. ,.

SPE 36105

EMPIRICAL PVT CORRELATIONS FOR COLOMBIAN CRUDE OILS

F. Frashad, J. L. LeBlanc and J. D. Garber, SPE, University of Southwestern Louisiana and,

J. G. Osorio, University National de Colombia

cwmwfm.wd~ EI@IW81Y to their applicability to all types of @oil mixtures with API
lhii PwwvMszforwcarWmI titi Fwth Lath AmaicMmmd CuL=aI gravities ranging between 18 to 44.9 (single stage separation),
Polmhwn E~ Ca#awca W in Pml-al-SIMh, TM ~ Tc&wJ, 2M6 A@
19%.
14.3 to 29.0 (two stage separation) and 40.3 to 44.1 (three stage
Thiipapwwss toMWfWfWSNIWM LVUNSPE P~C4f?ImkINfCUUWhJ*OI separation).
mfumak-mc=xtmedhmtib_81@Mki@d bytlwudtmf(s). Cadlh WWS9
pmsw-tcd, hmrKIIbe6n rwwmdbYWNScd@tY c4Pdrohm Ervhnrsmdmu@ocl Io
oarncknbylhaqt) Thlmluicl, up8utM9idanf cw t-alhluy
pOM. c4m8S0ciay c4P0smklnl Eng- or its mambsm PWUS pmndd al SPE INTRODUCITON
malings nsubjac410wblkAon _bYlho Ediil CWIITIilha c411m SocWfol
P61rohum Enginws. Pumiswon 10 COPYm rwdrka.d to m ~ C4nd IMM UWI 2#J
Wwds Ibtmtwu may rmi be cc@M Th9ab8u-aa IhOumcOnm@l cmaF4mls AIS acauate knowledge of Pressure-Volume-Tempemture
dnAu@md dW8t9NId Lvti UNWWW@$rm-ntad WHo LSruiu!SPE.
P O SS2SSS,Rk+urdwn, TX 7SOl?3-SL?36
USA fan 01 -214-ss2-94sE (PVT) properties is essential in reservoir and production
engineering calculations. Estimation of reserves, determiiation
of oil reservoir performance, recovery efficiency, production
optimization and design of production systems are some of the
ABSTRACT areas which require precise determination of a fluids physical
properties at different conditions of pressure and ternpemture.
Empirical PVT correlations are presented for estimating bubble- Ideally, the physical properties of the reservoir fluids are
point pressure, solution gas-oil ratio, oil formation volume determined experimentally in the laboratory. However, due to
factor, and isothermal compressibility. To develop the above economical anrVor technical reasons, quite otlen this
comelations, the data base consisted of ninety-eight PVT information cannot be obtained fkom laboratory measured
laboratory analyses for Colombian crude oils. llse gas-oil values. In this case, PVT propertks must be estimated iknn
ratios, gas gravities, oil gravities, and formation volume factors empirically derived correlations.
involved in the development of the correlations are the result of Several correlations have been proposed for determining
one, two and three-stage flash separation as recorded tim PVT the PVT properties of reservoir fluids. Some of the most widel
samples analyzed in the laboratory. 1
used correlations are: Standings, LiW5k#, c4dhOlU1S,
Tle effect of separator conditions on the predktion of the Trubesl*, Chew-Comallys5, Beals2, Glasos, Vszquez-
bubble-point pressure, solution gas+il ratio and oil formation Beggs9, Be~Robinsons3, Dokla-osman, Petrosky-
volume t%ctor is studied. A new correlation that corrects the Farshadll, and petrosky-Farshad12. These cmmekkms are M
separator solution giss-oil ratio for separator conditions is on reservoir fluid samples from certain specific regions of the
provided. Improved ccsmelationsfor estimating the bubble-point world.
pressure, hnsed on the corrected separator solution gas-oil ratio, Because of the varying compositions of cnr& oils from
are developed. In addition, total solution gas-oil ratio and oil different region$ predktion of PVT properties horn empirical
formation volume factor correlations based on separator data are correlations may not provide aatisfaetory results when they are
presented. Since the stock-tank gas-oil ratio and stock-tank gas applied to hydmxbons behaving differently 6orn the fluid
gravity are not usually measured in the fiel~ these correlations samples on which the correlations were baaed. previous studies
represent a rwdiatic form of Mtmladng
PVT properties. have shown that extrapolation of empirical PVT correlations
Although the correlations presented are based on should be umkrtaken with caution. Examples of such studies
Colombian crude oils and gases, consideration should be given are Oatermsumset al10 fix Alasksm crude Oik?and Sutton and

311
Famhada17for ~ of Mexico csude Oik. ~C madts ObtZid
tibothatdk aahowtha
tthaema ybeconsidemble errors
inl@ve41 in.tryingto gemdize emprncal PVT Curelationa
Wti.?!$@l@* :.
*X* -;* with p~ Gfnprnd Carelations
exdudWy bak!dm FVfpropdes of Colombian csude oils.
The propdea preamted are bubble-point presam, the solution
gas oil ratio, oil fotmatioO volume t%ctor,and the isothermal oil
compresd%ility. Furthermore, several widely known
corrections am evaluated to detelmine their applicalilii for
predicting the PVT pperdes of Colombian crude oils.
