint OFVF, best correlations from literature Fig. 14: Gas-saturated oil viscosity, best correlations
from literature (input dead-oil Viscosity calculated)
10-22.3
API
Ran ge
< 10
Standing
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Average absolute error
Fig. 15 Bubblepoint pressure correlation: comparlsonofbest results
A PI
Range
10-22.3
< 10
V asquoz-B oggs
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Average absolute error
Fig. 16 Solution OORcorrelation: comparison ofbest results
API
Range
10-22.3
<: 10
V asquoz-B eggs
Vasquoz-Boggs
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Average absolute error
Fig. 17 Isothermal compressibility correlation: comparison ofbest results
661
API
Ran ge
10-22.3
< 10
o 10 20 30 40
Bgbogah·lao!<
50
API
R aoge
10-22.3
< 10
Av'e .. age absolute e .... o ..
Fig. 18 Dead"OjJ viscosity correlation: comparison ofbest results
K artoatm odjo
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
A PI
Range
10-22.3
< 10
Ave .. age absolute e .... o ..
Fig. 19 Oas-saturated oil viscosif,y correlation: comparison ofbest results
Lobedl
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
AVeJ'jlge absolute e .... o ..
Fig. 20 Undersaturated oil viscosity correlation: comparison ofbest results
662

solution gas-oil ratio (GOR) at bubble point. API. utiliSe the viscosity II ~I . as a function of crude oil API gravity. The new correlations were developed using the functional form ofthe previously published ones which gavethe best estimate. has been affected by an average error of less than 3%. as 1I function of Tr. The correlation is derived from plotting (Pr-Pb) VS(/lo·ll0l) on 1I 10g. the average error increased to 114.}acW91 proposed two different correlations for estimating /lod. with care. 110 and Co asa function of measurable parameters such as Tr.. from known values of. 6004 data points were use".TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS FOR HEAVY AND EXTRA HEAVY OILS SPE30316 In 1947 Standlng/ll2/31 published two correlations for determining.t lines of a constant slope whose interpepts could be represerted as a function of API lind GOR.oil viscosity (/-lod) and GOR. llod. distributed into two groups (less than 30 o API and greater than 30 API) because ofvarilltions in the voilltility of crude oil. McLauchlin. California and Alaska and a reason. OFVF and GOR (atand below bubblepoint) as a function of 'Yg. Most of them were extracted byPVT reports from South East Asia. USA and South America. GOR .27%. Pb.oped an empirical equation to estimllte stock-tank GOR liS a function . Vasquez and Beggs' also investigated the viscosity (f. oil gravity ('Yo) and gas gravity ('Yg).convert OFVF lIOd GOR from differentilll to flash liberation process at the separator condition. The Authors found 'Yg to be a strong correlllting pllrameter in the development of the GOR correlation. The second one introduced a new pammeter to estimate the llod: the pour point temperature (Tp) which is. 105 experimentally determined data points on 22 different crude-oil/natural-gas mixtures from California were used.log pllper. western and midcontinental U. In 1988 Marhoun/lOI published empirical correlations for estimllting Pb. OFVF lit bubblepoint and totlll OFVF for the Middle East crude oils. Tr and GO~. Only the correlation for Pb has been considered in this work. /lol. KlIrtoatmodjostated that these correlations are applicable to a flash process only. 1101. a correlation to normalise 'Yg to a separation pressure of 114. PI' and Tr. which can be easily done in the field by flashing the well directly to the stock-tank.64% for the dead-oil viscosity correlation was found when tested against the data used for its work. A total of 69 PVT 648 0 . The data-bank for the development of correlations consisted of lIbout one hundred Illboratory lInalyses. Labedi also publishedll relationship between differential and flash API. In all. respectively. API and GOR. total surface gas grllvity. The first one was a modified Beggs and Robinson correllltion obtained by using 394 011 systems from Illboratories of AGAT EngIneering. In 1988 Asgarpour. oil density at and below bubblepoint. It was necessary to. rep~esenting the fluids of the entire producing reservoirs in Libya. A total of about 1400 different samples were used to develop the correlations. using 4486 data points for the Co correlation lind 3593 data points for the 110 correlation.1Ind Pbcorrelatlons were developed using both f1l1sh vllporlsation data and differentilll vllporislltiondatll. 'Yo. this reilltion makes it possible to. The OFVF. In total. and API. Each equation developed is a function of easily"obtainable dlltll. Even if the API used in all of the oil viscosity correlations developed in this study WllS obtained by flashing the fluid sample to the atmospheric pressure. The solution GOR. separator gas gravity (GGPsp). GOR and API gravity. 158 experimentally measured bubblepoint pressures from 137 independent crude oil systems from Canada. and CreegerllSI devel. Ltd. Applying these equations to a differentilll process might lelld to errors of up to 20%. The correlation for /lod was developed from data obtained from 26 crude 011 samples! In 1988 Egbogah and . Although the average errors of the correlations are very low. Because the first two correlations were developed using datll from 45 oil samples with parafflnicities equivalentto North Sea oils. PVT data for 128 samples were collected from Libya. all equations previously published correlate /lol to llod lind GOR In this study /lol is a direct function of llod. the paper has not been considered In this work since information about the geological formation of crude oil samples Were not available. Kattan arid SaIman/141 proposed a newgenetal corre1lltion for estimating /l0 liS 1I function of PI'. the Authors believed that important chemical compositional lIspects of crude 011 could be considered in the viscosity correlation by introdUcing this parameter. In 1990. analyses of bottomhole fluid samples were available for the development of correlations.Pr and Tr. as a function of easily-measurable field data as firststage separator pressure and GOR. such as API. OFVF find llod. the relation between 1101and the corresponding 11 od is a straight line on logarithmic co-ordinates. temperature (Tr). parameters more easily-' measurllble in the field than GOR. GOR. The Author also presented a correlation to . The correlation was obtained using a logarithmic model on a totlll of 301 blllck oilsampll)s. obtllined by lidding the stocktank GOR from equlltion to the field-determined separator GOR. 'Yg. In 1958 Lasater /41 presented a new correlation for Pb. by definition. /121 In 1989 Labedl published a new set of equations for estimating OFVF.13%). In 1977 Vasquez and Beggs/7/ presented correlations for predicting GORand OFVF of a gas-saturated crude oil. presented' new empirical correlations (or predicting OFVF. Pb. (the latter converted to f1l1sh using tile above mentioned conversion factor). reservoir temperature and pressure (Pr). and because this information is not easy to gain on field. Since Tp is not an easlly-mellsurable pllrameter on field the latter correlation has not been investigated in this study. McCain Jr. In all. Only the compressibility correlation has been considered in this stUdy. thebubblepoint pressure (Pb) and the oil-formation volume factor (OfiVF) at bubblepoint.lo) and the isothermal compressibility (Co) of under saturllted oils. In particulllr. an adjustment to the API gravity term was suggested for using the correllltions with oilsofa different compositional nature.of separator pressure lind temperature (Psp. The study showed that at a fixed GOR. Because Tp seemed to be related to crude oil paraffin content (it increases with the pamffin conten!). In 1990 R~l1ins. API and PI'.3% vs. N2 and H2S in the totlll surface gllSes. The correlation was developed using 253 experimentally determined oil viscosity values on 41 different oil samples from North Afrlcll and Middle-East oil reservoirs. -5. different geological formations. The equations resulted from a study of 2533 viscosity measurements involving 600 different crude oil systems. When tested against 93 cases from literature. /61 In 1975 Beggs and Roblnson published two new correlations for calculating /lodand llot. and Co of the African reservoir fluids. the lowest temperature at which the oil is observed to flow. /lol and 110. Because the physical properties of each geological formation in Western Canada exhibited different behaviour.7 psia was also developed by the Authors and tested agllinst 124 data points from 27 different fluids. The average error of the equation with Tp was slightly lower thlln the modified Beggs lind Robinson correlation (-4. Wong and Cheungll11 presented a new set of correlations to estimate Pb. GOR and API. . Because 'Yg is dependent on the conditions under which theglls is separated from oil. Nigeria and Angola reservoirs. with regard to the 1101 correilltion.S" and South America were used in his work. The Authors did not explain the reason for the large errors but simply warned that the extrapolation outside the range of the data used to develop the correlation should be done.able group from literature. In 1990 Majeed. The correlation was developed from 457 crude oil samples from Canada. The plot shown a s~ries of strllig. Olaso 1I1so provided a method for correcting the predicted Pb for the presence of C02.2 PRESSURE-VOLUME. In 1992 Labedj/161 published a new set of correIlItlons to predict /lod. An accuracy of -0. reservoir. In 1980 GIaso/81 presented correlations for estimating Pb. 'Yg. develop correlations for 3. Kartoatrnodjo . API lind G(}Psp. Tsp). as a function of Tr. The correlations were based on more than 310 different crude oil samples from Western Canada. In 1959 Chew and Connally/51 proposed a correlation to predict the gas-saturated' oil viscosity (1101) as a function of dead..

