Otc 22972 MS

O
C
B
S
C

T

T
re
o
re

A
C
e
c
f
w
b
d
k
c
h
p
d

F
f
w
c
b

I
T
c
e
th
a
p
o

T
d
w
o

I
o
a
o

OTC 2297
Comparis
Black Oil
Sophie Godef
Copyright 2012, Offshor
This paper was prepare
This paper was selecte
eviewed by the Offsho
officers, or members. E
eproduce in print is res
Abstract
Characterizatio
effectively and
compressibility
fundamental in
with the use of
bottomhole sam
data are availa
knowledge of
conditions and
has been resear
proposed and p
determine the b
For this study,
formation volu
were studied an
correlations of
black oil correl
ntroduction
The physical p
characterized r
efficiency of en
horoughly stud
are available, o
paper reviews t
our in-house co
There are many
discuss on thos
was made as th
others such as f
In the first part
oil formation v
applicability an
our in-house co
72
son and V
Reservo
froy, Siew Hia
re Technology Confere
ed for presentation at th
d for presentation by a
re Technology Confere
Electronic reproduction
tricted to an abstract of
on of reservoir
d efficiently.
y, and formati
nputs for mater
f a reservoir s
mples or on the
able, empirical
fluid composi
properties, the
rched extensiv
published. In
black oil fluid p
more than 30
ume factor wer
nd compared a
this study are
ation for speci
properties of th
reservoir fluid
nhanced oil re
died to charact
one must rely
the existing bla
onsolidated pre
y parameters to
se published co
hese parameter
fluid compress
of this paper,
olume factor. F
nd any related p
onsolidated PV
Validation
oir Fluid P
ang Khor and
ence
he Offshore Technology
an OTC program comm
ence and are subject t
n, distribution, or stora
f not more than 300 wo
r fluids is imp
Reservoir flu
ion volume fa
rial balance ca
simulator. Idea
e recombined s
l black oil co
itions. In the p
e development
vely. Conseque
this paper, we
properties.
theoretical an
re reviewed an
across the state
also summariz
fic reservoir fl
he reservoir fl
properties are
covery (EOR)
terize the reser
on empirically
ack oil correlat
essure-volume-
o be considered
orrelations for b
rs are more infl
ibility, viscosit
we present a li
For each correl
potential issue
VT library are s
n of Theo
Properties
David Emms
y Conference held in H
mittee following review
o correction by the aut
ge of any part of this
ords; illustrations may n
portant for de
uid properties
actor) are cruc
alculation, dete
ally, the reserv
eparator oil an
orrelations can
past few deca
t of black oil c
ently, numerou
e compare and
nd empirical bl
nd validated; v
ed ranges of ap
zed in tables th
uids and condi
fluids are very
crucial for a
methods. It is
rvoir fluid prop
y derived corre
tions that have
-temperature (P
d for reservoir
bubble-point p
fluential in the
ty, density and
iterature review
lation, the orig
s are discussed
ummarized, co
oretical a
s
s, Schlumberg
Houston, Texas, USA, 3
w of information contain
thor(s). The material d
paper without the wri
not be copied. The abst
eveloping a st
s (e.g., densit
cial for both
ermination of o
voir fluid prope
nd gas samples.
be used to d
ades, with larg
correlations fo
us correlations
d provide guid
lack oil correla
ariations of th
pplicability. Th
hat can be used
itions.
y important inp
good estimate
s not always th
perties in the m
elations to esti
been publishe
PVT) library.
characterizatio
pressure, gas/oi
accuracy of flu
d etc.
w of various co
gin of oil used f
d. In the second
ompared and di
nd Empir
ger
30 April3 May 2012.
ned in an abstract subm
does not necessarily re
itten consent of the O
stract must contain cons
trategy to man
ty, viscosity,
reservoir and
oil reservoir vo
erties are dete
. When only fi
determine the
ge sets of petr
or pressure-volu
that are applic
deline for the
ations for bubb
he calculated fl
he comparison
d to guide PVT
put data in re
e of oil or gas
he case that re
most accurate m
imate the phys
d in the literatu
on and modelin
il ratio and oil
uid properties
orrelations for
for the develop
d part, the stud
iscussed, toget
rical Corr
mitted by the author(s)
eflect any position of th
Offshore Technology C
spicuous acknowledgm
nage the reser
gas/oil ratio,
petroleum en
olumes, and es
ermined from l
ield measureme
essential fluid
roleum fluid d
ume-temperatu
cable to variou
various correl
ble-point press
luid properties
n results are pr
T users in selec
eservoir engine
reserves, prod
servoir fluid s
manner. In situ
sical propertie
ure and elabora
ng; however in
formation vol
calculation an
bubble-point p
ped correlation
died correlation
ther with their
relations
). Contents of the pape
he Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibite
ment of OTC copyright.
rvoir productio
, bubble-point
ngineering; the
stimation of o
laboratory stud
ents or limited
d properties w
data at variou
ure (PVT) ana
us types of oil
ations that we
sure, gas/oil ra
s versus input p
resented graph
ting the most a
eering calculat
duction forecas
amples are ava
uations where n
s of reservoir
ates how they
n this paper we
lume factor. Th
nd facilities pla
pressure, gas/o
n is presented, i
ns that have be
applicability.

for
er have not been
y Conference, its
ed. Permission to
.
on scheme
t pressure,
ey are the
il recovery
dies on the
d laboratory
without the
s reservoir
alysis study
have been
ere used to
atio and oil
parameters
hically. The
appropriate
tions. Well
sts and the
ailable and
no samples
fluid. This
are used in
e focus and
he decision
anning than
il ratio and
its range of
een used in
2 OTC 22972
The emphasis of this paper is to evaluate and to compare the selected published correlations for bubble-point pressure, gas/oil
ratio and oil formation volume factor calculations; and having them presented graphically and in a summary table. Most
publications have focused on the applicability and validity of correlations for a particular selected PVT field measured data.
Here we have no intention to validate the studied correlations against a collection of PVT database but to present how various
parameters affect the calculated fluid properties using different correlations.

Literature Review of the Black Oil Correlations
Over the years, black oil fluid properties correlations have been extensively studied and published in the literature. We
review here those mostly used correlations in chronological order. Unless otherwise stated, the correlations presented in this
section are in Field Units. In most papers, authors have reviewed and validated the studied correlations against a selected
fluid database, and they have presented their findings in statistic manner, i.e. average absolute percent relative error (AARE),
average percent relative error (ARE), or standard deviation (STD). These statistic measurements are defined as following.
The AARE is defined as:

AARE(%) =
1
n
d
|E
|
n
d
=1
[1],

where E
i
is the percentage error for each measurement between the predicted value x
i
and the measured value y
i
for a data
base of n
d
values, such that

F
|
= 1. [
x
|
-y
|
y
|
[2].

The ARE is calculated by:

ARE(%) =
1
n
d
E
n
d
=1
[3].

The STD is defined as:

STB(%) = _
1
n
d
-1
(E
)
2
n
d
=1
[4].

Definitions for the different parameters are provided in the Nomenclature Section at the end of the paper.