Dit%rent approaches were used for developing the
Condationa. -fherefm several Co17elationsare presented for
some PVT properties. The number of correlations provided per
PVT propesty depends on the number of stages used for the
surfhce sepamtion of oil and gas, the variables correlated, and
the range of variation of the database used.
Most of the comelations am developed by applying
multiple nonliiear regression techniques. Linear regression
~w~mw~edinaf~- iowhichthe
mathematical models utilized could & expmsed in linear form.
Ihe data base used consisted of ninety+ight results of
PVT laboratory anrdyam. lYIis data covers over thirty-two
reservoirs tiom diffixent Colombkm oil producing regions.
They are the results of one, two and three-stage flash separation.
REVIEW OF CORRELATIONS
EmprncaI PVT correlations have been a subject of study since
tie begiiing of reservoir and production engineering. Several
correlations for determining propaties of reservoir fluids were
publish~ among others, by Standrngi, Calhoun, TNLdg,
hsate?, &tat, and (kw and -. For SeVGld y4XWSy
these conditions were the only source of information available
to estimate the physical properdes of reservoir fluids from field
data. h recent )M13, however, there has been an increasing
interest indeveloping new empirical PVT correlations for other
geognsphical areas. Some of the latter studies have been
perfbnned by Glaso, A1-Marhoun, and V~uez and Beggs19,
Sutton and Farshad*7, Dolda and Osman, Wtrosky and
Farshadil, and Petrosky and Farshad*2.
In 1947 standing presented empirical PVT Cor7ektions
for determining bubble-point pmasuma and oil fbnnation
volume fhctm as fimctions of solution gas-oil ratio, gas gmvity,
oil gravity and tempemture. standing used 105
experimentallydetermined data pints on 22 di&rent cnlde-
oilhatuml-gas mixtures from C4difomia to develop his
cmdations. The PVT data used were the result of a 2-stage
flash sepamtion at a cxmstant temperature of 100F. The first
stage pressure varied between 250 psi imd 450 psi and the
second stage pressure was maintained constant at atmospheric
~. ~e-~t~~=m-w~ *of
312
nhrogen~dhydmgen atdfk%carbon dioxide was~at
cmccntratmns less than one mole pcmcat. Wading pointed
out that the cond- under which his cadatkm were
developed are considered to approximate the avemge Califmia
Opemting clmiitions.
In 1957 Trubel* presated a graphii cxmelation fm
determining compressibility of umk@uaM hydmabon
reservoir fluids. The pmdwdud CnnpreKdil&, (Mined
as the oil compressibility times the paeudoaitid pmsaurG was
cOrmh@ graphically, as function of psewbmduced prcsure
and tempwature. Trubels did not presmt stadadd ~
concerning the data used fm developing this codadon.
In 1958 bsaterg presented a caelation of the bubblo-
point presswe as function of thegasgmvity, tempaatureand
gas mole tiaction. Since the gas mole &actkM is a fimction of
the oil mokcular weighg Lasate? also presemted a cormkkion
for determining the molecular weight of tank oil fkom the API
gravity so that the bubble-pointpressure cxmdation could be
applied when only field data is available. His correlations wem
based on 158 PVT sampks fiorn 137 independent systems
produced in Cam+ Western and Mid-C0ntin4mtal United
States, and South America
In 1973 Cronquist6 published a set of dimensionkss
graphical empiricat PVT correlations for Gulf Coast reservoir
oils. In the development of these cmdati~ Cronquist
defined dimensionless oressure. dimensionless cumulative
gas evolution, and dimensionless shrinkage, which allows
one to determine the bubble-point pressure, the solution gas-oil
ratio, and the oil fommtion vohune fhctor, respectively. Ihe
correlations were based on 80 oil samplesfkom31 fields.
In 1980 Glasos presented comelations for -ming the
bubble-point pressure and oil fmation volume fhc$or as a
function of solution gas-oil ratio, total gas gravity, reservoir
Mnpemtm andtank-oil gravity. The PVTdatausedwerethe
result ofa2-stage tlaahsepamtion ata constant temperatumof
125F. he wpamtor pressure was held constant at 414.7 psia
fix the tlrst stage, and 14.7 psia fm the second stage. GIMo*
used data tl-om 45 oil sampl~ most of which came fi-om the
Nwth Sea re on.
F
GISSOS CQ~hthS were developed for oil with U(3P
&mtmhtion fbctom of 11.9 (oik with pamtlicinities
equivaknt to No* Sea Oik). A comection to the API ~ity
Wassuggeated wheathe correlations are applied tocrudeoik
with parafficinities other than 11.9. Uhrmnntely, this
corrccdonrcqubes osletousethegravity ofthe Ktidualoil6wm
adiffknntial sepamdqinfimnation which ismtsdi.ly
avaikbk fknn field data
Gkso* provided a method for cormctm gtheprdcted
bubblepoint pressure fm the pmaence of carbon -
nitrogen and hydrogen sultlde. The cmedioo factors area
function of the mole fractions of the non-hydmcadmn
components. fhii limits the appliiilhy of the method when
field data is the only rnformabon
- avaikbk.