the North Sea and some parts of North and South America.5% for heavy oils to 38.__Em]2 N-I (3) The correlation providing the smallest Em value was judged to be the best. measured (Mi) . a selection was made excluding those lacking all the input data necessary to use PVT correlations. Authors found that their correlations could predict the PVT properties with average absolute errors ranging from 0. Oil formatio" volume factor at bubhlepoint Of the seven properties analysed. This was made because no literature correlations are available for oils with API < 14.17? gave errors of less than half of those indicated by the Authors . M. Only the compressibility correlation has been considered in this work. Table I shows schematically the Authors and the relative correlations considered for each property examined. For this reason all the analysed correlations were applied over the range of input data reported by the Author's. dead-oil viscosity. of which the starting point was the relative deviation between estimated and experimental value (Ei). It does not however include' those correlations which require. it was decided to show a single diagram which gathers the best results obtained for individual classes of oil . in order to ensure that the conclusions obtained from this analysis would be generally valid and have an extensive applicability to wide range of operative situations.9.J. m £""i~1 N (2) SD = L i:. the API gravity was chosen in this study among all the different parameters used for classifying oils. F. the extremes of the ranges oils/ which identify the class can vary as there is no universally recognised classification. this one was estimated in the best way. II. the lowest errors being greater than 30%. in this study it was decided to analyse separately oils with API < 10 mainly for the following reasons: • variations in the properties of crudes depend chiefly on the presence of the most heavy hydrocarbons126127/:18/39/40/ After having calculated the Ei for all the available samples. The qualitative analysis carried out by means of diagrams was accompanied by a statistical analysis. Starting exclusively with the PVT studies carried out over the last 30 years on Agip oils..[E I .7. In this way.1% for extra-heavy oils and 15. for the two API gravity classes. but they should be used within the limit of input data.value diagrams were created for each parameter studied in order to have a clear and immediate view of the behaviour of each correlation. When equal Em was found for more correlations. VILLA 3 data from the samples that are not flashed to the atmospheric pressure.4 (see tables 3 and 4). For reasons of space. Table 6 provides the best results obtained from the statistical analysis. gas-saturated oil viscosity. especially 649 .. relative to each correlation. a very heterogeneous sample of 63 crude oils was Set up.3. representative of diverse reservoir conditions. The errors are very high. RESULTS OF RELIABILITV ANALYSIS PERFORMED ON AGiP'S SAMPLES All the results are discussed with reference to Table 6 and to figures 1. Vasquez-Beggs's correlation gave the best performance for the both classes.66% for Co. Table 2 lists the range of input and output parameters of all Agip's oil samples While Table 5 reports the experimentallymeasured PVT data involved in the present study (about 1200 data points). for the different parameters estimated.-==.. not all the calculated-value vs. therefore Agip's oil sample was divided into 2 different classes of API gravity as follows: • extra-heavy oils 0 API S. No analyses were made for the whole group because it is plausible that samples belonging to the same class are physically and chemically more comparable than samples from different classes. The highest errors did not exceed 1. 10.11. The 63 oils come from the Mediterranean Basin. The correlations were developed specifically for Gulf of Mexico crude oils but Authors said that the same equations could be used in other regions of the world. Solutio" gas-oil ratio The best results are provided by the Standing and Vasquez-Beggs correlations with errors of 13. [sot/. Africa and the Persian Gulf. oil formation volume factor and solution gas-oil ratio at bUbblepoint.7. Tables 3 and 4 list the range of input and output parameters upon which each Author based the development of his correlation (Author's defined range).. Calculated (Ci) vs... OFVF and Co. The new correlations can be applied to other geographical areas such as the Middle East. except for viscosity. oil companies have become increasingly interested in reservoirs with the extra-heavy oils/35 /37/.---=:. The reliability of each correlation and for each parameter was therefore tested for each API gravity class. • there are no correlations in literature which cover the range of oils with 0 API S. thus defined: EI=lq~IMII'IOO (1) This work analyses the most well-known correlations described in literature for estimating PVT properties such as bubblepoint pressure.3 The second class correspond to a standard classification of 30/3110n the basis of the API gravity.13 and 14. as a function of commonly available field data. In this study it was decided to extent the Labedi's correlations to heavy and extra heavy oils. made on crude oils extracted from reservoirs offshore Texas and Louisiana were used to develop the correlations.SPE 30316 G. 22. The diagrams for each property estimated are shown in figures 1.9.64% for OFVF to 6. Below is a discussion of the results obtained for each property estimated. DE GHETI'O. measured-value graphs.7% for heavy oils. GOR. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ON LITERATURE CORRELATIONS • in the past few years.7% for extra-heavy oils and 25.3. Vasquez-Beggs's correlatt.5.5%.5. the lowest standard deviation value defined the best one. Dead-oil viscosity The estimation of this property exhibited the highest error. Instead. For this reason.e. but differentially liberated. The density of an oil is a fundamental characteristic as it reflects its chemical composition. on which all the fluid's main properties depend. i. the dispersion ofthe Ei around their average value Em' using the following equations: E=~N§. 13 and 14.1% for heavy oils. A total of 81 laboratory pvr analysis. . in particular they should not be extrapolated for crudes of less than 32 °API.. In 1993 Petrosky and Farshad/ 17/ presented new empirical PVT correlations for estimating Pb. parameters which are not easily measurable on field or not obtainable from PVT reports. PAONE. as input data. have been included in this paper. 10 • heavy oils 10< 0 API S. The reliability study was carried out using graphic and statistical instruments. except for dead-oil viscosity (Egbogah-Jack correlation). under saturated oil viscosity and isothermal compressibility. Even if the class of "extra heavy oils" does not compare in the standard classifications.ermal compressibility The estimation errors range from 25.7 for extra-heavy oils. results were subjected to a statistical analysis calculating the average arithmetical value (Em) of the Ei and their standard deviation (SD). Bubblepoint pressure Standing's correlationIl/2/3/ has given the best results with average errors of 9.:=.

