MISCELLANEOUS

This section contains two (2) miscellaneous papers, as follows.

"A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of California
Oils and Gases"

By M. B.Standing, Standard Oil Company of California, La Habre; Calif. (Presented a t Pacific Coast District, Los Angeles, Calif., May 1947)
I

"Formation and Operation of Unit Projects in Secondary Recovery"

By K. E. Beall, Phillips Petroleum Company, Bartlesville, Okla (Presented a t Mid Continent District Meeting, Amarillo, Texas, May 1947)

A PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE CORRELATION FOR MIXTURES O F CALIFORNIA OILS AND GASES t

ABSTRACT The paper presents correlat~o~is of bubble-polut pressures, for~natlonvolumes of bubble-po~nt Iigu~ds,and forn~atlon volun~es of gas plus liqu~dphases as empir~cal f u l ~ c t ~ oof l~s gas-011ratlo, gas gravlty, 011 gravlty, pressure, and temperature. Although the correlat~o~ls are on Calrforll~acrude 011s and gases, comparrsons are made for the varlous crudes reported by Katz. In order the use of the data, the results of the corto fac~l~tate relat~o~ are ~ sprese~itecl111 the form of calculat~~ig charts.

The solution of reservoir-performance problems reclulres that the physical properties of the reservoir fluids be known These propert~esmay be determined in the laboratory either from bottom-hole samples or froin proper recoinb~nationof surface t r a p samples If the results of laboratory tests a r e not available, however, the physical properties must be estinlated from field ineasuren~ents The purpose of thls paper is to give the results of several correlations between the variables normally measured in t h e field and the physical properties necessary for the solution of reservoirperfornlance problems Other correlations of this type have been reported by Gosline and Dodson,l" and by Katz Sage and Olds4 have recently reported a n escellent correlation of formation volumes of condensate systeins The accuracy of t h e following P-V-T correlations is restricted by two factors 1 The varied and con]plex multi-component hydrocarbon systeins which a r e dealt with a r e defined by only three siinple parameters gas gravity, oil gravity, and gas-oil ratio, and, 2 These parameters themselves depend upon the process by which the oil and g a s a r e separated The method used by Sage and Reamer2 in the Rio Bravo Field studies of specifying hesanes and heavier material a s "oil" and all pentanes and lighter material a s "gas" \vould overcome these difficulties However, this approach does not lend Itself to field usage A further aid to preparing correlations would be to make use of a standard procedure in separating the oil and gas when gas-oil ratios a r e determined However, a s the P-V-T data a r e prepared f o r individual field conditions, it is n o w ~ a l l ynot posslble to use such a method The gas-oil ratios, gas gravities, oil gravities, and formation volumes presented in this paper a r e laboratory values They a r e the result of a 2-stage flash separation a t 100 deg F-the first stage norinally being within the pressure range of 250 psi to 450 psi and
* Stanc1,ird Or1 Co of Cnlrfor~ira,Ln t1.1lrri1, C n l ~ f , r e ~ n o r e d , 1'34; t o Cn11fornr.r Research Cabrli. La H a b m . C a l ~ f

second stage a t atmospheric pressure This procedure is considered to approximate the average California field practices
Bubble-POIII~ Pressure Correlat~o~~s

One of the inp port ant functions of P-V-T data 1s to indicate whether t h e reservoir oil is undersaturated o r saturated, o r whether free gas is being produced from the sand This requires a knowledge of the g a s solubility-bubble-point-pressure relationship of the oil and gases associated 111 the reservoir I n considering the manner 111 which the several variables affect the bubble-point pressure of a mixture of a n 011 and a gas, ~t seems reasonable to postulate a correlation of the form

P, = *(GOR,
P b

y ,

T, A P I )

(1)

= bubble-point pressure, 11~1,absolute

GOR

= gas-oil

ratio, cu f t per bbl

7, = gravity of dissolved gas (air

= 1)