In 1980 Vaquez and Beggal presented cmekrtiom for
determining the solution ~il ratio and the oil formation
volume factor as a function of the bubble-point pressure, tank-
oil gravity, ternpcmtum and gas gravity. A correlation was
provided for comecting the gas gmvity to sepamtor condtions of
100 psig. In order to improve the acu3racy of the correlations,
Vazquez and Beggs19divided the measured data into two groups
based on the oil API gravity. The divisiin was made at 30
API. Vazquez and Beggs19 used more than 6,000
measurements of solution gas-oil ratios and oil formation
volume factors iiom fields all over the world.
The correlation for comecting the gas g3avity to a separator
pressure of 100 psig was based on 124 data points tim 27
different reservoir fluids.
Vazquez and Begga19 also presented a correlation for
detenninirrg undemtumted oil compressibilities. The
correlation for determining the compressibility of
undersaturated crude oils was developed as a function of the
solution gas-oil ratio, temperature, tank-oil API gravity, gas
gravity and the undersaturated oil pressure. A total of 4486 data
points were used for the development of this correlation.
In 1988 A1-Marhounl derived empirical equations for
calculating the bubble-point pressure and oil formation volume
factor for Middle East crude oils. Both correlations were
developed as functions of the gas-oil ratio, temperature, gas
gravity and tank-oil gravity. A total of 160 data points from 69
oil reservoirs were used for this study.
In 1983 Ostermann, et alio utilized laboratory PVT sample
arralyscs obtained from 4 fields in Alaska to analyze the
accuracy of existing correlations for bubble-point pressure, oil
formation volume factor at the bubble-point ptessure, dead oil
viscosity, and saturated oil viscosity. They concluded that is
necessary to evaluate the applicability of existing PVT
correlations before using them with confidence.
In 1990 Sutton and Famhad7evaluated sevend well-
knownempiricalPVT correladons for application in the Gulf of
Mexico. The fluid properties examined were bubble-point
pressure, solution gas-oil ratio, formation volume factor,
isothermal compressibility, dead oil viscosity, gas saturated oil
viscosity and undersaturated oil viscosity. ~ey concluded that
even the PVT correladons yieldrng the best results for thk
region may present large errors. Sutton and Farshad17 also
showed that there are significant discrepancies in the magnitude
of the error obtained by applying different correlations fbr
calculating PVT properties of crude oils from the Gulf of
Mexico.
In 1992, D&la and 0sman7 published a act of correlations
for UAE erudea. They presented corrdation equations for
bubble point pressure and oil formation vohune factor. A total
of51 bottomhole samples tiom UAE reservoirs were used. He
313
indicated thatauniveraal eomelation doansxexist andthatd@a
f?omlocalfegioms sbouldbeusedtodevekp local cwrektk3ui.
In 1993, PeUosky and Famhad presented ~phiC5d PVT
COSTChti031Sfor estimating bubbk point ~, aoiutioo gas-
oil ratio, bubble point fmation volume &tar and
undmmmted isothermal and compraaibil~ fm Gulf of
Mexico crude oils. Wtrosky and Farshad utihzed 81
laboratory PVT sample analyses to develop there mrrelations.
Fluid samples were obtained tim resmvoirs located offshore
Texas and Louisiana Petrosky and Farshad12 ako presented
empirical viscoshy congelations for Gulf of Mexico crude oils.
Petrosky and Farshar+z pmented ViSCOSii congelations for
estimating dead oil, satwted oilj and undmatmmd oil
ViSCOSitiC&A totfd of 126 hbomtmy PVT analyaa W~ used to
develop the oil viscosity correlations. The data base utilii
was constructed horn diffkrentird liberadon data and two stage
laboratory aepamtor tests conducted 0ssbubble-point oil.
DESCRIPTION OF PVT DATA
Results of PVT Iabomtory analyses for Colombian crude oils
constituted the bases of information needed for thii research. A
total of 98 reservoir tluid samples from more than 32 reservoirs
were made available for this study.
Most of the correlations are based on a di!%rent number of
experimentally determined data points. The factors determining
the data base of each correlation are the number of sepmtor
stages and the simges of variation of the data for which the
correlation is valid.
In order to study the effect of the number of sepamtor
stages on the amuracy of the correlations, the data has been
divided into three groups. The first group consists of 43 data
points obtained from single-stage sepmation. The second group
includes a total of 146 data points based on two-stage
separation. The third group is formed by 15 data points
obtained horn three-stage sepamtion. lle nmgcs of values
covered by these data are presented in Tables 1,2 and 3.
Only 49 of the 146 two-stage sepamtion data poiuts
include information on the stock-tank gas gravity. lhe total gas
gravity comeaponding to these data points has been calculated.
Most of the statistical models used m this study are
intrinsically nonlinear models. Consequently, most of the
comelations are developed by applying mukipk nonlrnear
regression techniques. Linear regression procdms were only
applied m a few cases in which the mathematical models could
1% expressed in linear form. For nonlrnear models, the
Nonlinear Regression (NUN) program fiorn the SAS13
atatisdcal package was used. The RSQUARE and STEPWISE
regression program were used for the ~mearmorkls.
several modellrng altemadves were considered for some
oftbe PVTprop@ka. 033eexampk oftbeaeakmativa
concerns the bubble-point pressure. All of the corrections
Studkdwere devdopedundadifkatumditiorw depding indic.ateatbatrnomrealiadc models can be formulated i~instead
onthermmbero ffleklw pamtoratagea artdkwthevariabka of total solution gas-oil ratio and total gas gravity, sepamtm gas-
conelated. Baeause of thelwge number ofmodcls uzedas oil ratioa and gas gravitiez are correlated.
q~ ~04 @ tboze models yielding the beat lhe corrected sepamtm gas gravity cmelation assumes
comelations m pmaellted here. the following general relationship].