characterise the phenomenon better than the inputs of the dead-oil viscosity COAPI and reservoir temperature).the greater the correlation error. For this reason.. Comparing th~ diagrams in fig. In fact oils from the same class are more comparable than oils from different classes.ased from a minimum Of 10 to a maximum of 30 percentage points for extra-heavy oils. The new equations redl1ced the estimation error from a minimum of 7.9 percentage points (see Tab.5 and 6 it can seen that the greatest improvements were obtained for compressibility between 5 and I0 x 10"6 psia" I. especially. (he new. Gas.as the estimation of t'1is property carried out using the equations chosen(rom literature was felt to be very satisfactory. is the property calculated in the worst way. are still present. to The results of Tab. I and 2 it Can be seen that the most significant improvement in the new correlation is in the pressure range below 2000 psia.ltions used .vothermal compressibility The mode] to regress was Vasquez-Beggs' correlation for both the classes of oils. RESUJ"TS OF RELIAPIl. the viscosity. l. The new correlations reduced the estimation errors of 4. Figure 9 shows the distribution of the points calculated with the beSt correlations where the input varlables (dead-oil viscosity and solution gas~oi1 ratio) are measured values obtained from PVT reports. It is likely that the input variables which estimate the reservoir oil viscosity (bubble point pressure. Undersaturated oil viscosity The best correlations showed a maximum error of 12. 6 and 7) for the class of heavy oils.as model were those of Standing for extra-heavy oils and Vasqu~z"Beggs for heavy oils. not being a state property also depends on the behaviour of the fluid.15 to 20). Since the correlations which estimate the viscosity values at different pressures are all inter-connected~ the lower the estimation error of the dead-oil viscosity. new equations were proposed only for each API gravity class and not for all the group of ' Agip'soils. prepared in the same way as those for the analysis on the litlJrature equations. showedexcel1ent results even for the other classes of oil. . the same grap!\ic-statistical . In order to test the reliability of the modified. the better the estimation ofthe gas-saturated oil viscosity. This behaviour is justifiable bearing in mind that the correlations estimate this property with only two input variables: 0 API and reservoir temperature.instruments as those in the previous stpdy were used. and 12.sahtrated oil viscosity The average errors of the best correlations range between 14% and 16%. All the correlations assume that the fluid can be considered Newtonian.equations.ficiently reliable. '7 obtained for the different properties are shown below. The comparison between the diagrams in fig. The dead-oil viscosity is the most critical property to estimate with empirical' equations. the numerical coefficients of the different equations were re-calculated by applying multiple. in fact.. 4). a quantity estimated by using measured input variables will undoubtedly be more reliable than one estimated with calculated inputs. The correct measurement of this property is difficult to achieve even in the laboratory. having given results worse than the starting model. relative to the undersaturated oil viscosity which have the gas-saturated oll viscosity among the inputs. The observations made can be naturally and easily extended to al1 the other properties. Standing's correlation was . Solution gas-oil ratio The equl. The modified correlati~ns were obtained for (lach class ofd(lnsity into which the Agip's oil sample was divided.is not shown. The regression of VasquezBeggs' equation was carried out keeping fixed the equation of the 'Ygcorr. more adequately. Noteworthy is the increase in dispersions ofthe points around the bisector which corresponds to an average error increase of morethlln 15 percentage points. reservoir pressure and GOR). The greater the error on this inpllt. Theerror decre. Bubblepoint pressure The starting models used for improving the estimate of this property was Standing's correlations for the both classes of oils. in order to be able to compare the two sets of graphs.. the average errors in determining PVT properties are still high. equations (extra heavy oils). especially where high viscosity are concerned. estimate the same property. one for each class.2 to a maximum of 8. 4. Regression in the class of extra-heavy oils.3% (Labedi. 6. The difference is due to the fact that by including a calculated rather than a measured input in an equation. 10. In order to allow an easy interpretation of the results obtained with the reliability. however. and then the availability of two different equations. Dead-oil viscosity The models chosen was' Egbogah-Jack's correlation for the both classes.lTY ANALYSIS Pf.8. which on the other hand.4 PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE CORRELAnONS FOR HEAVY AND EXTRA HEAVY OILS SPE 30316 with regard to the class of heavy oils. The results obtained are shown in Table 7 and in fig. for estimating oils' bubblepoint pressure with o API < 10. values higherthan30% (heavy oils). In some cases. for each PVT property. the best results of the statistical analyses. this was done every time the starting model was a Vasquez-Beggs correlation.RFORMED ON MODIFIED CORRELATIONS. Figure 14 shows the results of the same corr('llations where the Calculated value was used as input data of the' dead-oil viscosity.7 percentage points. The best results were provided by Kartoatmodjo's correlations. Each histogram shows the value of the most important statistical parameter (Em' average absolute error) for the two classes of oil·' into which the sample was divided. Maintaining the same Junctional pattern of the starting model.studies performed in this work. extra-heavy oils). To attempt to estimate a quantity 650 . The study did not take into consideration the cOt1:(llations which estimate the oil formation volume factor at bubble point . On the other hand. 2. but this is not always true. In fact. Appendix A shows the analytical form o( the new correlations. the exclusions never exceeded 5% of the entire group. and are Compared with those of Table 6.when oils are beyond the Author's defined range. Note that Labedi'scorrelation/16/which had in fact been gauged with oils with °API >32 (Tab. are compared in a histogram for each PVT property (see fig. For this reason the need to improve the reliability of the literature correlations has been recognised. is certainly more reliable than a single correlation for all the sample. with Nfprs comparable with those found by the Author in his own work . This set of new equations provided the most significant improvements. The same applies to the correlations. Comparing the diagrams in fig. linear and non-linear regressions by means of the SAS program which carries out these regression analyses using the minimum squared m(lthod. It should also be pointed out that the error in estimating the viscosity normally beCOmes smaller and smal1er as we go from atmospheric pressure viscosity to reservoir pressure viscosity. the estimation error of the equation in some way combines with that made on the calculated input even if the latter has been calculated with the best correlation.considered slJf.3 and 4 shows that the most obvious improvements were in the GOR range beJow2?0 scf/STB. have been used as models for a best-fit activity aimed at improving the accuracy of literature correlations in predicting PVT properties for typical Agip's oils. This proves' the importance of correctly determining the dead-oil viscosity. provided by the Authors. it was necessary to eliminate some samples from the class being analysed in order to make the regression more reliable. The functional forms of the correlations that in the previous reliability analysis on Agip's samples gave the best results. although' the errors dropped down to 13 percentage points with. DEVELOPMENT OF MODIFIED CORRELATIONS The results obtained from the above-explained reliability analysis shows that.. except for the OFVF correlation.