A P I = gravity of tank oil, deg A P I T = temperature, deg F. 9 = a function of I n developing the specific equation relating the bubblepoint pressure to the variables on the n g h t side of equation ( I ) , the general relationship between the variables was used to suggest graphical methods of determining specific relat~onships F o r example, the bubble-point pressure normally increases with a n increase in gas-oil a = +, (GOR)' or P,, = ratio This suggests t h a t P a2(.4) " L Likewise the bubble-point pressure increases with a n increase in temperature, but decreases with a n Increase in oil gravity (deg API) o r g a s gravlty (air = 1) After a number of attempts it was found t h a t a plot. of log(?) vs log Paresulted in a series of straight Mathematically, lines with a n average slope of 0 83 this gave the relationship

t Presented a t tlie sprrng meetlug of tlre Pacrtic Coast D ~ s t r l c t , Dl\ l s ~ o nof Proi111ctron. Los Augeles, C a l l , B1a.r 15, 1947 presrdlng, E V Watts. General Petroleurn Corp Los Bugeles. 'Calrf a F ~ g n r e srefer to REFERENCES on 1, 279

[Pbl
T Al.1

GOR

Predrctlon of Bubble-Polnt Pressure from Gas-011 Ratlo, Solution-Gas Gravity, Tank-011 Grau~ty,and Temperature. FIG. 1

A second plot of log

VS

re-

sulted in straight llnes of almost constant slope, or, expressed mathemat~cally

Flnally, a third correlatlon was made to determine the effect of 011 g r a v ~ t y ,and the following specific relationship was obtalned

To obtaln the relationships expressed In equatlon (4) it was necessary to have tests on numerous mixtures of oil and gas a t a variety of temperatures Flg 1 shows the results of plottlng 105 experllnentally determined bubble-polnt pressures on 22 different crudeoil-natural-gas mlxtures The range of the data was a s follows Bubble-polnt pressures Temperature Gas-011 ratlos Tank-011 gravities Gas gravities 130 to' 7,000 psi, absolute 100 to 258 deg F 20 to 1,425 cu f t per bbl 16 5 to 63 8 deg API 0 59 to 0 95 (air = 1)

points d~ffered froln the correlatlon by less than 100 psi, and that only 12 per cent were further than 200 psi from the correlatlon The lower curve gives the frequency distribution of the errors resulting from estimatmg the bubble-polnt pressure froln the correlation More than half of the experimental points were wlthln 5 per cent of the correlatlon The arithmetic average error was 4 8 per cent and 106 psl The data on 53 crudes reported by Katz3 do not, when plotted a s lndlcated in Flg 1, give a s good a correlation a s the data reported In thls paper A llne drawn approximately 150 psi hlgher than that shown in Flg 1 gave the best correlatlon of the Katz data. However, in terms of the present correlation, 52 per cent of the Katz data fell withln 200 psl of the correlatlon a s compared to 88 per cent of the California data The better correlation obtalned In the case of the California crudes is posslbly explained by the fact that the crudes reported by Katz were from a larger varlety of sources Differences in laboratory methods, however, lnlght account for part of the dlsagreement
Formation Volumes of Bubble-Point Lquids

The agreement to be expected from the foregoing correlatlon can be estimated from the curves shown In Fig 2 The upper curve shows that 58 per cent of the
I00

A second factor requlred in reservoir calculations IS the formation volume of the saturated llquid phase This factor is used to compute the shrinkage of the reservoir oil when ~t IS processed to the stock tanks. The fornlatlon volumes of the 105 bubble-point llquids used In the prevlous section were correlated In terms of the gas-011 ratio, gas gravlty, tank-oil gravity (specific gravlty), and temperature The correlatlng equation finally selected was

80

60

Vb = forlnatlon volume of bubble-po~nt hquld, bbl

per bbl of tank oil GOR = gas-011 ratio, cu f t per bbl -ys = gravity of dissolved gas (air = 1 ) yo = speclfic gravlty of tank 011 a t 60 deg F T = temperature, deg F .f. = a functlon of Fig 3 shows the results of plotting the experlinental format~on volumes agalnst the function shown in equatlon (5) To glve an idea of the nlagnitude of the errors Involved in the correlatlon, llnes of 5 per cent d~sagreement are shown The frequency dlstributlon of the errors is shown in Flg 4 I t wlll be noted that 45 per cent of the points fit the correlatlon with errors less than 0.5 per cent, and that no errors were greater than 7 per cent The arithnletlc average of the errors IS 117 per cent The shrinkage data presented by Katz, when converted to formation volumes, showed an arithmetic average error of 1 2 0 per cent when correlated by equat ~ o n(3) These close agreements indicate that the correlation of bubble-golnt formation volume IS more general than the bubble-polnt pressure, and that the correlations can safely be used for estlinates on a wider variety of crude 011s and gases.