Yac= flYupYmT#sp) (1)
CORRELATIONS FOR CORRECTING THE Numeamrs liiear and nonliiear models were eonaidared as
SEPARATOR GAS GRAVITY AND SOLUTION GAS- ~~i~ eq@kmz. lle model yielding beat results is a8
OIL RATIO
Yp= 7- + 15.5727(YJ-QIog@Jl 14.7) (2)
Charlges inprmaure and ~~-fhe Wbctw
produchofre-servoir fluid scauzmsohltior lgastobelii YF=ww*(+O~would--
fium the oil p&se. llw volume and gravity of the gas evolved ~~@~14.7*
-~~~ atwhiiaurhce wpamdonis Y*=? IiWdtiy(-1) obtained atcmditions of
perfbrmed.
Theamountofgas liiiaminimii attheoptimum yO= oil!~ifi~gravity (water=l)
-~~. rfti~--ubbw P*=actual wpamtorpreaaum, psia
the optimum wpamtor pressure, the volmne and gravity of the Tq=actual aepam@r~OF
gas liberated decrmsm asthesepammr premureincmses. lllisequation is based on%data pointaobmined mm
Camrsety, fix wpamtor pressurea above the optimum analyses of 27 difft Colombian lWMVOir fluii. For this
y~,tivolumedmoftigmfiti equadomtbeaverage relativeerror was4M4%wit baatan&rd
Creaseaastbe sepmtorpmasure incremm. deviadonof 3.93%. The correlation coefficient was 0.951. The
The e!lkclofthe wpamtortempemture and preasum on the crossplot forthiicorrelation isshownin F~ landthemnges
gas gravity and solution gas-oil ratio suggests that their of the data used are m followx
inclusion in the development of empirical PVT comdations
should result in an improvement of the pmdkted values. A Gas gravity at aepmtor 0.599 to 1.329
method was proposed by Vasquez and Beggs19 accomplishing conditions of 114.7 psia (a& 1)
irr part this objective. It consists of cmeding the gravity of the
gas liberated ibm a sepammr opemting at a specific pressure to Gas gravity at sepmtor 0.573to 1.337
the value that would have resulted if the sepamtor presme were condkions other than 114.7 psia
114.7 psia. Ihe comected gravity is then used as an independent (a*l)
variable in the PVT comelationa.
Two correlations were developed to detamine the effect Solution GOR at sepamtor conditions 67 to 1~00
of separator conditions on the prdcdon of PVT popertiea of 114.7 Pa@ sct7sTB
Introduced intbisstudy isanaddidonal caredlo n fm solution
gas-oil ratio. These correlations correct the solution gas-oiI ratio SolutionGORat separatorcondii 66 to 1230
andthegas gravity msultingfkorn asepamtor opemting ata otherthan 114.7psia!scfWI-13
specific presawe to tbe values that would have resulted if the
~oetiamfmu~. Itwasfoundrhatin Oil specific gravity (water=l ) 0.827 to 0.931
most of the PVT analyses aveilabk for tbia research the
optimum aepamtor pmaure was in the range of 54.7 and 164.7 -r km-, OF 68 to 100
paia (these reauka C&l&k with Wk4t hquez and -9
found). Therefore, it was deckkd to select a value of 114.7 paia - p-m Pk 34.7 to 514.7
asthereferlmce presaum.
Itwaspoatulated tbattheecambon should be performed Using the same data base, linear mgmsakmanalysiswaa
not Udy on the gas gravity, as suggested by Viizquez and applied todevelop tbemrectedaqamtor giwoilmtio
Beggs9,but also on the solution~il ratio for the following eorleladon. Tbe following equadon Wm obtaimk
reasons. F~asstatede arlicr,b othpamrnetemd ependonthe IQ= ~[1+27.6417x~#xlog(F#l 14.7)] (3)
condkions at whkb the aepamtion is made. Secondly, in routine where:
Iieldpmcticeq thegaslii fiorntbe wpamtorto thestock %-solutiongaa- oilmtiotllatwould
tank k vented to the atmosphere, lltemfore, the stock-tank gas result fkom aepamtor conditions of 114.7 ps~
gravity and adution gas-oil ratio is seldom measured. fhis Scmm

314
 &= %pamtorgas-oil
ratio obtained at corsditions
of T= and Pv SCVSTB
llw average reladve error for this correlation is 0.57V0
with a standard deviation of 6. 17%. The torielationcoefficient
is 0.997. The crossplot for this correlation is shown in Figure 2.
T = tesnpemture, F
lle avemge relative error for this eurrelation is 13.32??with a
standarddeviation of 37,02V0. Fi~ 3 shows the crossplot for
this correlation. The ranges of the data covered m the
Comelationare presented in Table 1.

p, = 33.22[ p18281 o(o000037T-00

42Ap)
~.