Standing (1947)
Standing (1947) published an article about PVT correlations using data from 105 samples of California oils and gases. The
correlations concerned bubble-point pressure, gas/oil ratio and formation volume factor, as a function of oil and gas gravity,
pressure and temperature. This article was one of the first of a long series published by various authors around the world
about black oil correlations. The correlations were made for Californian crudes, but the results extended to crudes reported by
Katz (1942) in his article about the shrinkage of crude oil following vaporization. In Standings article, the correlations are
represented as charts. The fluid properties used are the results of laboratory two-stage flash separation at 100F and at a
pressure between 250 and 450 psi at the first stage and atmospheric pressure at the second stage. This procedure was
considered to be the most appropriate to approximate the average California field practices. Correlations were deduced by
graphical attempts to vary the fluid properties as a function of the main field and fluid measurements. For example, it was
graphically observed that the bubble-point pressure varies with the logarithm of the gas/oil ratio over the gas gravity with a
slope of 0.83. Although Standing (1947) presents mainly the graphical variation of his correlations and different authors may
have slightly different interpretation, we refer the Standing equations as, for the bubble-point pressure

P
b
= 18.2__
R
s
y
g
]
0.83
1u
(0.000911-0.0125API)
1.4_ [5],

and for the oil formation volume factor,

B
ob
= u.97S9 +u.uuu12 _R
s
_
y
g
y
c,60F
]
0.5
+1.2SI_
1.2
[6].

The solution gas/oil ratio, although not computed in Standings (1947) article, can be computed from the bubble-point
pressure correlation, leading to:

OTC 22972 3
R
s
= y
g
j[
P
b
18.2
+1.4 1u
(0.0125API-0.000911)
[
1.2048
[7].

These correlations were computed by the author on crude oils covering the following ranges:

130 < P
b
<7000 psia
20 < R
s
< 1425 scf/STB [8].
16.5 < API < 63.8 API
0.59 <
g
< 0.95 (air=1)
100 < T <258 F

Standing reports an AARE of 4.8% for bubble-point pressure. He also reports that applying these correlations on the crude
oils reported by Katz (1942) shows a higher level of discrepancy between the measured and computed bubble-points but
suspects that, as Katzs crude oils are coming from a larger variety of sources, there may be differences in laboratory methods
that could explain the discrepancy. He also reports 1.17% AARE for the formation volume factor.

Lasater (1958)
Lasater (1958) developed a correlation for bubble-point pressure based on 158 experimentally measured data points from 137
oil samples coming from Canada, the US and South America. He uses the same basic assumption as Standings, that is that
bubble-point pressure is a function of gas/oil ratio, gas gravity, oil API degree and temperature, but for this correlation, the
combination was made on the basis of Henrys law. The correlation is presented tabulated and graphically in his paper. It is
expressed as:

P
b
=
p
]
(1+459.6)
y
g
[9].

In Eq. 9, p
f
is the bubble-point pressure factor. It is obtained graphically or by interpolation from tabulated values of P
f
versus
the gas mole fraction y
g
as per Table 1 below.

Table 1 - Tabulated bubble-point factor (p
f
) as a function of the gas mole fraction
Gas Mol Frac. y
g
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85
P
f
0.17 0.30 0.43 0.58 0.75 0.94 1.19 1.47 1.74 2.10 2.70 3.29 3.80 4.30 4.90 5.70 6.70

The gas mole fraction y
g
is calculated from:

y
g
=
R
s
379.3
R
s
379.3+350y
c
M
c
[10].

In Eq. 10, M
0
is the effective molecular weight of tank oil. M
0
is provided graphically in Lasaters article, as a function of
tank oil API gravity. This graphical representation was tabulated for our in-house black-oil correlation library as shown in
Table 2.

Table 2 - Tabulated effective molecular weight as a function of Stock Tank gravity
Stock Tank Gravity API 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
M
0
486 440 384 331 281 234 184 161 142

The ranges of field measurements covered by Lasaters correlation are

48 < P
b
< 5780 psia
3 < R
s
< 2905 scf/STB
17.9 < API < 51.1 API [11].
0.574 <
g
< 1.223 (air=1)
82 < T < 272 F

Lasater reports an ARE of 3.8% over the set of data used with a maximum encountered error 14.7%. He also warns that the
correlation is for crudes free of non-hydrocarbon components. Although not stated in Lasaters article, it is also possible to
mathematically compute the gas/oil ratio correlation as we implemented in our in-house correlation library, from the bubble-
point pressure, such that

R
s
=

g
132775y
c
M
c
(1-
g
)
[12].
4 OTC 22972
Vasquez and Beggs (1980)
To predict physical properties of fluids, Vasquez and Beggs (1980) analyzed a set of more than 6000 measurements of the
gas/oil ratio, formation volume factor and viscosity at various field pressure and temperature parameters, over more than 600
PVT analyses from fields around the world. To improve the accuracy of the correlations, it was felt that the data should be
divided into two groups according to oil gravity, with the groups divided at 30 API. The correlation from gas/oil ratio is

R
s
= C
1a
y
g100
P
C
2a
expjC
3a
[
API
(1+460)
[ [13],

with coefficients shown in Table 3.

Table 3 - Coefficient for the solution gas/oil ratio correlation of Vasquez and Beggs (1980)
Coefficients API 30 API > 30
C
1a
0.0362 0.0178
C
2a
1.0937 1.1870
C
3a
25.7240 23.9310

Also, although Vasquez and Beggs did not compute the buble point pressure, the correlation can be computed from the
gas/oil ratio correlation. Such a correlation would then take the form:

P
b
= _
R
sb
C
1c
y
g100
cxp[
C
3c
API
T+460

_
1
C
2c
[14].

The same division was applied to the formation volume factor for saturated fluids:

B
o
= 1 +C
1b
R
s
+C
2b
(I 6u) _
API
y
g100
] +C
3b
R
s
(I 6u) _
API
y
g100
] [15]

with

Table 4 - Coefficient for the formation volume factor correlation of Vasquez and Beggs (1980)
Coefficients API 30 API > 30
C
1b
4.677E-4 4.670E-4
C
2b
1.751E-5 1.100E-5
C
3b
-1.811E-8 1.337E-9

In all these correlations, the gas gravity is considered at the reference separator pressure, P
sep
, of 114.7 psia, chosen because it
was found to be the pressure resulting in the minimum oil shrinkage for the separator tests available.

y
g100
= y
gSP
_1 +S.912. 1u
-5
API. I
scp
. log [
P
se
114.7
] [16].

Vasquez and Beggs do not mention any range of applicability for their correlations, except for the 30 API division.

Glas (1980)
Glas (1980) developed generalized PVT correlations for bubble-point pressure and formation volume factor considering
crude oils provided from six reservoir fluid samples made from two North Sea separator liquid and gas samples. The bubble-
point correlations were then tested against 26 North Sea fluids and 19 fluids from other regions of the world. The bubble-
point pressure correlation was computed graphically, following Standings basic assumption and taking the form of:

P
b
= 1u
-0.30218(Iog(P
b
))
2
+1.7447Iog(P
b
)+1.7669
[17]

with

P
b
=
(R
s
y
g.wtc
)
0.816
1
0.12
API
0.989
[18]

where
g.wtav
is the average specific gravity of the total surface gases. Glas distinguishes the formation volume factor for
saturated fluids at bubble-point and for pressures below bubble-point. He proposed the following correlation at bubble-point
as a graphical solution based on Standings (1947) assumption:
OTC 22972 5
B
ob
= 1 +1u
-6.58511+2.91329Iog(B
cb
)-0.27683(Iog(B
cb
))
2
[19]

with

B
ob
= R
s
[
y
g.wtc
y
c

0.526
+u.968I [20].