The results of the statistical analysis. % mol: Glaso's/4/ bubblepoint correlation Average specific gravity of total surface gases. The diagrams in figures 7 and 8 compare the trend between the old and the new equations. except for viscosity. OF. OF. 1I and 12. Co and !lod estimates were less precise: the maximum errors were about 26%. 17. The regression reduced the estimation error from a minimum of 2. F. To make more representative the results of this analysis. The complete data bank is given in Table 8. VILLA 5 of this kind using equations which only use two input variables (0 API and reservoir temperature) becomes even more difficult. show that the improvements are distributed along the entire viscosity range. scf/STB. For the Kartoatmodjo's correlation. The proposed new equations for such oils provide average error of 6. Rtot Log Ln Mi N OFYF. Diagrams in fig. The result for the heavy oils is very good and confirm the general validity of the new corresponding correlation. NOMENCLATURE The new modified correlations have been obtained analysing Agip's oils sample. PAONE. we can say that: • Dead 011 viscosity : the Em increased by about 9 percentage points for extra heavy oils and decreased by 2. psia. OF Separator temperature. a group of 45 oils samples. This analysis involved only the viscosity correlation because of lack of literature data about the estimation of the others PVT properties. !lol and ~lO exhibited maximum errors of about 15%. For the extra heavy oils the poor number of samples makes the results less representatives. collected from the Agip's viscosity measurements reports.5% for isothermal compressibility. gave the best results for the estimate of the OFVF. API Ci Co Ei Em. with maximum errors lower than 1. T Tp Tsp YC02 YH2S YN2 yg. The GOR.5% for solution GOR. has been added to the oils from literature. 16% and 12% respectively. 10). bbl/STB Bubblepoint pressure. which compare the trend of the old and new equations.2 percentage points for extra heavy oils and by 8.9 percentage points for the Em in the class of extra heavy and a decrease of OJ points in the class of heavy oils confirm the general validity of the new corresponding correlations.two measurements taken on the same sample by two different equipment.fcosity The models to regress were Labedi's correlation for extra heavy oils and Kartoatmodjo's correlation for heavy oils.6% for gas-saturated oil viscosity and 4% for undersaturated oil viscosity. The diagrams in fig. The estimates of Pb. • The new PYT correlations proposed in the paper gave errors lower.AAE GOR. psia. 651 . 12. In any case. However results by Table 9 for extra heavy oils are better than the corresponding by Table 6. 39% and 42% respectively. scf/STB. °API Calculated value Isothermal compressibility of undersatutated oil. FURTHER INVESTIGATtON ON THE NEW MODIFIED CORRELATION THAT ESTIMATE THE VISCOSITY CONCLUSIONS • The reliability analysis of the literature PVT correlations carried out on 63 oil samples from Mediterranean Basin. It is believed that the new correlations are sufficiently extendible as they were obtained on a very heterogeneous sample of oils. it was decided to test the new equations using a new group of oils collected from literature. For this reason it was possible to collect from literature only 10 oil samples. the multiple non·linear regression was carried out by keeping the equation supplied by the Author fixed for the input variable ygcorr. has shown that the results obtained with the new equations have a general validity. gauged in the same way. Logarithm on base 10 Natural logarithm Experimental value Number of data points Bubblepoint oil formation volume factor. performed on a new different group of oil samples (from literature and Agip's reports). Africa and Persian Gulf. the new correlation revealed an error lower than 30 percentage points. 7).I Relative deviation between estimated and experimental value.4% for dead-oil viscosity. • A deep literature review has shown that. scf/STB. Comparing this results with those listed in Table 7 and. Poor point temperature. Gas-saturated oil viscosity The starting model for the regression was Kartoatmodjo's correlation for the both classes. 8. particularly in the range of high viscosity. are normal. GGcorr Stock-tank oil gravity.4 points for heavy oils. In this wayan heterogeneous sample of 55 oils has been obtained.D Tr. Mole fraction of H2S in total surface gases. Bo. relatives to the best literature correlations. there are no PVT correlations for extra-heavy oils (0 API :s. Mole fraction of C02 in total surface gases. psia. M. P Psp Rst Rsp S. Standard deviation Reservoir temperature. performed on this sample using the same statistical index as before. This procedure was also followed for the other properties whenever the starting model was one of Kartoatmodjo's equations. 9 and 10 show that the new correlations improve the estimate in the range between 10 and J00 cpo Undersaturated oil Vi. Mole fraction of N2 in total surface gases. differences of 10% between . • Saturated oil viscosity: Em increased by 7. DE GHETTO. A deep literature review has shown that the Author's are usually reluctant to pUblish the oil data bank used for testing their correlations. GG(av) ygcorr. Reservoir pressure. Stock-tank gas-oil ratio. In particular. with data available for the only viscosity correlation analysis. % mol: Glaso's/4/ bubblepoint correlation. not even laboratory measurements of viscosjty can be considered completely reliable: in fact. The new equations brought the maximum estimation error to 6% (Tab. % mol: G1aso's/4/ bubblepoint correlation. Since the extra heavy oils are only 5. • A further investigation of the new modified correlations. secondly.5%. Separator gas-oil ratio. They reveal that the most significant improvements are to be found in the range of viscosity greater than 10cp. • Undersaturated oil viscosity : an increase of 1. % Average absolute error.SPE 30316 G. for the isothermal compressibility of extra-heavy oils.7 psia. For a more general validity of the results obtained in the previous analysis. Gas Specific gravity at separator pressure of 114.7 points for heavy oils. Bofb Pb Pr. results obtained in this class have to be considered not as representatives as those of the heavy oils class (50 samples). Separator pressure. are given in Table 9. on average.1 (extra heavy oils) to a maximum of 403 (heavy oils) percentage points (see Tables 6 and 7). % Solution gas-oil ratio from flash'test. than 10 percentage points when compared with the best literature correlation for each PVT property. Rs. Table 6. psia.