40

20

0 0

100 COO PRESSURE DISAGREEMENT - P S I

300

-14-12-10

- 8 -6 - 4 - 2 0 2 4 6 8 M DISAGREEMENT - P E R CENT

12

14 16

Frequency D~str~but~on of Bubble-Po~nt Pressure Correlat~on. FIG. 2

Predletion of Formation Volulne of Bubble-Po~ntLiquld from Gas-011 Ratlo, Solut~on-Gas Gravrty, Tank-Oil Gravity, and Temperature.

FIG. 3

1 1

CORRELATING

EQUATION

1 I

The raising of the oil gravity to a power which In itself is a function of gas-011 ratlo IS a necessary feature of thls correlatlon Thls causes the tank-oil gravity to become relatively unimportant a t ratlos ~n excess of 2,000 cu f t per bbl, w h ~ c h IS 1 1 1 accordance with actual behavlor of hydrocarbon systems Fig 6 shows the agreement between esperimentally determined formatlon volumes and t h e values obtained from the correlation A t the tlme the correlations were prepared, the data of Sage and OldsL on hlgh gas-oil-ratio mixtures were not available and, therefore, could not be used ~n preparing the correlations A recent check with the Sage and Olds data showed that, above 160 deg F, the correlations reproduced 58 experimental observat ~ o n sw ~ t ha maximum error of 5 4 per cent and a n arithmetic average error of 1 5 7 per cent A t 100 deg F the errors amounted t o a s much a s 1 1 per cent, the greatest error being noted In t h e case of the 5,000 psi, absolute, volun~es

Frequency Distribution of Bubble-Po~ntFormationVolun~eCorrelation. FIG. 4 Two-Phase Forn~at~on Volumes

The formation-volume data of the g a s plus liquid phases cover a much wider range of gas-011 ratlos than do the bubble-polnt pressure o r bubble-point formationvolume correlations T h 1 s . l ~ because bubble-point llqulirs rarely have gas-oil ratios in excess of 2,000 cu f t per bbl, whereas 2-phase format~on-volumedata a r e often required f o r mlxtures havlng ratios a s hlgh a s 100,000 cu f t per bbl A correlatlon based on the equatlon

Use of the Correlat~ons

The evaluation of bubble-polnt piessure, bubble-point from formatlon volume, and.2-phase formatlon volun~es the correlations presented In F l g 1, 3, and 5 IS somewhat laborious To facilitate the use of the col-relations, t h e calculating charts shown la Fig 7, 8, and 9 were constiucted Esanlples of the use of each of the charts a r e ,~ndicated on the charts From these charts i t IS possible qulckly t o obtain engineering e s t ~ m a t e s of t h e physical properties of multi-component hydrocarbon 'systems under pressure a n d temperature conditions encoul~tered in 011- and gas-producing reservoirs

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author IS grateful to the nlanagelnent of the Standard 011 Company of Cahfornia f o r permission to publlsh this paper

where

VF = formatlon volume of g a s plus llquld phases, bbl per bbl of tank 011 P = pressure, psi, absolute GOR = gas-011 ratio, cu f t per bbl T = temperature, deg F ys = g a s gravity ( a ~ r= 1) yo = speclfic gravity of tank oil a t 60 deg F + = a function of
Predict~onof formatlon volume of g a s plus llquid phases is shown In F l g 5 Thls correlation contams 387 experimental polnts, 92 per cent of which a r e within 5 per cent of the correlation The ranges of the data a r e a s follows Pressure Gas-oil ratio Temperature Gas gravlty Tank-011 gravlty 400 to 5,000 psl, absolute 75 to 37,000 cu f t per bbl 100 to 258 deg. F. 0 59 to 0 95 ( a i r = 1 ) 1 6 5 to 63 8 deg A P I

REFERENCES
E Gosllne a n d (L' R Dodson, " S o l n l > ~ l ~ Relations ts and Volrl~nrtrlc B r h n r l o r of T l ~ r r p (.;r:rrltles of C r n d ~ a s n d Assoc~:lted C:ases." Llrrllrrrg n1t17 Proclrrrtro~i P r ~ t c t l c c .43.1 (1938)