Glass paper also includes a correction on the correlations to account for the presence of non-hydrocarbon components such
as CO
2
, N
2
, and H
2
S. The correlations were later validated on samples from North Sea and other parts of the word over the
following ranges:

150 < P
b
< 6641 psig
90 < R
s
< 2637 scf/STB
22.3 < API < 48.1 API [21]
0.650 <
g
< 1.276 (air=1)
80 < T < 280 F

Glas reports an ARE of 1.28% for bubble-point pressures with a STD of 6.98%, and an ARE of -0.43 % for the formation
volume factor at saturation pressure with a STD of 2.18%.

Al-Marhoun (1988)
Al-Marhoun (1988) presented a paper for the correlations of bubble-point pressure and total formation volume factor for
Middle East crude oils, as a function of the reservoir temperature, gas gravity, oil gravity and solution gas/oil ratio. The
correlation was computed over 69 bottomhole samples, with 160 data points for the bubble-point pressures. A non-linear
multiple regression analysis was used to develop the following correlation, where T is described in R:

P
b
= S.S8u88. 1u
-3
R
s
0.715082
y
g
-1.877840
y
o
3.143700
I
1.326570
[22].

Al-Marhoun (1988) also computes the oil formation volume factor at bubble-point pressure such that:

B
ob
= u.497u69 +u.86296S. 1u
-3
I +u.182S94. 1u
-2
F +u.S18u99. 1u
-5
F
2
[23]

with

F = R
s
0.742390
y
g
0.323294
y
o
-1.202040
[24].

However, the correlation that we use in our in-house library is the one in Al-Marhoun (1992). Although not presented in the
early paper (Al-Marhoun, 1988), it is also easy to compute the gas/oil ratio correlation as a function of reservoir temperature,
oil specific gravity, gas specific gravity and bubble-point pressure from the above bubble-point pressure correlation.

The correlations were developed over the range of parameters as below:

130 < P
b
< 3573 psia
26 < R
s
< 1602 scf/STB
1.032 < B
o
< 6.982 rbbl/STB [25].
19.40 < API < 44.6 API
0.752 <
g
< 1.367 (air=1)
74 < T < 240 F

Al-Marhoun (1988) reports an AARE for the bubble-point pressure of 3.66% with a minimum absolute percentage relative
error of 0.01% and a maximum one of 10.40% and a STD of 4.536%. With the same data bank, the author reports an AARE
of 12.08% using Standings (1947) correlation and 25.22% using Glass (1980). For the formation volume factor correlation
at bubble-point pressure, Al-Marhoun reports an AARE of 0.88% with a STD of 1.180%.

Labedi (1990)
In his paper, Labedi (1990) considered samples coming from 3 major oil producers in Africa, namely Libya (97 samples),
Nigeria (27 samples) and Angola (4 samples). From laboratory measurements on these samples, he computed correlations to
predict the solution gas/oil ratio, the bubble-point pressure and the oil composition as a function of first-stage separator
pressure and temperature, producing gas/oil ratio, stock-tank oil gravity, and reservoir pressure and temperature. He later
6 OTC 22972
tried these correlations on data from the literature, such as Standing (1948), Glas (1980) and Vasquez and Beggs (1980),
getting accurate fluid properties estimations. In his paper, the author proposes two correlations for the bubble-point pressure
estimation. One is based on Lasaters (1958) computation and the other on Standings (1947). We implement the one based
on Standings (1947) in our in-house black-oil PVT library, taking the form of:

P
b
= 21.S8 __
R
s
y
g
]
0.83
1u
(0.000911-0.0125API)
_
0.9653
[26].

The correlation was computed over the following ranges:

121 < P
b
< 6557 psia
13 < R
s
< 3366 scf/STB
22.9 < API < 52.0 API [27].
0.579 <
g
< 1.251
100 < T < 306 F

The author also reports a correlation for solution gas/oil ratio, based on differential vaporization and flash vaporization PVT
measurements. The bubble-point pressure correlation was reported with an ARE of 1.24% and a STD of 17.07%. The new
correlation also presented in Labedis (1990) is reported with an ARE of 0.48% and a STD of 9.93%.

Al-Marhoun (1992)
Al-Marhoun (1992) presented a paper for a correlation of formation volume factors, for saturated and under-saturated oils, as
a function of solution gas-oil ratio, oil and gas relative density, and reservoir pressure and temperature. In this study, he
analyzed approximately 700 bottomhole samples from around the world, mostly from Middle East and North America. At
bubble-point pressure, the correlation was computed using 4012 experimentally measured oil formation volume factors.
Using least squares linear regression, the following correlation was obtained as the best match for all the measurements:

B
ob
= 1 +u.177S42. 1u
-3
R
s
+u.22u16S. 1u
-3
R
s
[
y
g
y
c
+4.292S8u. 1u
-6
R
s
(I 6u)(1 y
o
) +u.S287u7. 1u
-3
(I 6u)
[28].
The range of parameters over which the correlation at bubble-point pressure was computed is

15 < P
b
< 6641 psia
0 < R
s
< 3265 scf/STB
1.01 < B
o
< 2.960 rbbl/STB [29].
9.5 < API < 55.9 API
0.575 <
g
< 2.510 (air=1)
75 < T < 300 F

The author reports an AARE of 0.57%for this study, with a STD of 0.6787%.

Casey and Cronquist (1992)
Casey and Cronquist (1992) computed gas/oil ratio and formation volume factors from PVT analysis, based on 78 US Gulf
Coast area oil reservoirs. Unlike most correlations, the Casey and Cronquist correlations do not depend on the gas gravity.
The authors reported the gas/oil ratio as a function of the solution gas/oil ratio at bubble-point pressure and the pressure and
bubble-point pressure. The correlation was computed on dimensionless cumulative gas/oil ratio R
pD
=R
p
/R
sb
, where R
p
is the
cumulative gas/oil ratio, and R
sb
the solution gas/oil ratio at bubble-point pressure. The solution gas/oil ratio is:

R
s
= (1 R
p
)R
sb
[30]

with R
pD
computed as a polynomial equation of the dimensionless pressure P
D
(P
D
=(P-14.7)/(P
b
-14.7)), if P and P
b
are in
psia) such that

R
p
= u.996S2 1.Su78P
+1.7964(P
)
2
4.1124(P
)
3
+4.SuS1(P
)
4
1.674S(P
)
5
[31].