33 Closmann PJ.14504= psia • psia . Stock-tank 011 specific gravity. (13 ottobre 1993). J. • Nm3/m 3 x 5. TX (1962) Vol.. Jr.B..: "PressureVolume-Temperature Correlations for Western Canadian Gases and oils" Petroleum Society of CIM.: "Generalised Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations" JPT (May 1980). (1970). 2 Standing M.K..Fiammengo (LACH) e ADFO. Natural Gas.H. Ninth Printing (1981).:"Principi di Ingegnerla deiOiacimenti Petroliferi." Vol I.A.S. (February 1990). OK (1947) 35.IMB. 652 . SPE-A. Puttagunta V. II Asgapur S.concept predicts viscosity of heavy oil and bitumen.H. pp 395-406.E. B. & Jack T.A..B. (July-August 1990). 216. cp. 10 AI-Marhoun M. 81 MET~IC CONVE~SION FACTORS • '( 141.8 + 32 =OF • KPa -Ix 6. Jr. JoIln Wiley & Sons. 3 r Chierici G.:"Two~Phase Vertical Flow in Oils Wells-Prediction of pressure Drop. 36 AI-Blehed M.14. pp 115-116. 17 Petrosky G. 7 Vasquez M. (1993). 1993).H. Jr. Unqersalurated oil viscosity.: "The Viscosity of Air. • bbl x 0: 1589873 = m3 REFERENCES.A. "New Correlations for Estimating Hydrocarbon Liquid Properties" (Thesis). Miadonye A. Dead-oil or gas-free oil viscosity. (May 1991). cp.: "A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of California Oils and Gases." JPT (May 1988).C. pp 379-81. No. pp 341-44. (August 1993).M." Journal of Petroleum Sc.. (May-June 1990). (June 1993). No. 22 Majeed G. TX.P.7 = psig • °C x 1.5+° API . 30 Chierici G." SPE 6719. 13 Kartoatmodjo T.. Sayyouh M. Reprint Series. . . Cap 19. pp 92-94. 8 (1992). Fluids.D" Senior Series Editor:"PE 406-PetroleumEngineering IHRDC E and P Video Library" edizione in Lingua Italiana a cura di G.D::"Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction." SPB 26644. pp 351-69. De Ghetto G. 20 Calhoun J. Tesidi Laurea in Ingegneria Minerarla.). Cheung V. Farshad F. 35 PUllagunta V.: "Compressibility. Richardson.: "Evaluation of Empirically Derived PVT Properties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils. Miadonye A. (1959) Vol. 2.AT." Oil and Gas Property Evaluation and Reserve Estimates. The Graduate School. 6 Beggs RD. pp 650-66.DJr.: "Petroleum Production Handbook" SPEAIME.. McLauchlin L.B. 8 Glaso 0. 23 Obomanu DA & Okpobori GA: "Correlating the PVT Properties of Nigerian Crudes. (1962). API (1947).:"Bstimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems" JPT. 257. 37 Singh B. 5 Chew J. pp 62-1/62-24. Norman. Ciucci G.S (1990). & Salman N.M.:i'A Viscosity Correlation for GasSaturatecl Crude Oils" Transactions AIMS. pp 56-60.D.6 PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE CORRELATIONS FOR HEAVY AND EXTRA HEAVY OILS SPE 30316 ygPsp. Vol 2. yost ~o. 38 McCain W. 19 Siotle ill Frick T.: "Oil-System Correlations" PetrQl!Jwn Pro. 12 Labedi R: "Use of Production Data to Estimate Volume Factor." Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering.. pp 266-272. pp 18-25.3. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology." Petroleum Engineer International.:"Studio di Affidabilita di Correlazioni per la Stima delle Proprieta di Oli di Giacimento.D. (1990) 14 Majeed G. 9 Egbogah E. Frick 1'. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering..A.H.: "Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils. of Under saturated Hydrocarbon Reservoir Fluids.A. Desouky S. & Connally C.M.. Vol Gas Specific gravity at any separator pressure.F." SPE Reservoir Engineering." Transaction AIMB (1957) 210.D.: "New correlation for estimating the viscosity of under saturated crude oils".ysp yo.d"ction HandhQok. pp 71-73. Singh : "Simple ." Petroleum Engineer International. Creeger J.:"Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology". Field Temperatures and Pressures. Water. pp 23-25.: "API Gravity and Viscosity Determine. & Beggs H. Universita degli Studi di Bologna. 5 (1991)." Hydrbcarbon Processing. 16 Labedl R "Improved correlations for predicting the viscosity of light crudes". Density and Compressibility of Reservoir Fluids.: "Estimation of SOlution GORof Black Oils". 26 Callegari A. 29.: "Heavy oil viscosity range from one test." Oil & Gas Journal (Mar. pp 785-95. Wong D.(ed. (Gennaio 1992). & Robinson J." Joamal of Petroleum Technology.: "Evaluation of Correlation for Estimating the Viscosity of Hydrocarbon.. (May 1976)..e.: "Bubble Point Pressure Correlation." Drill & Prod.C.Rand Salman N. 15 Rollins J. pp 221-234." Agip (internal report). Vol.R 28 Davis J. Crude Oil Sulphur Concentration. paper No 88-39-62 (1988). 34 McCain W." SPB Reser:voir Engineering.H. Ir: "Fundamental of Reservoir Engineering..C.ence and Engineering.3.4. 18 Beal C... Vod !-lol.5519 = scf/STB • KPa x 0. 32 Paone F. 21 Trube A. Crude Oil and Its Associated Gases at Oil. Sclocchi G.. 25 Sutton RP. pp 275-87.. Coliana Schaum. 27 Lang KoR." University of Oklahoma Press. pp 80-85." Transaction ASME (987) Vol 109." Jo/lmal of Petroleum Science and Engineeting. cp. 24 Ali J." Transaction AIME (1958) 21. pp 927-38.Visc~sity Correlation for Crude Oil Systems. pp 214-16. pp 79-86.0 = mPa x s. pp 197-200.A. pp 157-162.: "A correlation of viscosity and molecular weight.. (September 1975).R. Donohue D. I. New Yark (1973). Seba R. Standing MR: "Volumetric and Phase Behaviour of Oil Field Hydrocarbon System".D. Kallan R. 4 Lasater J. Richardson. 4 (1990).H. Agip-S." JPT (August 1974).D.894757 = psia -I • cp x 1.: "Black Oils and Volatile Oils-What's the Difference?" Petroleum Engineer Intemational. 3 Standing M. (settembreI 99l).B.: "An empirical Correlation for Oil FVF Prediction.O. (1977). (October 1993). SPE. Transaction AIMS.. McCain W.t.5) =g/cm 3 131.: "Chemical Composition Determines Behaviour of Reservoir Fluids. Vo !-lod. The University of Tulsa. Vol 29. pp 24-27.R. (November 1993).Ng: "An Improved Temperature. JPT (January 1990). Gas-saturated oil viscosity. pp 54-127 29 Spiegel: "Statistics".. pp 375-90. Prac:t.L.. P. GG(Psp). and Farshad F.R.: "Studio di Affidabilita delle Correlazioni che Stimano Ie Praprietadegli Oli di Giacimento".S.T." The Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology. pp 1140-41. SPE.: "PVT Correlations for Middle East Crude Oils. 39 McCain W. "Reservoir-fluid property correlations-State of the Art. Jr.

TIp sp )] ).'114.. 9646· Rs+ 25.7 r sp • Heavy oils: Modified Kartoatrnodjo'scorreJation 2 Pb = 15..: . API . pp 35-36.5) Co =-----------:..2466 .002763' (p .3432'y) '!-tod (A .0335+ 1.078·F-O.003653·P where (A-9) F = (0..3' YgcolT -81.. 10 -0.-----"':.6+ 3.627..00081.Jack's correlation log' log(1l od + I) = 2. F..2057 Rs= Ygcorr..105 where Poll' YI?COl'r = YI?PSP' [ 1+ 0. 90296 .7) 5-Gas-saturated oil viscosity • Extra-heavy oils: Modified Kartoatmodjo's correlation 653 .PbO.MODIFIED CORRELATIONS t-Bubblepoint Pressure: • Heavy oils: RS [ Yg Modified Standing's correlation 0..7 ) 10 • -4] (A ...6114 ..7885 100. Jr. Bridges B. -( -0.7286.00156'T))1.4078 '(TIP 0.10) Y = YI?PSP' [I +0. '114.9886.2466 ·!. T.0785.rp .1595.0020'T --.59t2' APT ·T... g ( 10.5912· API . !-tol =-0.Pg ...: "Volatile oils and Retrograde Gases-What's the Difference?" Petroleum Engineer International.0.OI69'API-O.7 J10 -4] 4-Dead-oil viscosity • Extra-heavy oils: Modified Egbogah-. 70226..3132]] ~ol Pb 10°.Pb).. [.8927'F+O..rp .--Pg'10 5 Heavy oils: Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation -2841.0316. ~ol = 2.434 where (A-3) ~o • _[(I_~)' ~~'d055 (A . 61748.. API· T.API (A .00081.Pb .1) y = 10-0..2466.6) Heavy oils: Modified Egbogah-.. ll ol + 0. (Trp 0.Solution GOR: • Rs • Extra-heavy oils: Modified Standing's correlation Yl?corr=YI?Prp' 1+0.SPE 30316 G. .w ( 114.O. ~~i5939) (A - II) J] 3-Isothermal CompressiblIity: • Extra-heavy oils: Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation .3945+0.5158· Y ) Y = 10-0.7 r Co = ...5912.. log(Tg) • (A.10-0. '[I + 0..::. . [ . UII? P.0..5798+0.10 1O.8 +2.7025 ° (A . M.7 (P =Y Pb I (O.4078 ( .:.Tack's correlation log .4078 .000845' Rs)." " ' ' ' ' ' ' . Tg .0099' API Heavy oils: Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation 1.2478+ 0.. API 0.<II? ( P )] '114.8) ==================== APPENDIX A .. Rs 2. (January 1994).1595·API 0. Rs+ 20..889.log(Tg) (A . ~~dO.0 I42.4731 +0..4476· API (A _4) where YI?COI'r = YI?Prp '[1 + 0.rp 'wI? (I I?corr ~:7 }0-4 ] Heavy oils: Modified Kartoatmodjo's correlation ~o = 0.9267 .5439' Tg -1230.. 1374.012619· API .RS) (0.01153' ~~i7933 +0.2) 6-Undersaturated oil viscosity: • Extra-heavy oils: Modified Labedi's correlation 2 19 = [10.0179..AII? .0. DE GHElTO.91· API where YI?COl'r = YI?Psp' [ 1+ 0. LOI? ( 114.001567'F 2 where F= ( -0. API 0. .API/(T+460) 56..-. WI? ( P.6311+1. Rs YI?corr = YI?Prp ...Iog(rl od + I) = I.06492 ..1128 .0. VILLA 7 40 McCain W. --.0.-::I00. 1595.000845.5· YgeOff +41.rp . PAONE..