'J

a n d Gas from t h e Rln B m \ o Field." Trolls dill. Illst ~ l f l ~ l r l r o -1fct E ~ r g r s 142, 179 (1941) 3n I . 4 K n t s . " P r e ~ l ~ c t of ~ ~ the_Shr~r!li;l~ge n of Crude O ~ l s , " ~ r r c r ~ o~ r t~ dPrc)drrctron Prnctrcr 1 ' 3 7 (1942) 4 R A S:IBP a n d R H ~ l d s , '" V o l ~ ~ r n e t r Rehnrlor .~c of 011 and- as from Several San J o a q l ~ l nValley Fields," Tmlrs Awl .., 1 . .G .. , ... , Inst M I I ~ I I Net L ~ Elrgrs 17n 5 119-1SL of H s ~ l r o c a r b o n Gases a n d TTapors,"

DISCUSSION

B H Sage (California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif) The author has presented a n ~ n t e r e s t r n g correlatlon of t h e volumetric and phase behavlor of naturally occurring lnlstures of 011 and g a s of low gas-oil e ratlo The analytical expresand ~ n t e r m e d ~ a t slons proposed f o r the relationship of bubble-polnt pressures and formatlon volumes to gas-oil ratios a r e some-

Prediction of Formation Volume of Gas Plus Liquid Phases from Gas-Oil Ratlo, Total Gas Gravity, Tank-Oil Gravity, Temperature, and Pressure. FIG. 5

PRODUC TlON

TECHhOLOGY L ABORA TORY

Copyrrght I94 7

Char1 for Calculnt~ngBubble-Point Pressure or S o l u b ~ l ~ t ? .

( Rrprn,lur,

d hv perrnrss,,,,,

nj m p v r r p h t nuirrrr)

FIG 7

PROPER TIES OF NATURAL If YDRO CARBON MIXTURES OF GAS AND LIQUID

FORMATION VOLUME o f BUBBLE POIN T LIQUIDS

EXAMPLE

REQUIRED Formafton vo/ume a t ZOO'F o f a b u b b l e pornt /lqurd hovmq a pas-otl r a h o of 350 CFB, a qas qrovrfy o f 0 75, and a fonk or/ q r o v r f y o f JO 'API

PROCEDURE s f a r t r n g af Me / e f t s~deo f the chart, proceed horrzontaI/y along fhe 350 CFB /me to a gas q r a v t f y o f 0 75 From this pornf d r o p verficaI/y to the 3 0 2 P I hne Proceed horrzonfaIIy from Me tank a/ gravrfy scale to the 2OO.f hne The required Ibrmahon volume IS 6 u n d to be I 22 b a r r e l per b a r r e l o f tank OII

Copyr~qht I94 7

Chart for C a l c ~ ~ l a t ~ Flo ~r gn i a t ~ oVoluliie ~~ of Bubble-POIII~ L~qu~ds..

( R e p r o d u r r d b v permnsszorl o f ropvrlehr o a ~ n r r )

FIG 8

.IFORNIA ORATORY

Chart for Calculati~l~ Forn~ation Volume of Gas Plus L ~ q u ~ Phases. d

(Reprodnccd b y perrnzssaon o f copyrcght o w n e r )

FIG. 9

what complex In order to perin~tinore direct ut111z.ation of the data, the last three figures of t h s paper present graphical solut~onsfor the equat~ons From these it is a relatively s~lnplematter to estimate the pressure and fornlation volume a t bubble-point and the formation volume in the heterogeneous reglon froin knowledge of the pressure, temperature, gas-oil raho, and the gravities of the oil and gas apparently are empirical and, thereThe correlat~ons fore, it is improbable that they can be applied with known accuracy to condit~onswidely &berent from those covered by the primary data upon which the correlations were based It IS belleved that the ~ n f o r mation subni~ttedin Fig. 7, 8, and 9 affords a useful means of estiniating the pressure and formahon volume

a t bubble point a s well a s the 2-phase formation volume for a wide variety of m~xturesof 011 and gas from Cal~forniafields In Table 1 (Sage) of this discussion is presented a comparison of predicted and exper~mental bubble-point pressures for 3 fields w h ~ c hwere not involved in the paper under d~scussion. The calculated values were froin 8 per cent below to 2 1 per cent above the observed bubble-point pressures This large variation shows the uncertainty that may be realized in using the correlation for materials involv~ngail oil of relatively h ~ g h gravity Table 2 (Sage) indicates the agreement between the observed and calculated values of the formation volume a t bubble point In this instance calculated values were from 7 6 per cent below to 2 3 per

TABLE 1 (SAGE) Bubble-Po~ntPressure

F~eld "A" Temperature Observed value Calculated value Difference

Pressure. pountls per square Inch D~R'erence expressed a s per cent

Field "B" Deg F

u .