Similarly, the formation volume factor was computed from the dimensionless formation volume factor B
oD
as a polynomial
equation of the dimensionless pressure P
D
, and as a function of the temperature, the API gravity and the solution gas/oil ratio
such that

OTC 22972 7
B
o
= B
ob
(B
ob
B
ou
)B
o
[32]

with

B
o
= u.98949 1.8u61P
+4.46S7(P
)
2
9.6S68(P
)
3
+9.S994(P
)
4
S.4122(P
)
5
[33],

B
ou
= 1 +(b
1
+b
2
I +b
3
I
2
)1uu [34],

B
ob
= B
ou
(1.uu69SS +4.S4u92S. 1u
-4
R
sb
+6.96u178. 1u
-8
(R
sb
)
2
1.u88S61. 1u
-11
(R
s
)
3
) [35]

where

b
1
= 1.6u66 +S.S94S. 1u
-3
API S.u44S. 1u
-4
(API)
2

b
2
= 2.2789. 1u
-2
+6.2u49. 1u
-5
API 7.S771. 1u
-6
(API)
2
[36].
b
3
= 4.9S66. 1u
-5
S.4219. 1u
-7
API +4.28S6. 1u
-9
(API)
2

The correlations were computed for the following range of reservoir parameter and oil properties:

733 < P
b
< 8065 psia
95 < R
s
< 2395 scf/STB
1.057 < B
o
< 3.396 rbbl/STB [37].
19.6 < API < 43.5 API
136 < T < 327 F

The authors did not report average error or standard deviation corresponding to their correlation and database.

Petrosky and Farshad (1993)
Petrosky and Farshad (1993) proposed new empirical PVT correlations for the estimate of bubble-point pressure, solution
gas/oil ratio, oil formation volume factor at bubble-point and under-saturated isothermal oil compressibility, using 81
laboratory PVT analyses of crude oils exclusively for the Gulf of Mexico. The database was constructed from two-stage
separator laboratory test at bubble-point pressure. Their motivation was that none of the other correlations, computed for
crude oils from other parts of the world could accurately predict the behavior of crudes from the Gulf of Mexico. Their
correlation for bubble-point pressure uses the same type of relationship as developed by Standing (1947), with the addition of
three fitting parameters to increase the accuracy of the correlation:

P
b
= 112.727 _
R
s
0.S4
y
g
0.8439
1u
X
12.S4u_ [38],

where

X = 4.S61. 1u
-5
I
1.3911
7.916. 1u
-4
API
1.5410
[39].

Regarding the solution gas/oil ratio correlation, non-linear regression analysis was also used in an attempt to get the best
match of the data. However, the best match for their crude oil was found to be obtained by solving Eq. [38]:

Rs = j[
P
b
112.727
+12.S4u y
g
0.8439
1u
-X
[
1.73184
[40].

Similarly to the bubble-point pressure equation, the formation volume factor correlation at bubble-point pressure uses an
identical form as Standing (1947) correlation, with three additional fitting parameters that suit best the crude oil of the Gulf
of Mexico:

B
ob
= 1.u11S +7.2u46. 1u
-5
_R
s
0.3738
_
y
g
0.2914
y
c
0.626S
] +u.24626I
0.5371
_
3.0936
[41].

These correlations considered the crude oils covering the ranges

1574 < P
b
< 6523 psia
217 < R
s
< 1406 scf/STB
1.1178 < B
o
< 1.6229 rbbl/STB [42].
8 OTC 22972
16.3 < API < 45.0 API
0.5781 <
g
< 0.8519 (air=1)
114 < T < 288 F

For the bubble-point pressure correlation, the authors report an AARE of 3.28% with a STD of 2.56%, when, for example,
Standing (1947) correlation would give an error of 17.87%. The reported average absolute error for gas/oil ratio is 3.8% with
a standard deviation of 2.88% and for the formation volume factor at bubble-point 0.64% with a STD of 0.58%.

Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994)
Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994) presented other empirical correlations, based on a large data bank, to try to estimate the
crude oil physical properties more accurately than other industry-standard correlations. Their work included, among other,
correlations for oil formation volume factor, solution gas/oil ratio and bubble-point pressure, as a function of measureable
parameters such as temperature, pressure, separator gas gravity and stock-tank oil gravity. These correlations were developed
using a large data bank (A) covering a broad range of worlds crude oil and consequently verified on a second large data bank
(B). Data bank A included 740 different crude oil samples, mainly from Indonesia, North America, the Middle East and Latin
America, including thousands of measurements per physical property. Data bank B contained a set of 998 samples to validate
the correlations. Their correlations use the functional form of previously published correlations, fitted to give the more
accurate estimate over the large data bank they used. For solution gas/oil ratio, they obtain, dividing the database between
crude oil of API 30 and > 30:

R
s
= u.uS9S8y
g100
0.7972
p
b
1.0014
1u
13.1405
API
T+460
, or API Su [43].
R
s
= u.uS1Suy
g100
0.7587
p
b
1.0937
1u
11.2895
API
T+460
, or API > Su

The bubble-point pressure is a rearrangement of the solution gas/oil ratio, such that

P
b
= _
R
s
0.05958y
g100
0.92
10
13.140S
API
T+460
_
0.9986
, or API Su [44].
P
b
= _
R
s
0.03150y
g100
0.S8
10
11.289S
API
T+460
_
0.9143
, or API > Su

The oil formation volume factor for saturated fluids is such that

B
o
= u.98496 +u.uuu1(R
s
0.755
y
g100
0.25
y
o
-1.5
+u.4SI)
1.5
[45].

The correlations consider the gas specific gravity at separator condition, P
sep
, of 114.7 psia and T
sep
computed as

y
g100
= y
gscp
_1 +u.1S9SAPI
0.4078
I
scp
-0.2466
log[
P
se
114.7
] [46].

These correlations were computed over the following ranges:

14.7 < P
b
<6054.7 psia
0 < R
s
< 2890 scf/STB
1.007 < B
0
< 2.747 rbbl/STB [47].
14.4 < API < 58.9 API
0.379 <
g
< 1.709 (air=1)
75 < T < 320 F

Considering their data bank, the authors report an AARE of 2.02% for the formation volume factor, with a standard error of
0.043 rbbl/STB. For the solution gas/oil ratio, they estimate an AARE of 23.2% and a standard error of 83 scf/STB, and for
the bubble-point pressure correlation, an AARE of 20.2% and a standard error of 171.3 psia.

Farshad, Leblanc and Garber (1996)
Farshad, Leblanc and Garber (1996) presented correlations for the estimation of bubble-point pressure, solution gas/oil ratio
and oil formation volume factor on a database composed of 98 PVT laboratory analysis for Colombian crude oils. Gas/oil
ratio, gas gravity, oil gravity and formation volume factor are the results of one-, two- and three-stage separator tests as
OTC 22972 9
recorded for PVT samples laboratory analysis. As different approaches are used for developing the correlations, several
correlations are presented in the paper, depending on the number of stages used for the surface separator of oil and gas. We
present below the correlation as used in our in-house PVT library. Equations are based on corrected separator gas gravity and
solution gas/oil ratio. The corrected gas gravity, corrected for separator condition as 114.7 psia, is expressed by
gc
as:

y
gc
= y
sp
+1S.S727 _
y
c
1
scp
] log[
P
scp
114.7
[48],

and the corrected solution gas/oil ratio by R
sc
, as:

R
sc
= R
sp
_1 +27.6417 _
y
c
1
se
] log[
P
se
114.7
_ [49].

Based on single-stage data, using the corrected gas gravity and solution gas/oil ratio,

P
b
= SS.22 _
R
sc
y
gc
]
0.8283
1u
0.0000371-0.0142API
[50].

This equation is reported giving an ARE of -3.49% and aSTD of 14.61%.

Farshad, Leblanc and Garber (1996) also computed the solution gas/oil ratio, from one-, two- and three-stage separator data.
The equation based on single-stage separator conditions is

R
s
=
0.01456y
gc
P
b
1.203
10
(0.114API-0.0000446T)
1-24.663_
y
c
T
se
]
[51].