An improved correlation was obtained by correlating the

BUBBLE-POINT PRESSURE, Pn, CORRELATIONS corrected separator gas gravity, Yw,and the corrected solution
gas-oil ratio, ~. These values were estimated fiwnr equations 2
Standing reported the following general relation between the and 3, respectively. The regression analysis yielded the
bubble-point pressure of so oil and gas mixture with its fluid following equation:
and reservoir proprties. l%is equation showed an average relative error of -3.49% with a
pb = XK,Y*,AP1,T9 (4) standard deviation of 14.61?40.The crossplot for this correlation
where: is shown in Figure 4.
~ = total solution gas-oil ratio
&J = average gas gravity Bubble-Point Pressure Correlations Based on Two-Stage
API = Stock-tankoil API gravity Separation
T = temperature
Several mode;s were tried as regression equations to Nonlinear multiple regression was performed to obtain a
obtain a general bubble-point correlation. It was not possible to correlation having the following general form:
develop an accurate correlation for all ranges of the data Ph = qIQqT,@ (7)
available for this study. Therefore, the data was divided by The following correlation was develo d:
4ti510<0.~TW.0153~APl)
groups. The oil API gravity, the solution gas-oil ratio, the gas P~= 30.21 ~w & (8)
gravity and the number of separator stages are the variables used The relative average error of this equation is 3.323% with
as criteria for this division. In each case, it was observed that a standard deviation of 16.26V0. The crossplot for this
splitting the data into at least two groups and developing correlation is shown in Figure 5. The ranges of the parameters
correlations for each of them improved the accuracy of the covered are presented irrTable 2.
predicted values. The best results were obtained when the data An improved correlation was obtained by correcting not
were divided based on the number of separator stages. only the separator gas gravity, but also the separator gas-oil
Consequently, correlations were developed for one, two and ratio. Equations (2) and (3) were used for these corrections.
three-separator stages. The bubble-point pressure was then correlated as a timction of
the corrected separator gas gravity, the CO* separator gas-
Bubble-point Pressure Correlation Based on Single-Stage oil mtio, the reservoir tempemture and the oil API gravity. llre
Separation Data following equation was obtained
p~ = 10[1.~l+l~~SxMAW.31WX[~A)] )
(9)
Nonlinear multiple regression analysis was used to develop a where:
comelation of bubble-point pressure as a function of field data. A = ~m yvnfl~% Ap~%2
Two different cases were considered. First, the bubble-point The average relative error is -0.95% with a standard
pressure was correlated as a function of the gas gravity, solution deviation of 13.08%. The crossplot fbr this correlation is
gas-oil ratio, oil API suavity
-- and reservoir temperature. The presented in Figure 6. The data base used is the same as in
model best fittin the data ielded the following correlation: Equation (8).
p,= ~fO.~W+l.Wl?MAN.M.MA)] )
(5)
where Bubbl&Point Pressure Correlation Based on Two and
A = ~g-13~X&l.~3X ~@@xT4,~&I)
Three-Stage Separation
where
~ = total solution gas-oil ratio, scfZSTB Because of the small number of data points, it was not possible
Y*= average gas gravity (air=l) to develop a correlation based only on three-@ge separadon
API = stock-tank oil API gravity, API PVT data. However, a correlation based on data coming fkom

316
two and -stage sepamtionwas obtained. The equationfor
bubble-pointpressure,P is:
.,,,k,o(o.m35xT4.mxm-7 ~8,81 ~,o)
P~= 64.14 ~0w3 yg
where
y = total average gas gmvity
Equation(10) showed an averagerelative error of 1.91%
with a standard deviation of 9.80%0. The crossplot for this
correlation is shown in Figure 7. The ranges of the data used
are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
SOLUTION GAS-OIL RATIO, Its, CORRELATIONS
Three correlations for estimating the total solution gas-oil ratio
are presented in this paper. The fnt two correlations are based
on single and two-stage separation daa respectively. The third
correlation is based on two and three-stage sepamtion data. The
correlations are obtained by mathematically rearranging the
bubble-point pressure correlations given by Equations (6), (9),
and (10).
Solution Gas-Oil Ratio Correlation Based on SingI&Stage
Separation Data
An improved bubble-point correlation based on single-stage
separation data has been presented in Equation (6). The
correlation is a fimction of the corrected gas gravity, corrected
solution gas-oil ratio, the reservoir temperature and the stock-
tank oil gravi~. The corrected solution gas-oil ratio is estimated
from Equation (3). Substitution of Equation (3) into Equation
(6) and a rean-angement of the resulting equation yields the
following correlation for determining the solution gas-oil ratio:
(11)
The average relative error of this correlation is -7.9?! with
a standard deviation of 22.7/0. The crossplot for this correlation
is shown in Figure 8. The ranges of the data used are presented
in Table 1.
Solution Gas-Oil Ratio Correlation Based on Twr#Nage
Separation Data
Equation (9) is based on 146 experimentally determined data
points obtained from two--e separation. Solving this
equation for ~ yielda the followin relation
x&o.wklo,o.m37xT@.olnl.m ~12)
&= 0.01936 xPbis74
The ranges of the data on which this cormkttion is based
w provided in Table 2. The average reladve error is 0.79?!
316
with a standard deviation of 16.85/0. The crossplot for this
correlation is shown in Figure 9.
solution Gas-oil Ratio Correlation Based on Two and
Thre&3tage Separation Data
The bubble-point correlation presented in Equation (10) is based
on two and three-stage separation data. The following
correlation is obtained by mathematical rearrangement of t.hk
This correlation show~ an average relative error of-
3.56% with a standard deviation of 16.85%. The crossplot for
this correlation is shown in Figure 10. The ranges of the data
used for its development are the same as that used to develop
Equation (10).