Field "C"
250 100 190 250

100

190

250

100

190

TABLE 2 (SAGE)
Fornlat~on Volun~e at Bubble Polnt

F~eld "A" Temperature Observed value Calculated value Difference = Ditference expressed us per cent
TABLE 3 (SAGE)
100 190 250 100

F~eld "B" Deg F

190 250 100

Field "C"
190 250

Format1011 Volun~ein the Two-Phase Reg~on

F~eld "A" Temperature

Field "B" Deg F

250 1,000 2 33 2 55 94 100 800 272 2 96 88 190 800 335 3 60 75 250 1,000 316 3 30 44 331 47 100 1,000 239 2 58 79

Field "C"
190 1,000 313 3 28 48 250 2,000 199 2 30 156

100

190

Pressure, pounds per square inch, 1,000 1,000 absolute 178 21 1 Observed value 2 30 188 Calculated value " 56' 90 Difference 176 204 Calculated value -33 -11' Difference a = Calculated fro111 Stunding's correlation = Calculated from equation ( 1 ) of this d~scussion

223
-43

282 37

342 21

= Difference

expressed a s per cent

cent above the observed fonnatlon voluine a t bubble point Agaln, the largest discrepancy was found f o r mistures involving a n oil of a relatively high gravity This is not unexpected, lilasinuch a s the author indicated t h a t only a llinlted amount of data lncludlng such materials was available The formation voluine in the heterogeneous r e g o n f o r a pressure of 1,000 psl has been conlputed f o r 2 mlstures of oil and g a s on the basis of t h e correlation shown in the paper under dlscusslon A comparison of the observed and calculated values 1s presented In Table 3 (Sage) I11 this Instance the calculated formatlon volumes a r e from 4 4 to 15 6 per cent larger than the observed values As a11 alternative procedure, the formation voluine in the two-phase region was computed uslng the following espressionz TZ ; - (r-rb) V = Vb+O 005062 F
1

(1)

I n applylng equation (1) the experimentally observed formation volunle and gas-011 ratlo a t bubble point were employed f o r states corresponding to t h e pressure and temperature of interest The compressibility al Howfactor also was obtained from e ~ p e ~ l i n e n tdata ever, these data could have been estimated from available correlations based upon the pseudo-reduced state and t h e lnforlnatlon submmtted In t h e Standmg paper The results of t h e application of equat~on (1) a r e included in Table 3 (Sage) R H Smith (Signal Oil and Gas Company, Los Angeles, Calif ) The charts prepared by M r Standing will reduce a cumbersome laboratory or calculating process to a slide-rule type of operation I think it may be stated t h a t thls information incorporates the best broad definition of P-V-T behavior of California crude 011s yet a v a ~ l a b l ei n published form Because it does represent definite progress in the calculation method, the question of choice between laboratory determnation or derivation by reference to systeinatlzed esperlence data is again raised Without attempting to revlew all the factors involved in making the choice, I would rather confine my comment to one factor, v i z , t h e iinportance of which IS frequently overlooked The accuracy and usefulness of all P-V-T data a r e dependent upon a properly carried out sampllng operatlon, a s well a s upon the precision with which the laboratory can work Under many circumstances encountered 111 the field, a sample representative of subsurface composltlon is difficult to obtaln As naturally reservolr, o r a reservoir of large disposed in a con~ples closure, hydrocarbon fluids frequently display a marked degree of compositional variation which must be 111vestigated to Insure correct treatment in working out the subsurface inechaiucs The best guarantee t h a t sampllng methods have been adequate would be t h e adoption of a program of multiple sampling designed t o nlinlmize or explore the uncertainties. The employment of correlated experience data, on the other hand, 1s a practlce which neatly avoids the v~cissltudes of sampling, i e , it replaces the element