The equation is reported with an ARE of -7.9% and a Std of 22.7%.

Similarly, Farshad, Leblanc and Garber (1996) computed the formation volume factor based on one-, two- and three-stage
separator data. A total of 107 experimentally determined data points were used to develop the oil formation volume factor
correlations, as a function of solution gas/oil ratio, gas gravity, stock-tank oil gravity and reservoir temperature. The best
correlation was obtained by non-linear regression analysis on the experimental data, leading to

B
o
= 1 +1u
(-2.6541+0.5576Iog(A)+0.3331(Iog(A))
2
)
[52]

with

A = R
s
0.5956
y
g
0.2369
y
o
-1.3282
+u.u976I [53].

The ARE reported by the author from the formation volume factor correlation is 0.00028% with a STD of 0.0338%.

These correlations were computed for the 98 Colombian oils over the following ranges:

66 < R
s
< 1230 scf/STB
20.5 < API < 39.6 API
0.573 <
g
< 1.337 (air=1) [54].
68 < T
sep
< 100 F
34.7 < P
sep
< 514.7 psia

Almehaideb (1997)
Almehaideb (1997) computed PVT correlations for bubble-point pressure and formation volume factor at bubble-point
pressure especially for UAE crude oils, considering PVT analyses on 15 reservoirs. The bubble-point pressure correlation is
expressed as

P
b
= 62u.S92 +6.2Su87
R
s
y
c
y
g
B
c
1.38SS9
+2.89868I [55].

The formation volume factor at bubble-point pressure is expressed as:

10 OTC 22972
B
ob
= 1.122u18 +1.41. 1u
-6
R
s
1
y
c
2
[56].

The correlations were computed for the following ranges of the parameters:

501 < P
b
< 4822 psig
128 < R
s
< 3871 scf/STB
1.142 < B
0
< 3.562 rbbl/STB [57].
30.9 < API < 48.6 API
0.746 <
g
< 1.116 (air=1)
190 < T < 306 F

The author reported an AARE for the formation volume factor of 1.35% with a STD of 1.7% and an AARE for the bubble-
point pressure of 5% with a STD of 6.56%

Elsharkawy and Alikhan (1997)
Elsharkawy and Alikhan (1997) computed PVT correlations considering 175 analyses from Kuwaiti crude oils. The best
regression analysis on solution gas/oil ratio was obtained by considering the oil API above and below 30 API, such that

R
s
= y
g
P
b
1.18026
1u
-1.2179+0.4636
API
T
, API Su [58].
R
s
= P
b
0.94776
y
g
0.04439
API
1.1394
1u
-2.188+0.00083921
, API > Su

The formation volume factor correlation at bubble-point pressure was computed as a function of the solution gas/oil ratio, the
oil gravity, the gas gravity and the reservoir temperature such that

B
ob
= 1 +4u.428. 1u
-5
R
s
+6S.8u2. 1u
-5
(I 6u) +u.78u. 1u
-5
[R
s
(I 6u)
y
g
y
c
[59].

The correlations were computed for the following ranges of the parameters:

302 < P
b
< 4375 psia
39 < R
s
< 1586 scf/STB
1.076 < B
0
< 1.969 rbbl/STB [60].
130 < T < 250 F
19.9 < API < 42.76 API
0.663 <
g
< 1.268 (air=1)

The authors reported an AARE for the gas/oil ratio correlation of 7.87% with a STD of 10.73% and an AARE of 1.43% for
the formation volume factor with a STD of 1.96%.

Velarde, Blasingame and McCain (1997)
Velarde, Blasingame and McCain (1997) proposed correlations to predict black oil properties especially at pressure below
bubble-point pressure. They used a database of 2097 laboratory measurements, of origin not detailed in the paper. For gas/oil
ratio, Velarde, Blasingame and McCain (1997) considered reduced variables to match their measured data, and express the
correlation at any pressure as a function of solution gas/oil ratio at bubble-point pressure, gas gravity, API oil gravity,
reduced pressure and temperature. Also not presented in their paper, we can determine the gas/oil ratio at bubble-point
pressure by inversion of the P
b
equation, as we use in our in-house PVT library. The bubble-point pressure developed by the
authors is as follow:

P
b
= 1u91.47(R
sb
0.081465
y
gs
-0.161488
1u
X
u.74u1S2)
5.354891
[61]

with

X = u.u1Su98I
0.282372
8.2. 1u
-6
API
2.176124
[62].

The oil formation volume factor that they propose is not a correlation, but a material balance equation of the surface gas and
surface liquid versus the reservoir liquid. They express it as

OTC 22972 11
B
u
=
p
STO
+.1357R
S
y
g
p
uR
[63]

where
STO
is the stock-tank oil density and
RO
the reservoir oil density that can be expressed by a correlation. The
correlations were computed for the following ranges of the parameters:

70 < P
b
< 6700 psia
10 < R
s
< 1870 scf/STB
1.004 < B
0
< 2.137 rbbl/STB [64].
11.6 < API < 56.2 API
0.555 <
g
< 1.367 (air=1)
70 < T < 327 F

The authors reported an AARE for the gas/oil ratio of 4.73% with a STD o 18.2 scf/STB. They also report an AARE for the
bubble-point pressure of 11.7% with a standard deviation of 263 psi and an AARE for the oil formation volume factor of
1.74% and a STD of 0.0014.

Al-Shammasi (1999)
Al-Shammasi (1999) compared the different correlations published to date using a global data bank of 1243 measurements
published in the literature. A new correlation was developed exploring the relationship between variables and measurements
through graphical means and linear regression for bubble-point pressure, to improve the performance compared to earlier
published data. He also presented new neural network models and compares their performance with numerical correlations.

P
b
= y
o
5.527215
exp[1.8414u8(y
o
y
g
) . (R
s
(I +46u)y
g
)
0.783716
[65].

Al-Shammasi also computed a correlation for oil formation volume factor, with four parameters, as a function of the reservoir
temperature, solution gas/oil ratio, oil and gas gravity, or three parameters, not dependent on the gas gravity. The four-
parameter equation is

B
o
= 1 +S.SS. 1u
-7
(R
s
(I 6u)) +u.uuu181 [
R
s
y
c
+u.uuu449 [
1-60
y
c
+u.uuu2u6 [
R
s
y
g
y
c
[66].

The correlations were computed for a data set over the following ranges:

31.7 < P
b
< 7127.0 psia
6 < R
s
< 3298.6 scf/STB
1.02 < B
0
< 2.916 rbbl/STB [67].
6 < API < 63.7 API
0.51 <
g
< 3.44 (air=1)
74 < T < 341.6 F

For bubble-point pressure, Al-Shammasi (1999) reported an AARE of 17.849% with a STD of 17.16%, and a minimum and
maximum error of 0% and 210%, respectively. The author reports an AARE for the formation volume factor of 1.806% with
the four-parameter equation with a STD of 2.27%. Although not reported in the article, the solution gas/oil ratio at bubble-
point pressure can be computed as a function of reservoir temperature, oil and gas specific gravity, and bubble-point pressure
from the above correlation.