Oil Formation Volume Factor, B., Correlations
The following general relation between bubble point pressure of
an oil and gas mixture with its fluid and reservoir properties is
assumed ~:
BO= flFQs,~,T) (14)
where:
Be= oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
Numerous models were tried as regression equations to
develop a correlation for the oil formation volume factor.
Several approaches were used. The best three correlations arc
presented in this paper.
The fmt correlation is based on one, two and three-stage
separation data. The correlating variables are the average gas
gravity, the total solution gas-oil ratio, the reservoir temperature
and the stock-tankoil gravity. This correlation was fud to be
very accurate. Therefore, the data was not divided according to
the number of separator stages, as it was done for the bubble-
point pressure correlations.
Two correlations based on two-stage sepamtion data are
also presented. The fmt correlates the oil formation vohrme
factor as a fhnction of the coneded sepamtor gas gravity, the
total solution gas-oil ratio, the reservoir tempemture and the
stwk-tank oil gravity. llc second con-elation utilizxs tire
corrected wparator gas-oil ratio, instead of the total solution
gas-oil ratio. The other correlating parameters are the same as
in the fmt case.
Oil Formation Vohne Faclor Correfatbns Based on he,
Two Orrd+hree-stagelikparadon Data
A total of 107experimentallydetermineddata pointswere used This correlation showed an average tdative esmr of -
to developthe oil formationvolume factorcodation basedon 6.85% with a standard deviation of 32.5%. The cmsplot fm
one,two and three-stageseparation. The correlatingpammeters this condation is shown in Figure 14. The ranges of the
are the total sohitionges*il ratio, the averagegas gravity,the parameterscoveredin the correlationare presentedin Table 4.
reservoirtemperature,and the stock-tank oil gravity. Nonlinear
regression analysis was performed to obtain the following COMPARISON OF CORRELATIONS
reiation:
BO= , + , ~1-2.W14.SSKwAW.3331 HA)] }
(15) Calculationsof various PVT properties were made with several
where: widely used empirical PVT correlations. In this paper, several
A = R,0sgMX&an@X&-132n + ()<09T6xT correlations have been developed for the same PVT properly.
The averagerelativeerror of the correlationis 0.00028% The correlation achieving the highest acaracy is selected fw
with a standarddeviation of 0.03380A. The crossplot for this this comparison. llre equations or charts of the following
correlation is shown in Figure 1I. The ranges of the data used comclations were used
are presented in Tables 1, 2, and 3. 1) For the corrected sepamtor gas gravity, Vazquez-
Beggs9
Oil Formation Volume Factor Correlations Based on Tw* 2) For bubble-point pressure, Standrng4, ViwxpEZ-
Stage Separation Data Beggs9
3) GIuoa, and A1-Marhoun, Dokla-0smrm7, and
The experimental data for 146 bubble-point liquids were used to Petrosky-Farshad.
obtain a correlation having the general form of Equation (14). 4) For solution gas-oil ratio, Standing, Vazquez-
Nonliiear multiple regression analysis was used to obtain the Beggs9,
following equation: 5) Glasos and A1-Marhoun, and Petrosky-Fsrshad.
BO = ] + 10(4.74~+2.l WMMAW. 1223x[Ios(A) }
(16) 6) For oil formation volume factor, Standing,
where: Vwquez-
A =&o.7534x&41036.%-1017 + 0.33 127xT
7) Beg#, Glaso and A1-Marhoun. Dokla-0srnan7,
The average relative emor of this correlation is 0.427% and Petrosky- FarShed.
with a standard deviation of 3.26/0. The crossplot for this 8) For isothermal compressibility, Vazquez-Beggs9 and
correlation is shown in Figure 12. The range of the parameters Petrosky-Farshad.
covered in this correlation arc presented in Table 2.
As stated earlier, the stock-tank gas-oil ratio is seldom CORRECTED SEPARATOR GAS GRAVIW
measured. For this reason, it was decided to develop an oil
formation volume factor correlation based on the corrected The values predicted by this study for gas gravities at separator
separator gas-oil ratio (Equation 3). Gther correlating conditions of 114.7 sia were compared to the values predicted
parameters are the corrected separator gas gravity, the reservoir by Vazquez-13eggsE correlation. This studys comelation
temperature and the stock-tank oil gravity. The data base used showed lower avera e relative emors and standard deviations
~m vwuez.BeJ9 Com,ation
is the same as in Equation (16). Tle nonlinear multiple
regression analysis yielded the following equation:
BO= 1 + 3x10-3xiQ3~7 + A (17) BUBBLE-POINT PRESSURE
where
A = (0.000292+OOOO0459XI&0" 4sw)X(T-60)0M7XAP10 "nXy_o"2's The values predicted by this study for bubble-point pressures
This con-elation showed an average relative e;or of were compared to the values predkted by Standings4,Glasos
0.073% with a standard deviation of 3.63%. The crossplot for and A1-Marhouns and Vazquez-Beggs 9, Dokla-Osmans7 and
this correlation is shown in Figure 13. Petrosky-Farshads correlations. The correlations presented in
Equation (6), which is based on single-stage separation da@ and
CORRELATION FOR THE ISOTHERMAL Equation (10), which is based on two and three-stage sepamtion
COMPRESSIBILITYOF OIL &@ were selected for this comparison.