Labedi /161 Vasquez-Beggs.7 to 1386.362 3.49 to 7411.l to $7$.) Mole fraction ofHZS in total gases (% mol.4 to 354. Kartoatmodjo. Glaso. Lasater/'ll.02· to 42.32 Oto 1.86 to 4021.517 0.9 2.057 to 1.21 to 640.5 to 752.39 to 311.7 17. Petroslcy-Farsha<y1 71 Slotte flY/.9 7. Kartoatmodjo Isothennal compressibility Dead-oil viscosity Vasquez-Beggs.9 2. Kartoatmodjo.) Oil formation volume fact9r (bbl/STB) Isothermal comp~ibility (psia-1x 10 6) 6t022.4 to 250. Beggs-Robinson.) Mole fraction ofNz in total gases (% mol.Al_Marhoun 1101 Standing.5 to 98.96 14.8 1I. Beggs-Robinson /l>!. Labedi 1161 Solution GOR Gas-saturated oil viscosity Undersaturated oil viscosity TABLE 2: AGIP'S RANGE FOR PVf PROPERTIES SAMPLE Tank-oil gravity (0API) Reservoir prl$$ure (psia) Reservoir temperature (OF) Solution GOR (sofYSTB) Bubblepoint pressure (psia) Separator p~ure (psia) SeparatQr temperature (OF) Separator GOR (sofYSTB) Stock-tank GOR (set/STB) Total sulface gas gravity (alr=l) Separator gas gravity (alr= 1) Mole fraction ofCOz in total gases (% mol. Vasquez-Beggs.41 0.6 Dead-oil viscosity (cp) Gas-saturated oil viscosity (cp) Undersaturated oil viscosity (cp) 654 . Egbogah-Jack!91.1 to 295.25 208. Kartoatmodjo.99 1.62 4. Labedi 116/ Chew-C01mally /~/. Kartoatmodjo. Majeed-Kattarl-Sahnan 1141.3 1038. Labedi 1121.54 131. Rollins-McCain-Creeger 1151 O F V F S t a n d i ng. Glaso.8 Ot063.623 to 1. Kartoatmodjo.TABLE 1: FLUIO PROPERTY CORRELATIONS Fluid Property Correlation BUbblepoint pressure Standing III"'~/.517 0.675 to 1. Glaso /~/ Kartoatmodjo 113/. Vasquez-Beggs I'f/.2 59 to 177.

024 to 2.4to 44.66 to 4.1 165 to 7142 80 to 280 1.093 to 20.226 Oto2199 0.72 141 to 9515 9.096 to 586 - 60 to 6358 0.7 60 to 220 4to220 12 to 1742 - - - - - - C1I TABLE 4: AUfHO~S DEFlNED RANGE FOR VISCOSITY CORRELATIONS Beggs-Robinson Tank-oil gravity (OAPI) Reservoir temperature (OF) Reservoir pressure (psia) Solution GOR (scf1STB) Bubblepoint pressure (psia) Dead-oil viscosity (cp) 16 to 58 70 to 295 15 to 5265 20 to 2070 Glas<> 20.79 0.511 to 1.TABLE 3: AUTIIOR'S DEFlNED RANGE FOR BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURE.5 to 63.574 to 1.5 Majeed-Kattan Salman 15 to 51 72 to 292 - 0.022 to 2.668 Vasquez-Beggs 15.3 to 45 1574to 6523 114 to 288 1.95 265 to 465 100 (mean) 0.2 to 48 100 to 306 Chew-connany Vasquez-Beggs 15.351 Al-Mamoun 19.1 48 to 5780 82 to 272 Glas<> 22. OFVF AND COMPRESSffiILITY CORRELATIONS Standing Tank-oil gravity (0API) Bubb1epoint pressure (Psia) Reservoir temperature (OF) OFVF at bubblepoint (bbl/STB) Solution GOR (scf7STB) Separator gas gravity (air-1) Total surface gas gravity (air-1) Separator pressure (psia) Separator temperature (OF) Reservoir pressure (psia) Stock-tank GOR (scf7STB) Separator GOR (scf7STB) 0) (]I Lasater 17.752 to 1.6 130 to 3573 74to 240 1.4824 to 1.117to 148 0.59 to 0.115 to 3.367 100 38 tQ 294 10 to 6000 60 to 565 76 to 150 141 to 9515 29.276 415 (mean) 125 (mean) 0.1 50 to 300 Kartoatmodjo 14. SOLUTION GOR.3 to 2199 711 to 7112 60 to 1334 498 to 4864 51 to 3544 132 to 5645 0.7 to 314.4 to 58.588 90 to 2637 Kanoatmocljo 14.65 to 1.92 16.95 80 to 320 15 to 7171 Ito 2044 Eg1>Ogah-Jack 5to58 59 to 176 Labedi 32.3 to 48.7 60 to 150 0.1 to 48.4 to 58.95 Oto6040 75 to 320 1.2 to 48 520 to 6358 128 to 306 1.223 15to 60S 34to 106 0.616 to 39.028 to 2.5 15 to 6055 170 (mean) 1.9 to 51.088 to 2.8519 - - - - 20 to 3573 1700 to 10692 34.6229 217 to 1406 Labedi 32.1178 to 1.15 20 to 1425 3 to 2905 0.032 to 1.5781 to 0.747 Oto2890 0.7 to 789.579 to 1.1 - 0.8 130 to 7000 100 to 258 1.5062 to 682 0.38 to 50 - 0.997 26 to 1602 Rollins-McCain Creeger 18 to 53.3 to 59.025 to 2.5 Petrosky-Farsbad 16.124 - 0.5 Gas-saturated oil viscosity (cp) - - .3 to 59.