Valko and McCain (2003)
Valko and McCain (2003) proposed a revised correlation for bubble-point pressure, after evaluating the already existing ones.
The revisited correlation was computed considering 1745 laboratory measurements on worldwide samples. The correlation is
function of the solution gas/oil ratio, the API oil gravity, the gas gravity and the temperature:

P
b
= exp (7.47S +u.71Sz +u.uu7Sz
2
) [68]

where

z = z
n
4
n=1
[69],

z
n
= C
0n
+C
1n
IAR
n
+C
2n
IAR
n
2
+C
3n
IAR
n
3
[70].

12 OTC 22972
The coefficient C
0n
, C
1n
, C
1n
, and C
3n
are depending on the variable, VAR
n
, to which they correspond, as:

Table 5 - Coefficients for the Valko and McCain bubblepoint pressure.
n VAR
n
C
0
C
1
C
2
C
3
1 ln(R
sb
) -5.48 -0.0378 0.281 -0.0206
2 API 1.27 -0.0449 4.36.10
-4
-4.76.10
-6
3
gSP
4.51 -10.84 8.39 -2.34
4 T

-0.7835 6.23.10
-3
-1.22.10
-5
1.03.10
-8

This correlation was computed over the following parameter ranges:

82 < P
b
< 6700 psia
10 < R
s
< 2216 scf/STB
6< API < 63.7 API
0.555<
g
< 1.685 (air=1)
60 < T < 342 F [71]

The authors report an AARE for the worldwide database of 10.9%. They also propose solution gas/oil ratio correlations with
an AARE of 5.2%.

Summary
In Table 6 below we summarize the different correlations per the origin of the database used to compute them, and the
relative error (AARE or ARE) and standard deviation of the correlation used on their data base for the solution gas/oil ratio,
the bubble-point pressure and the formation volume factor, whenever applicable.

Table 6 - Summary table of the correlations from various authors as discussed above.
Authors Year Databank Gas/Oil ratio
ARE / AARE
Gas/Oil
Ratio STD
Pb ARE /
AARE
Pb STD Bo ARE /
AARE
Bo STD
Standing
*
1947 105 Californian crude oils NA NA 4.8% AARE Not
Reported
1.17% AARE Not
Reported
Lasater
*
1958 137 samples from Canada, the
US and South America
NA NA 3.8% ARE Not
Reported
NA NA
Vasquez, Beggs
*
1980 >600 PVT lab analysis on samples
worldwide
Not reported Not
Reported
NA NA Not
reported
Not
reported
Glas
*
1980 6 samples from North Sea NA NA 1.28% ARE 6.98% -0.43% ARE 2.18 %
Al-Marhoun 1988 69 bottomhole samples from
Middle East oil reservoirs
NA NA 3.66% AARE 4.536% 0.88% AARE 1.18%
Labedi 1990 97 samples from Libya, 27 from
Nigeria and 4 from Angola
NA NA 1.24% ARE 17.07% NA NA
Al-Marhoun
*
1992 ~ 700 bottomhole samples
worldwide, mainly Middle East
and North America
NA NA NA NA 0.57% AARE 0.6787%
Casey, Cronquist 1992 78 US Gulf Coast oil reservoirs Not reported Not
reported
NA NA Not
reported
Not
reported
Petrosky,
Farshad
*

1993 81 lab PVT analyses from Gulf of
Mexico crude oils
3.8% AARE 2.88% 3.28% AARE 2.56% 0.64% AARE 0.58%
Kartoatmodjo,
Schmidt
*

1994 740 crude oils mainly from
Indonesia, North America,
Middle East and Latin America
23.2% AARE 83 scf/STB 20.2% AARE 171.3
psia
2.02% AARE 0.043
bbl/STB
Farshad, Leblanc,
Garber
*

1996 98 Colombian crude oils -7.9% ARE 22.7% -3.49% ARE 14.61% 0.0003%
ARE
0.034%
Almehaideb 1997 15 oil reservoirs, UAE NA NA 5% AARE 6.56% 1.35% AARE 1.7%
Elsharkawy,
Alikhan
1997 175 PVT analyses on Kuwaiti
crude oils
7.87% AARE 10.73% NA NA 1.43% AARE 1.96%
Velarde,
Blasingame,
McCain
*

1997 2,097 lab measurements 4.73% AARE 18.2
scf/STB
11.7% AARE 263 psia 1.74% 0.0014bb
l/STB
Al-Shammasi
*
1999 Data bank of 1,243
measurements, worldwide
NA NA 17.9% AARE 17.16% 1.81% AARE 2.27%
Valko, McCain
*
2003 1,745 lab measurements on
worldwide samples
5.2% AARE Not
reported
10.9% AARE Not
reported
NA NA

OTC 22972 13
Comparison and Validation of the PVT Correlations
The different correlations for bubble-point pressure, gas/oil ratio and formation volume factor from the various authors as
presented in the above section are implemented within our in-house PVT library of black oil correlation. In this section, we
graphically compare these correlations. We describe their variation as a function of their parameters and how the different
correlations vary compared to one another. The aim is to validate these correlations, without the burden of regional or global
database. It is then up to the users to appropriately apply one or another correlation according to the best applicability for
their conditions. Considering the range of applicability, the order of magnitude, and the variation of each property with their
parameters may help the user to take decisions as to the correlation to use for their particular field study. Graphs are
presented for one varying input parameter while the others are fixed. The values computed and compared between the
correlations are therefore dependant on the chosen fixed values of input parameters. These fixed values were chosen as
average as possible and in the range over which all correlations were reportedly computed.

Bubble-point Pressure Correlations
In this section, we compare the bubble-point pressure correlations from the various authors as reviewed above. Most bubble-
point pressure correlations are a function of oil and gas gravity, solution gas/oil ratio and temperature. Table 7 is a summary
of the different bubble-point pressure correlations available in our in-house PVT library for black oil correlations. In this
table we report the variables of the correlation, manely API, gas gravity, solution gas/oil ratio and reservoir temperature, their
range and, when applicable, additional variables on which the correlations may depend.

Fig. 1 below compares the different correlations for bubble-point pressure as a function of temperature for the correlations of
Table 7, for temperature varying between 60 and 350 F. Fig. 2 represents the same correlations, but as a function of the oil
specific gravity at stock-tank condition, between 0.7 and 1. Fig. 3 represents the same correlations as a function of gas
specific gravity between 0.5 and 1.5 and Fig. 4 as a function of gas/oil ratio between 50 and 3000 scf/STB. For the 4 graphs,
the other variables are fixed and are, when applicable, temperature of 180 F, oil specific gravity of 0.85, gas specific gravity
of 1 and solution gas/oil ratio of 1000 scf/STB.