The correlations for the bubble-point Pure of this study
Nonlinear multiple regression analysis was performed to obtain achieved the lowest relative errors and stmdard deviions and
the following relation WSS seconded by Petrosky-Farshadsllcamdations. standings
,.(-$4511+0.000303xA
. aOMOWJ035XA )
co= (18) and Glasos correlations performed Very pooriy at km bubble-
where: point pressures. For intermediate and high bubble-point
~= ~o.,m f3.66w ~c4210sm11.011y4.1616
pmsures, the results obtained !ium Standings correlations

317
were more awcptable. A1-Marhounsl correlation underpredicts
low bubble-pointpmssmes and overpredictshigh bubble-point
This stud)% correlation obtained higher accumcy than
VazqueAeggalv correlation. It was noted that Vazquez-
Beggs9 and kkkkMU1S7 COrrdatkm OV@Ctd bubble
point premuw%
SOLUTION GAS-OIL RATIO
standings,Glasos, fi]-hfalhomls, WZqUeZ-BeggS9,
Petrosky-Famhadsl 1, and this studys correlations were used to
estimate the solution gas-oil ratios. Equations (11) and
Equation (13) of this study were used for thii comparison.
This studys solution gas-oil ratio correlations achieved the
10WW errors and standard deviations. Petmsky-Farahadsll,
Standings and A1-Marhouns COITektiOllS stood amn~ thii
and fourth in accuracy, respedvely. In general, Petrosky-
Farahads 11showed good amrracy while Glasos$ correlation
showed poor accuracy. standings and AhMarhounsl
correlation tends to overpredii low solution gas-oil rati~ while
Cilasos*correlation underpmdicts solution gas-oil ratios.
Vazquez-Beggs19 correlation and Equation (12) of this
study were used to predict the solution gas-oil ratio. Both
correlations utilize the comeeted sepamtor gas gravity, instead of
the average gas gravity. This studys correladon achieved
higher accuracy than Vazquez-Beggs19.
OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR
The experimentally detmnined oil formation volume
factors were compared to the values predcted by Standings,
GIssos*, A1-Marhounsl, Dokla-Gsrnan7, Petrosky-Farahad,
and Vazquedkggsv and this StUdyS correkttionso @MtiOnS
(15) and (17) of this study were used for this evaluation.
standings, Glasos:, A1-Marhounsl, Dokla-osnlans7,
Petrosky-Farshads1, and this studys results am expressed as a
tlmction of the total solution gas-oil ratio, the average gas
gravity, the stock-ta@ oil gravity and the reservoir temperature.
~is atud~s, Standmgs*4,and Petmsky-Farahadsll correlations
yielded approximately equal maults. In general, the four
emrdations showed very low relative emors, lhii confirms that
the oil formation volume factor cxmelations are more general
thanthe otbercomhtionsconsid eredinthis study and can
safely be used for @mates on a wide variety of crude oils, as
WW pointed out by Standing].
Vazquez-Begga19 correlation and Equation (17) of tlm
study were used to * the oil formation volume factor.
Both correlations again showed approximately same accuracy.
ISOTHERMAL COMPRESSIBLIJTY
318
Vazquez-Beggslv, Petrosky-Famhadsl1, and this St@%
comelation of isothermal compressibility of oil were compared.
This studys correlation achieved higher accumcy than both
Vazquez-Beggs19and Petrosky-Farahadsl 1correlations.
CONCLUSIONS
I. Empirical PVT correlations for estimating bubble-point
pressure, solution gas-oil ratio and oil formation volume
fiactor have been developed W on sirdar work by
Standmg.Equations (6), (9), (10),(1 1), (12), (13),(15),(16),
(17) and (18) form the basis for calculating the bubble-point
pressures, solution gas-oil ratios and oil formation volume
factors and undemmmkd -oil compressibility. TIIese
correlations are based on results of PVT laboratory analyses
of Colombian crude oils.
2. A new correlation that corrects the separator solution gas-oil
ratio to a ref-~ sepator pressure has been developed.
Equation (3) forms the basis for calculating the corrected
separator solution gas-oil ratio. Estimated and measured
conected separator solution gas-oil ratios were compared.
This comparison as well as the stdistical analysis of this
correlation showed that the correlation can be applied with a
high degree of accuracy.
3. Improved correlations for estimating the bubble-point
pressure have been developed. The improvement of these
correlations was achieved by introducing the new correction
factor on the sepamtor solution gas-oil ratio.
4. Bubble-point pressure, oil formation volume factor, and
solution gas-oil ratio correladom based on corrected
separator data have been developed. Since the stock-tank
gas gravity and stock-tank solution gas-oil ratio is seldom
measured in the field these correlations represent a more
realistic form of estimating PVT properties thao PVT
correlations based on totrd solution gas-oil ratio and average
gas gravity.
5. The numtm?rof surface sepiuator stagea was used as criterion
to develop dfierent correlations for the bubble-point
pesswe, the solution gas-oil ratio and the oil formation
volume f-r.