of sampling with a n equivalent operation over w h ~ c h a greater degree of control can be eserclsed I n t h e assembly of P-V-T data a s background material, only those variables subject to definltlon in the laboratory a r e dealt mlth No assumptions regarding t h e fidelity achieved In reprocluclng reseilroir fluid con~positioila r e made a t thls p o ~ n t I t then remains to qualify a n d relation t o meet adapt the einplrical P-V-T composit~on speclfic need A general survey of the mass of surface and subsurface information which h a s been accumulated 111 the field through the pertinent ranges of time, zone, o r location will afford t h e perspective necessary to accomplish the adaptation The sacrifice in assured accuracy inherent in obtalnlng pressure and volun~e factors from general correlations is frequently offset by the inore hscreet treatment which may be given t h e varlous portions of the pool This approach h a s merit when lack of ~nforination o r the conlplesity of t h e reservolr problem dictates a recourse to trial-and-error methods The d a t a the autllor h a s presented may be used t o advantage m coinbinatlon with specific laboratory determinations The charts have use in calculatlng t h e effect of snlall changes In a n y of the variables (pressure, temperature, deilslty of the 011 or gas, and t h e gas-oil ratio) oil preclse laboratory measurements when the investigation was not c a r r ~ e dinto the range of lmnlediate interest As Mr Standlnrr - has nointed out, the accuracv attalnable 111 applylng this type of correlation 1s limited by the degree to whlch co~npositioilof natuially occurring systems can be specified by the statement of gas-011 ratio, g a s gravity, and oil gravity If any method, such a s t h a t of Sage and Reamer defin~ngthe g a s a s all the pentanes and lighter fraction of the composite, can be employed with improvement 111 general apphcability, then lt 1s to be hoped t h a t t h e fund of baslc d a t a which was drawn upon f o r the correlations herein presented ultimately will be restated In the inore precise form Hydrocarbon analyses a r e perfonned wlth facility and could be made available In inany instances when added precision is desired M r Standing M r Sinit11 h a s a good p o ~ n t One difficulty t h a t I have stressed is the effect of the inethod of separabon of the oil and g a s a t the surface on t h e resulting gas-oil ratio As no doubt many of you will recall, In Sage and Lacey's Rio Bravo report a n a t tempt was made to get around thls difficulty by speclfy1ng pentanes and heavier material a s oil, and butanes and hghter materlal a s gas This method is a step in the right direction However, it is confusing to t h e field man and, a s yet, ~thas not caught on to the extent I should . like to see ~ t do

IV Teinpelaar Lietz (Shell Oil Company, Inc , Los Angeles, Cahf ) Mr Standing 1s to be congratulated on a very constructive and interesting paper Obviously, a trenlendous amount of work was required t o obtain and correlate the data One outstanding use f o r the calculatlng charts will be to give us some idea of

[PERATURE

CORRELATION

287

orlginal leservoir c o n d ~ t ~ o n In s the older fields 011 whlch no P-V-T data a r e available However, we should hke to polnt out that, on comparing the calculated bubble-point pressures with 21 experimental detern~lnations, deviations of from 700 p s ~ ,gage, to -415 psi, gage, a r e found, wlth a n average of 120 psi, gage One of the lnajor uses of P-V-T data is i n carrying out material-balance calculat~ons, especially ~n the early life of the field, in order to choose the most desirable development schelne However, a t such a n early date, pressure drops a r e small, and, ~f a n error such as 700 psl, gage, o r -415 p s ~ , gage, were introduced, a n y conclus~onsdrawn from the balance calculation would not be valld On the other hand, on colnparing the calculated forlnat~on voluines of bubble-polnt liqulds wlth actual determlnations, it appears t h a t 18 out of t h e 24 determlnatlons check very closely, t h e reinalnlng 6 havlng a d e v ~ a t ~ o of n froin 4 to -9 per cent E C Babson (Peerless Pacific Company, Portland, Ore ) * Mr Standlng h a s glven u s a set of correlatlons from whlch ~t IS possible to estimate the bubble polnts and the formation-volume factors f o r nllxtures of Californ~aoils and gases under a wide range of pressures, temperatures, and 011 gravities If all Callforma 011s and gases behave in the same manner a s one could feel the samples studled In thls ~nvestigation, fairly confident t h a t bubble polnts estimated by thls method would be within 10 per cent and formationvolume factors w l t h ~ n4 per cent of t h e t r u e values Although ~t 1s obv~oust h a t any correlations w h ~ c h would permit such accuracy a r e of g r e a t value, a discusslon of methods of u s ~ n g t h e d a t a niay throw some these correlations Inhght on the possiblllty of u s ~ n g stead of making laboratory P-V-T ~ n v e s t i g a t ~ o n s P-V-T data a r e used prl~lclpallyIn material-balance calculat~ons which range from sllnple estlmates of the or1 orlg~rlallyIn place to deta~ledstudles of reservolr perforniance The results of such calculatlons can be used f o r a varlety of purposes such a s