The variation of the bubble-point pressure with temperature (Fig. 1) shows relatively wide equality spread results amongst
the various correlations, all increasing with temperature as expected. At the fixed parameters of oil specific gravity 0.85, gas
specific gravity 1, and solution gas/oil ratio 1000 scf/STB, Al-Marhoun (1988) correlation gives the lowest bubble-point
pressures over the displayed range of temperatures. The highest values are given by Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994)
correlation at temperatures above 150 F. The other correlations are relatively regularly scattered between these two
extremes, with no particular grouping. Standing (1947) and Lasater (1958) correlations are located around the middle
amongst the other correlations. The slope of the variation of bubble-point pressure with temperature varies from correlation
to correlation but most vary over 1000-2000 psi when the temperature increases between 60 and 350 F. The most sensitive
variation is found for Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994) correlation with a variation of about 2000 psi over the range of
temperature. The least sensitive variation is found for Farshad and Leblanc (1996) correlation, where the pressure varies less
than 100 psi over the same temperature range. In addition to the oil and gas gravity, the reservoir temperature and the gas/oil
ratio, this correlation also depends on pressure and temperature at separator condition used to compute the gas gravity
corrected at 114.7 psia (Eq. 46). Looking at the equation, this weak variation is expected as the influence of the temperature
is much weaker than for the other parameters. Although none vary linearly with temperature, some are close to linear, such as
Al-Marhoun (1988) and Farshad and Leblanc (1996). Some are concave, such as Standing (1947). Others are convex, such as
Velarde, Blasingame and McCain (1997). None have a strong variation of slope within the range of temperature used.
Although the correlations were computed over a range of temperature generally wider than the one recommended by the
authors (Table 7), we see no anomalies in the variation of the bubble-point pressure with temperature between 60 to 350 F.
The correlations do not prevent the user to implement these correlations over a wider range of temperature, for common
reservoirs temperatures. The limits given by the various authors merely correspond to the range of temperature of the
databases used rather than numerical limits.

The variation of the bubble-point pressure with oil specific gravity (water =1) is presented in Fig. 2 over the range 0.7 to 1
(corresponding to API varying between about 70 to 10API). All correlations increase as expected with oil gravity. At fixed
parameters of temperature 180 F, gas specific gravity 1 and solution gas/oil ratio 1000 scf/STB, the bubble-point pressures
are more widely spread for light oils than for heavy oils. The lowest pressures are calculated, below oil gravity of 0.8, for the
Velarde, Blasingame and McCain (1997), between 0.8 and 0.96 by Al-Marhoun (1988) and above 0.96 by both Lasater
(1958) and Velarde, Blasingame and McCain (1997). The highest pressures are calculated by Glas (1980) for oil gravity
below 0.82 and by Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994) above 0.82. Once more, Standing (1947) correlation is located around
the middle. The sensitivity to oil specific gravity is very different from correlation to correlation and over the range of oil
gravity. For oil gravity less than about 0.82, the pressures calculated with all correlations vary over about 1000 psi. Above
0.82 however, the range is much wider with more than 7000 psi spread at the highest oil gravity. However, this is also due to
out of applicability range issue as will be discussed shortly. The correlations sensitivity to oil gravity is the weakest for Al-
Marhoun (1988) and the strongest for Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994). We also notice that Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt
14 OTC 22972
(1994) correlation has an irregularity at oil of 30API (oil gravity of 0.876), as the authors defined two different correlations
above and below this limit. However, the curve increases over the complete range of oil gravity. Standing (1947), Labedi
(1990) and Al-Shammasi (1999) correlation are very close to each other. Farshad and Leblanc (1996) and Vasquez and Beggs
(1980) correlation are also very similar. Some correlations are concave such as Lasater (1958) and Velarde, Blasingame and
McCain (1997) but most are convex, some with very strong increase at high oil gravities. The range of oil gravity where the
correlations are represented is between 0.7 and 1, or 10 to 70 API, that is outside of the range of applicability of some of the
correlations. Most correlations are applicable beyond the range provided from the database for which they were computed.
Two correlations get very sensitive to oil gravity at high oil gravity range: Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994) and to a lesser
extent, Glas (1980), which shows that they should be used with caution for heavy oil outside of the range of applicability.

The variation of the bubble-point pressure with gas gravity is presented in Fig. 3, over the range 0.5 to 1.5, at the fixed
parameters of temperature 180 F, oil specific gravity 0.85 and solution gas/oil ratio 1000 scf/STB. All correlations show
decreasing variations with gas specific gravity as expected. For gas gravity below about 0.8, the lowest pressures are
computed with Al-Shammasi (1999) correlation and above 0.8 with Al-Marhoun (1988) correlation. The highest pressures
are computed from Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994) correlation above about 0.76 and Al-Marhoun (1988) below about
0.68. Standing (1947) correlation can be found once again located in the middle of the other correlations. The different
correlations have different sensitivity to gas gravity where the most sensitive is Al-Marhoun (1988) with a pressure variation
of almost 8000 psi over the full range of gas gravity and the least sensitive is Al-Shammasi (1999) with a pressure variation
of less than 2000 psi. Most correlations are concave except Al-Shammadi (1999) which is convex. Vasquez and Beggs
(1980), Glas (1980), Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994) and Farshad and Leblanc (1996) correlations have very similar
behavior at the chosen fixed parameters. Some correlations presented in the Fig. 3 are applied beyond the range of
applicability given by the author, but none seem to suffer except, perhaps Al-Marhoun that increases very strongly for the
lowest range of gas gravity, and should therefore be applied with caution in this range.

The variation of bubble-point pressure with gas/oil ratio (Fig. 4) is presented over the range 50 to 3000 scf/STB at the fixed
parameters of temperature 180 F, oil gravity 0.85 and gas gravity 1. They all increase with gas/oil ratio as expected. The
highest pressures are computed with Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994) and the lowest by Al-Marhoun (1998) at gas/oil ratio
below about 2200 scf/STB and by Lasater (1958) above. Standing (1947) correlation is again located at about the middle of
the others. All correlations are convex. The most sensitive to gas/oil ratio is Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994) correlation
and the least sensitive ones are Lasater (1958) and Valko and McCain (2003), which have very similar behavior. Some
correlations are used here beyond the range of applicability provided by the author, but none present issues beyond their
range except Petrosky and Farshad (1993) correlation that becomes negative at long gas/oil ratio and should therefore by
limited to avoid unphysical pressure calculations.

Fig. 5 presents the relative difference between the minimum and maximum computed bubble-point pressures over all the
correlations as a function of (A) temperature, (B) oil specific gravity, (C) gas specific gravity, and (D) solution gas/oil ratio,
using the same values for the fixed parameters as described earlier. Although the curves depend on the chosen fixed
parameters used to plot them, they are indicative of what the expected spread of data the user can get when using one or the
other correlation. The data spread from the different correlations varies between 50% at the extreme and about 27% at 220F,
for the variation with temperature. It spreads over more than 200% with oil specific gravity at the lowest range, between 75%
and 20% with gas gravity, with the maximum spread at the extremes and the minimum at about 1.5. The spread as a function
of gas/oil ratio is the highest (up to 250%) below 500 scf/STB but rapidly decreases below 50% for higher gas/oil ratio.