6. Deviations fkom experimentally determined &@ indicated
as average relative errora, standard deviations and croaaplots
were lower for thii study than for estimations baaed on other
published empirical PVT correlations.
NOMENCLATURE
API = oil API gravity, API
BO = oil formation volume fhetor, bbl/STB
B& = differential bubble-point oil formation
vohune tbctor, bbVSTB
 = flashbubble-pointoil formationvolume 5. Chew, J. and C.A. Connally, Jr., 1959, A Viscosity
factor, sct7sTB Correlation for Gas-SaturaW Cmde Oils, Trans. AIME
= isothermaloil compressibility,PsK1 (1959)216,23-25.
= presum, psia 6. Cronqui~ C., 1973, Dirnensionkw PVT Behavior of Gulf
= bubble-pointpressure,psia Coast Reservoir Oils, ~ -y 1973) 538-542.
= averageprmsure,psia 7. Dokla-Osman, 1992, Correlations of PVT Properties for
= actualaepamtorpressure,psia UAE Crudes< SPE Formation Evaluation (March 1992), p.
= total solutiongas-oil ratio, sct7STB 41-45.
= cmected separator solution gas-oil ratio, 8. Glaso, O., 1980, Generalimd Pressure-Volume -
scf7STB Temperature Correlations, J.Pet.Tech. (May 1980) 785-
= differential solution gtas-oilratio, scffSTB 795.
= initial differential solution gas-oil ratio, 9. Lasater, J.A., 1958, Bubble Point Pressure correlation;
scnm Trans. AIME (1958) 213,379-381.
= initial flash solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB
= separator solution gas-oil ratio, sct7STB 10. Ostermanrr, C.A., C.A. Ehlig-Economides, and
= tempemture, F O.P.Owolabi, 1983, Correlations for the Resewoir Fluid
= actualseparatortemperature,F Propertiesof AlaskanCmdes, Paper SPE 11703presented
= gas gravity(air= 1) at the 1983 California Regional Meeting, Sot. of Pti.Eng.
= averagegas gravity(air= 1) of AIME, Ventu~ CA (March 23-25, 1983).
= correctedseparatorgas gravity(air= 1) II. Petrosky-Farshad, 1993, Pressure-Volume-Tempemture
= oil gravity (water= 1) Correlationsfor Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils, SPE Paper
= undersatmated-oil viscosity, cp 26644 presented at 1993 68th Annual Technical
= saturate&oil viscosity, cp Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX (Oct. 3-6, 1993),
= dead-oil viscosity, cp p. 39S-406.
12. 12.Petrosky-Farsh~ 1995, Viscosity Comelation for Gulf
of Mexico Crude Oils, SPE Paper 29468 presented at the
1994 Production Symposium, Oklahoma City, OK (Apr. 2-
b = bubble-point 4, 1995), p.249-258.
c =comcted 13. SAS Users Guide Statistics, 1985, SAS Institute, Inc.,
d = dead oil Cary, NC (1985).
d = di&ereotial 14. Standing M.B., 1947, A Pressure-Vohune-Tempemture
i initial Correlation for Mixtures of California Oils and Gases,
o = oil Drill. md Prod.prac,, API (1947)275-287.
g P 15. Standin~ M.B., 1981,Volumetric and Phase Behavior-of
011 Field Hydrocarbon Systems, 9th printing Society of
REFERENCES Petroleum Engineersof AIME,Dallas,TX (1981).
16. Sutton, RP., 1993, An Evahration of Using
1. A1-MarhouLM.A., 1988, PVT Correlations for Middle Compositionally DerivedPVT Parametersin Pressure
EastCrude Otis; J. Pet. Tech. @kly 1988) 650-666. GradientCalculatio~ MS -nlesis, University of
2. ~ C., 1970, The Viscosi~ of Air, Water, Natural Gas, SouthwesternLouisian&Lafayette,LA (1983).
Cmde 011 and Its Associated Gases at Oil Field 17. 17.Sutton, R.P. and F.F. Farsh@ 1990, Evahmtionof
Tempemtums and Prwsures, SPE Reprint Series No. EmpiricallyDerived PVT Properties fix Gulf of Mexico
3, Oil and Gas Property Evaluation and Reseme Crude Oils, SPE Reservoir Engineering Journal (Feb.
Estima- Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, 1990),79-86.
Dal~ TX (1970) 114-127. 18. TNtw, A.S., 1957, Compressibility of Undersaturated
3. Begga, H.D. and J.R Robinson, 1975, Estimating the HydrocarbonReservoirFluids,Trans. AIME (1957) 210,
Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems, J.Pet.Tech. (Sept. 341-344<
1975)1140-1141. 19. VazqueAM. and H.D. Beggs, 1980, Carelatkms for Fhrid
4. Cdhoq J.C.~r., 1947, Fundamentals of Reservoir Physical Property Predction: J.Pet.Tech, (June 1980),
Engineer-in&University of Wahoma Press, NormarLOK 968-970.
(1947).

319
S1Mclric Ccmvcmion Factors
API 141.5/(131 .5+API) = gkm
bbl X 1.589873 E-01 = m3
Cp x 1.0 E-03 = ~x~
F (W-32)/l .8 = c
psi x 6.894757 E+OO Id%
R R/l .8 -K
sct?bbl X 1.801175 E-01 = std m3/m3
Conversion factor is exact.