54 18.18: 11. 15.10 0.01 .TlI 16.001 0.0 0 122.44 6Z12.00 :1 65.6961 0.51 ~I 3428.6 1 ~I 4132.6O 1.09 YII2 YIi2s Vol 0.lilSl 1.53 1 8.8.129 l.2 215.8 116.151 S139.6 29.9.8] 29 0) 30 14.10: 6.1 140.32 .1 1 0.91 1.4' 15.00 1.O 158.00 1 25 Z6 Z1 28 12.0351 l.53.41.>1: O.429' v_ 1.00 0.0' 4281. 18.10 1 2l.323: l.005 7.83 O~ 98.881 10.0 118.41.53' ~~ ~:I 12.11 179.119 8U41 u.419 1.01 203.71 37.3S 69.04' 14 IS 16 11 18 19 2D 21 22 23 9.001 0.00.00 0. so.! 1792.491 .44.01 14.411 1.5. 0.61' 47.1 4.01 =~:. 0.so 42.0j 18.0 122.00 0.511 =1 12.S11: 12.34: 40 41 4Z 43 31.81 62.2 Pr Rs 6.65: l3.0 66.65] 2.9.71 161.63 3598.Z ~. 741l.04 31.15.131 1.001 295.1 IS8.2 122.178 201~ l.6' Z11.31 Z8S8.90 116.188 l..0 16.14 1 11 SSl8.81 69. 1 0.0 115.01 lu.6 12. l.~ 2916.344' 01 0) 31 32 201.O 15 1 8.441 S305.' 0.4' 0.0! 49.3 7.II 1411.O 161.S' l.11 U.44.88 250"1 194.00 0.6' 4708.0.O! 1 ~I 161 0 .66: 1.ol '8l.1 1 49~ 81.8 12. IG.31 33.66: 3563.40.00 0.3 4 5 6 7.23' 2916.32 4.94 1.751 0.31 8.412 -1.64 1. S2.8: 231.96: 1.3 3121.001 0..001 0.4 69.001 0.8! 2l.4 112.~1 100.4 154.86 8. 4 1.4S! 4410.>###BOT_TEXT###21 :':r 69.491 1Sl.81 153.61 100.14 4808. 430S.8.7 19.0 19G.41 lSO. 1 0.°l 154.Z63.001 0.9: 8.S41 4813.741 0.~ Zl'7.1 1149.615: l.5!i' 4238.39 1 $.8] 106.41 6856.8 104.8. 25. 23.4 163.4! 100.2] lS2.4 38.001 0.735 1.56' 22.3' 3S.2S61 1.1 ZI0.2D. 1 90.61 1lS3.0 163.01 154.081 6.0921 l.8 2.111 14.54 U.00 0.4 165.S8 lS.2S3.88 88.551 36.60 11.21 5.63 12.36.58.5 Zlo.79' 9 10 11 12 13 ZI0.4 2916.2 :1 19.44 ~.08: 4895.SO 0.13 1209. 0.3' 96.15 5391. 141.8 1 721l.51 116.TABLE 5: EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURED PVTDATA iPVT °API 1 Z 3 6.0 Il.00 0.41\ 0.8: 6.15 04 28S0. 118.59' 46.0: 8.58 3328. 0.94' 'aY. ~::I' =.• 1806.119 G.4O 3G.so 76.0: U8.1141 l. 0.00.82 1 l.4 Z12.0: 68.3)1 16.09 33 34 35 36 37 3S 39 13l.561 64.41 1 0.129.001.9: 165.0 Z03.G.~ :~I: 8. 0. 30.05 0.81 0.95 0.SO 66.0' 60 61 6Z 63 i~ 21.01 =0 4908.169 10.0' ZI1.20 17.66 l.11 187l'.00.6Si l3.421 1806.19) 5.98: 12.301l 1.0: I 4519.11 0.7.IS] 4808.0 134.7.914 44 45 46 41 48 1.371 11.6 14.S4 1649. 1.81 10G.2 1l.. 0.4. 0.2.0 IP4.2: l.3411 69.3.05! 1 1. O.8~ ::1' .001 0.00 0.°1 4883.2 Z10.Sll.00 0.00 0.041 31.61 .3 lS8.11 4494.00' 0.0 59. 1 3121.781 79.44.49 6.0. 30.206 1.1S l3.72 28.03' 4.l! 2.336' .27' 7.6 183.06.91 90.63' 4143.18 G.059 1. 1.29S 48U.0' 1S8.33' 19.7161 0.3' 14.05 14.9 9. 165.6 22.064 44.6. 10.00 0.39 1934. 0.0 13.8 7. 0.4.51 0.0 2.00 0.36 0. 188.00 2l.71 214.01! 6921.08 22.0: 231.40.4 ZI'.00.6 86.60' U.406' 1 8M 8031 82.00.~ 34.1 54 55 56 51 58 59 ID7.931 13. 3684.41 U.001' 48S~ 48.00 0. I£.14 33.333: 1.98 G.81S 810 0.8: 80.001 0.26 3l.51 lS8.78' ~~ 104.• 152.00 0. 1.4 84.SS 1.so 1 8. 0.00 0.19 80.'. 171.55 311.00' 0.38' 49 SO 51 52 53 2.53' 3784.41 1.49 13.00 0.0 161.001 100. 2893.1: 2.Z161 134." T! 0.~ 49.156 0.784! 1.83' 14.61 10.00 0.2l 93.001 0.>11 1.OOi 0.001 O.001 . 43.311 211.99 '0.10' 2850.421 53.-.10 8. 4.31 85.651 3O.02 10 2552.48 2.6 2.3: 2l.so: 4996.236] 133.4 69. 168.001 0.788 0.OO! 171.611 104.4I' 188.S4 1.64" 81.491 :1 34 1. 208.41 IG.81 1.00 0.41 2D8.00 0.0.4 86.4 1593.2l 1.6 69.88' 2.1~ 68. l.61: 11.05' 3121.S1 ~ 8.001 0.00' 0.00' 0.1.3] 6.00 0.9 11. ZlS.40' 55.411 1149.6 106.41 6SS1.0' 161.334! 410 1.292' G.2j.0.121 187l'.5.89.91.

7 17.1 Isothemla1 Vasquez-Beggs 38.3 1.7 13.5 not investigated M-Vasquez-Beggs Author M-Standing 17.7 21.8 24. SD = Standard Deviation) °APIRange Author <=lO OAPI AAE SD Author AAE SD 10 < °API <= 22. 30.1 9.0 3.1 SD 9.9 Vasquez-Beggs 25.9 Vasquez-Beggs 25.2 ..3 SD 8. Gas-saturated oil viscosi1rv Undersaturated oil viscositv Kartoatmodjo 14.5 <=10 oAPI Author AAE SD Author 10< °API <=223 AAE SD 01 0> .5 AAE 9..1 13.0 7.0 AAE 10..%.8 9. SD=StandardDeviatiOD.0 M-Kartoatmodjo ll.0 M-Vasquez-Beggs 15.8 21.0 Kartoatmodjo 16. TABLE 7 : STATISTICALANAIlSYS PERFORMED ON MODIFIED CORRELATIONS (AAE=AvenI2e Absolute Error.9 Undersatnrated oil viscositv M-Labedi 4..3 Bubbleooint pressure Standing 9.9 Dead-oil viscositv Egbogah-Jack. 41.5 19.2 Vasquez-Beggs 1.3 AAE SD M-Egbogah-Jack.4 8.. 10 < °API <=22. M = modified) OFVF Bubbleooint pressure Solution GOR M-Standing not investigated Author Standing 6.1 °APlRange <=10 OAPI Isothemml M-Vasquez-Beggs 8.5 5..5 Labedi 12.4 1.9 M-Egbogah-Jack.9 Solution GOR Standing 13.7 45.9 Gas-saturated oil viscosi1rv M-Kartoatmodjo 12.4 Egbogah-Jack.2 11.1 10.3 24. 37.9 OFVF Glaso 1..2 .3 7. 17.3 Dead-oil viscositY <=10 oAPI Author AAE SD Author 10 <oAPI <=22.TABLE 6: BEST RESULTS OF STATISTICALANAllSYS PERFORMED ON AGIP'S SAMPLES (AAE =Average AbSolute Error.1 16.8 Kartoatmodjo 10.8 4.7 .4 M-Kartoatmodjo 6..8 Standing 15.6 10. %.6 10.