1 The hulk sand volume 2 The average poiosity 3 The lnterstihlal-water saturation
Considering the uncertainties enterlng into each of these estlmates, ~t seeins unlikely t h a t the uncertainty 111 estimating the reservoir volume will be less than 5 to 10 per cent except under most favorable conclltions I n many cases, of course, the uncertainty wlll be even greater than t h ~ s A second factor t h a t enters into all material-balance calculatlons is the composition of the reservoir hydrocarbons, usually expressed a s a n ~n-placegas-011 ratlo Unfortunately, careful investigation seems to ~ n d l c a t e t h a t thls factor often v a n e s materially fro111 point to point with111 a reservoir I t IS not uncommon f o r the h ~ g h e s tgas-oil ratio In a new field to be double t h e lowest gas-011 ratlo, wlthout any evldence of f r e e g a s In the reservolr Under these conditions it would be necessary to conduct a long and e q e n s l v e laboratory investlgat~onto develop representative P-V-T data The thlrd factor t h a t is necessary III all materialbalance calculat~ons is the reservoir pressuie Subsurface pressures In wells can be measured to almost any desired degree of accuracy if enough tests a r e lnacle wlth sufficient s k ~ l l Unfortunately, the pressure measured in the wells may not be representatlve of the pressure In the reservolr Unless the permeability of the sand is h ~ g h enough to permit pressure equahzatioil In a reasonable period of t ~ m e , ~t1s very difficult to obtaln representatlve reservoir pressures FurtherInore, ~f pressures vary ~naterlallyfrom urell to well, it IS clifficult to con~putea represeiltat~veaverage Also, in many matenal-balance calculat~ons, the critlcal factor 1 s the relation between-the-fonnat~onvolume factor and pressure, rather than the absolute factor a t a n y given presvalue of the format~on-volume sure If t h e slope of the f ~ ~ m a t i o n - v o l u mfactor e vs pressure curve IS representat~veof the conditions In the reservolr, satisfactory material-balance calculat~ons can be made even though there nlay be some discrepancy In t h e absolute values With these factors 111 mind, it seems to me t h a t Mr Standlng's ~ o ~ r e l a t ~could o n well be used In place of laboratory P-V-T lnvestigatlons In engineering work 011 pools h a v ~ n g

1 Estimation of reserves 2 E s t ~ m a t i o nof s ~ z e of reservoir 3 Evaluation of strength of water drlve 4 P r e d ~ c t ~ oof n f u t u r e performance of a pool 5 Evaluation of a proposed production program
Sometlines a rough e s t ~ m a t e1s all t h a t 1s justified by the circun~stances,and it IS obvlous t h a t t h e correl a t ~ o n sin thls paper ~ 1 1 1 be h ~ g h l ysatisfactory f o r such work The real question regarding thew a p p l ~ c a tion arises when the h ~ g h e s t precision attainable is really needed, and thls s ~ t u a t i o n often arlses in materialbalance work Inasmuch a s it IS unwise to requlre greater accuracy In t h e P-V-T d a t a than In t h e other factors enterl n g into the calculat~ons,~t seems pertlneiit to examine sonle of these other factors from this standpoint I n most material-balance calculations ~t is necessary to know t h e volume ava~lablef o r 011 and gas In t h e reservolr I n order to arrlve a t thls figure, it IS necess a r y to estimate.

1 F e w wells 2 Irregular sands 3 Low permeahihties 4 Llttle o r no water drive On the other hand, it seeins to me t h a t laboratory P-V-T lnvestlgations w11 be advisable 111 fields of large slze havlng consistent sands of relatively h ~ g h permeability and soine reasonable expectation of a strong water drlve Laboratory data would be particularly needed a t pressures above the bubble polnt, a s Mr Standlng's correlations do not cover the compresslbllity of undersaturated liquld It IS obvious fro111 the last two paragraphs t h a t I would cons~derthese 'correlations to be entirely adequate f o r the majorlty of the oil fields In C a l ~ f o r ~ u a

* Presented

by Jan

Lam, consultant, Los Angeles, Culff