3 15.74 2858.3 12.66 725.25.38 1066.0 18.0 22.0 .31 197.9 <= 10 ME SO 17.4 19.1 59.1 1.7 11.8 12.0 179.7 15.98 6272.6 13.0 19.3 40.2 .0 13.0 16.04 4589.5 170.58 4281.1 5.6 37.62 2858.5 2.8 4911.0 78.0 42.0 13.4 36.8 3.58 4281.8 208.7 21.8 40.58 4281.41 2560.5 70.6 10.8 99.21 6400.0 203.9 15.0 125.1 22.3 2!l.83 1807.12.48 3450.2 7.6 57.0 64.3 211.21 4281.7 20.0 3.9 22..04 4509.6 1.3 21l. .06 189.26 144.04 4766.6 80.5 203.85 4978.5 8.5 2.73 4993.3 211.58 4281.l7.64 753.4 54.2 19.02 6557.8 212.0 75.0 190.0 13.0 7.0 19.0 32.0 15.21 82.3 56.09 370.6 2.46 781.10 252.7 37.58 71'1.3 124.10 465.3 12.0 207.1 201.0 19.0 149.63 725.8 24.4 163.08 376. M-I<artoolm.4 273. M-Labedi 26.0 170.8 14.59 152.62 4978.73 4993.98 6272.0 212.0 50.2 19.25 2850.5 10.5 20.0 7.2 !l.58 4978.7 117.83 796.6 103.0 212.8 204.0 217.64 185.TABLE 8 : EXPERIMENTALLY MEASURID DATA IIOR VlSCOSITY INVESTIGATION (.98 960.8 14.77 4993.2 4.31 315.6 179.0 21.20 1012.19 1991.1 77.3 21l.8 22.0 193.4 2.0 7.82 215.7 2.S 12.34 1422.4 163.0 19.1 '.5 9.0 \. Oev.0 Tr("J!) Pr(psla) Rs (sdISTB) Pb(psla) Vod(~p) Vol (~p) Vo(~p) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29* 30 31 32 33 34 35 36* 37* 38* 39 40 41 42 43 44 45* 46* 47 48 49 SO 51* 52 53* 54* 55* 212.63 736.1 5.04 208.8 180.0 15.2 5.4 11.74 2319.17 24.0 11.3 8.7 1.29 797.45 788.62 260.13 1763.73 4993.7 21.74 4281.23 290.3 1.0 177.93 113.86 4876.17 2858.3 53.3 20.8 17.2 13.3 55.55 91.81 437.2 13.6 11.1 7.26 1807.2 15.1 15.5 207.3 2.0 212.8 2.6 20.1 16.8 14.1 41.20 5689.75 195.3 Author M-Egbogah M-Kartoalm.0 154.3 212.3 TA13LE 9 : Statisticol RQsults ofViscosity Investigation (ME = Avcralle Abs.24 2671.4 195.2 19.0 54.0 13.8 14.18 4993.3 21.20 1393.7 7.6 7.6 10.46 256.10 191.50 4978.3 39.11 247.73 2858.08 5333.74 2858.5 451.58 4281.58 4281.2 .63 493.0 13.3 2U.3 1.8 21.9 ~8.16.90 419.8 210.00 444.73 4281.40 1038.88 521.4 75.74 4993.7 52.3 21.5 5.15 1934.7 10 .0 17.7 9.2 14.6 11.83 2574.17 4993.0 218.0 215.6 86.3 19.58 4281.49 683.1 180.02 68.1 12.9 3.07 229.7 40.0 212.0 16.98 2104.0 16.4 20.0 528.Error.1 9.2 14. = sample fi'om literature) PVTRepori I °API 7.42 300.5 211.1 228.05 121.21 4978.18 4978.21 378.6 .8 14.08 1330.2 2.6 9.8 181.2 9.2 10.17 463.3 4.05 4565.58 4281.20 1807.68 73.70 208.96 2450.83 918.1 12.7 5.3 21l.87 345.4 3340.73 2364.19 2475.0 18.5 15.% SO = Stand.6 16.74 4993.47 6272.59 182.5 7.7 16. 35.0 212.22.9 41.3 132.3 194.4 25.6 23.0 60.76 1778.0 38.0 10.4 211.73 2858.75 189.77 2062.3 211.70 832.53 6272.6 179.3 21.8 15.0 100.0 75.8 25.98 189.9 52.25 278.0 10.5 2.1 154.56 702.3 211.8 18.1 6.5 13.92 202.0 23.2 8.1 21.56 2261.58 4281.0 212.29 4805.01 4766.44 198.73 4993.91 143.45 554.64 4715.58 4281.14 2417.07 2850.02 786.5 222.75 228.21 4978.6 5.21 1182. M = Modified) °APIRonlle Vod Vol Vo Author M-Egbogah M-Kartoalm.25.3 11.38 412.6 202.9 18.2 111.58 4281.2 37.9 16.01 2850.14 109.0 130.16 3747.3 60.8 100.7 21.10 3136.83 2261.73 1151.7 360.8 14.7 7.9 7.9 17.1 30.73 1650.69 1834.4 17.2 4.7 21.7 218.6 8.4 137.58 4281.41 292.4 20.1 15.3 ME SO 7 18.6 14.0 105.76 227.1 118.72 668.57 127.5 658 .08 3723.2 154.6 148.0 ·13.9 9.21 6272.58 4808.3 30.6 18.0 193.58 4281.5 16.8 12.20 3375.6 24.8 5.27 4993.7 110.24 4876.98 4000.52 479.6 8.51 494.58 4281.

JIlID (1".---1-----I----+----l-----! o 4000 1000 Fig.) •• I t o... present work 730..-----------------------.( ! ~ 10 I 10 1 " r ~ o I o MYABl. 2: Bubblepoint pressure.. 11 &t. best correlations from literature 730. 3: Solution GOR.. 6: Isothennal compressibility.JL.".lOll I I " 250 I 730 I 250 . - 0. - -.. S: Isothermal compressibility.. best correlations from literature Fig. 4: Solution GOR...---------------------.JL..!: Bubblepoint pressure... " 730 l\I!ASUlID (1..----------------------.1181'8) Fig.I'IA"") Fig.------+--------I--------l 10 \l MUSUlID(I". . present work 659 . best correlations from literature Fig. ..----------------------Jf . 1000 -.lOll .( 13.( Fig. -. . present work 13..

------'71 lOO-l------+----~~f'!i-----_1 I 10+-_- -df-L-. ...000 Fig..1 10 '00 1000 10 100 ..000.------..-----~ 1000 -r-'----I----.------71 '00 100 i I i 10 I '0 10 100 '000 ..... best correlations from literature Fig..------...-------.-- ~1- __. I 10 + . present work looo-r-------. best correlations froni literature Fig.. 9: Gas-saturated oil Viscosity. presentwork 660 . 11: Undersaturated oil viscosity.0 100 1000 Fig.....-------.-------..ooo-r-------..-------..ooo-r-------.. present work ..* * ' ...--------..1 ...ooo.-------.. best correlations from literature ... 7: Dead-oil viscosity.------~ Fig 8: Dead-oil viscosity.. 10: Gas-saturated oil viscosity.0 I ""--------l------~I__----____l 10 10 100 1000 Fig. 12: undersaturated oilviscosity.-------r------'71 • 100 100 I 10 I i • I 100 1000 i ..t ...

13: Bubblepoint OFVF.15 Bubblepoint pressure correlation: comparlsonofbest results 10-22.3 Standing API Ran ge < 10 o 5 10 15 20 25 30 Average absolute error Fig.-------7f 1. 14: Gas-saturated oil viscosity.3 V asquoz-B eggs API Range <: 10 Vasquoz-Boggs o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Average absolute error Fig. 16 Solution OOR correlation: comparison ofbest results 10-22.4 MrMUlDl«.) 1000 MrABUlDl lWJ$11l) Fig.3 1. 17 Isothermal compressibility correlation: comparison ofbest results 661 .1000. best correlations from literature (input dead-oil Viscosity calculated) 10-22.. best correlations from literature Fig.3 V asquoz-B oggs A PI Range < 10 o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Average absolute error Fig.-------.4 ( I~ Li ~I • •• § I 10 1.-------.

. Fig. o ..... Fig. o .. 19 Oas-saturated oil viscosif. age absolute e ..3 A PI Range < 10 Lobedl o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 AVeJ'jlge absolute e .. 18 Dead"OjJ viscosity correlation: comparison ofbest results 10-22..3 Bgbogah·lao!< API Ran ge < 10 o 10 20 30 40 50 Av'e .3 K artoatm odjo API R aoge < 10 o 5 10 15 20 25 30 Ave . 20 Undersaturated oil viscosity correlation: comparison ofbest results 662 . age absolute e ...10-22.y correlation: comparison ofbest results 10-22. o . Fig....