Table 7 - Bubble-point pressure correlations and their input parameters and ranges, and when applicable, other variables.
*
All
publications are referenced at the end of the paper
Correlation Year
Oil
API
Gas
R
s
(scf/STB) T (F) Other parameters
Standing
*
1947 16.5 - 63.8 0.59 0.95 20 - 1425 100 - 258
Lasater
*
1958 17.9 51.1 0.574 1.223 3 - 2905 82 - 272
Vasquez, Beggs
*
1980 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Glas
*
1980 22.3 48.1 0.65 1.276 90 - 2637 80 - 280
Al-Marhoun
*
1988 19.4 44.6 0.752 1.367 26 - 1602 74 - 240
Labedi
*
1990 22.9 - 52 0.579 1.251 13 - 3366 100 - 306
Petrosky, Farshad
*
1993 16.3 - 45 0.578 0.852 217 - 1406 114 - 288
Kartoatmodjo, Schmidt
*
1994 14.4 58.9 0.379 1.709 0 - 2890 75 - 320 T
sep
, P
sep

Farshad, Leblanc
*
1992 20.5 39.6 0.573 1.337 66 - 1230 Not reported T
sep
, P
sep

Velarde, Blasingame, McCain
*
1997 11.6 56.2 0.555 1.367 10 - 1870 70 - 327
Al-Shammasi
*
1999 6 63.7 0.51 3.44 6 3298.6 74 341.6
Valko, McCain
*
2003 6 63.7 0.555 1.685 10 - 2216 60 - 342
Graphs global range 10 -- 70 0.5 1.5 50 - 3000 60 - 350
OTC 22972 15

Fig. 1 - Bubble-point pressure correlations from the various authors discussed, as a function of reservoir temperature, at oil
specific gravity 0.85, gas specific gravity 1, and solution gas/oil ratio 1000 scf/STB

Fig. 2 Bubble-point pressure correlations from the various authors discussed, as a function of oil specific gravity at temperature
180 F, gas specific gravity 1, and solution gas/oil ratio 1000 scf/STB
100 150 200 250 300 350
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
Temperature (F)
B
u
b
b
l
e

p
o
i
n
t

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
s
i
a
)

Standing (1947)
Lasater (1958)
Vasquez & Beggs (1980)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Mahroun (1988)
Labedi (1990)
Petrosky & Farshad (1993)
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt (1994)
Farshad & Leblanc (1996)
Velarde, Blasingame & McCain (1997)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
Valko & McCain (2003)
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Oil specific gravity
B
u
b
b
l
e

p
o
i
n
t

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
s
i
a
)

Standing (1947)
Lasater (1958)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Mahroun (1988)
Labedi (1990)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
16 OTC 22972

Fig. 3 Bubble-point pressure correlations from the various authors discussed, as a function of gas specific gravity at temperature
180 F, oil specific gravity 0.85, and solution gas/oil ratio 1000 scf/STB

Fig. 4 - Bubble-point pressure correlations from the various authors discussed, as a function of solution gas/oil ratio at temperature
180 F, oil specific gravity 0.85, and gas specific gravity 1.
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
Gas specific gravity
B
u
b
b
l
e

p
o
i
n
t

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
s
i
a
)

Standing (1947)
Lasater (1958)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Mahroun (1988)
Labedi (1990)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
Solution Gas-oil ratio (scf/STB)
B
u
b
b
l
e

p
o
i
n
t

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
P
s
i
a
)

Standing (1947)
Lasater (1958)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Mahroun (1988)
Labedi (1990)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
OTC 22972 17

Fig. 5 - Bubble-point pressure relative differences between minimum and maximum of all correlations, as a function of (A)
temperature, (B) oil specific gravity, (C) gas specific gravity, and (D) solution gas/oil ratio, in the same conditions as described in
Fig. 1 to Fig. 4

Gas/Oil Ratio Correlations
In this section, we compare the gas/oil ratio correlations from the different authors as reviewed above. Most correlations are
function of the oil and gas gravity, bubble-point pressure and temperature. Table 8 is a summary of the different gas/oil ratio
correlations available in our in-house PVT black oil library. In the table we summarize the range of applicability of the
correlations over their different input parameters. We note that the correlations from Lasater (1958), Al-Marhoun (1988),
Velarde, Blasingame and McCain (1997) and Al-Shammasi (1999), although not presented in their paper were obtained by
mathematical inversion of the bubble-point pressure equation. Casey and Cronquist (1992) correlation, although presented in
the first part of this paper and implemented in our in-house PVT library is not represented graphically below as the
correlation is computed in a different way as a function of reservoir pressure, bubble-point pressure and gas/oil ratio at
bubble-point pressure.

The variation of the solution gas/oil ratio as a function of reservoir temperature is presented in Fig. 6. Correlations are shown
over the range 60 to 350F, at the fixed parameters of oil specific gravity 0.85, gas specific gravity 1 and bubble-point
pressure 2500 psi. All correlations compute gas/oil ratio decreasing with temperature as expected. Under these conditions,
Al-Marhoun (1988) correlation computes the highest gas/oil ratios over the whole range of temperature. At temperatures
below 170 F, the lowest gas/oil ratios are computed by Glas (1980) correlation and by Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994)
correlation above 170 F. Standing (1947) correlation is again located at about the middle of the other correlations. They are
all concave refer to the origin but are more or less sensitive to temperature. The most sensitive is Al-Marhoun (1988)
correlation, with a variation of almost 900 scf/STB over the range of temperature studied. The least sensitive is Glas (1980)
with less than 300 scf/STB variation. When commenting on the variation of the correlations versus their other parameters, we
will see that they are much more sensitive to these other parameters than to temperature. Although most correlations are used
here beyond their range of applicability over the temperature, none present any issue when applied at common reservoir
temperatures.
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Temperature (DegF)
B
u
b
b
l
e

p
o
i
n
t

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

r
a
n
g
e

(
%
)
(A)
0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
B
u
b
b
l
e

p
o
i
n
t

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

r
a
n
g
e

(
%
)
(B)
0.5 1 1.5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
B
u
b
b
l
e

p
o
i
n
t

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

r
a
n
g
e

(
%
)
(C)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Solution Gas-oil ratio (scf/STB)
B
u
b
b
l
e

p
o
i
n
t

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

r
a
n
g
e

(
%
)
(D)
18 OTC 22972
The variation of the solution gas/oil ratio as a function of bubble-point pressure is presented in Fig. 7, over the range 50 to
7000 psi, at an oil specific gravity 0.85, gas specific gravity 1 and reservoir temperature 180F. All correlations have
increasing gas/oil ratio with bubble-point pressure as expected. The lowest values are computed with Kartoatmodjo and
Schmidt (1994) and the highest, excluding for now Lasater (1958), by Al-Marhoun (1988). Standing (1947) correlation is
once more located around the middle. All correlations are concave. Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994) is the least sensitive to
bubble-point pressure, followed by Vasquez and Beggs (1980). We then have a group of correlations with similar behavior:
Glas (1980), Petrosky and Farshad (1993), Standing (1947) and Al-Shammasi (1999), the last one varying from about 50 to
almost 3000 scf/STB at a bubble-point pressure of 7000 psi. Velarde, Blasingame and McCain (1997) and and Al-Marhoun
(1988) have stronger sensitivity to bubble-point pressure, reaching 4500 scf/STB for the latest at the highest pressure. Lasater
(1958) has a very different behavior. The gas/oil ratio is very sensitive to bubble-point pressure, and increases sharply
especially for pressure over 5000 psi, reaching more than 16000 scf/STB at about 5900 psi. Above 6000 psi, the correlation
becomes unphysical and can no longer be used. We note that this correlation was not provided in Lasaters article and that is
mathematically computed from the bubble-point pressure one. Therefore it should be used with caution and with more
restriction than the range over which bubble-point pressure was computed.

The variation of gas/oil ratio with oil specific gravity is presented in Fig. 8 between 0.7 and 1, or between 70 and 10API, at
a bubble-point pressure of 2500 psi, a gas specific gravity of 1 and a reservoir temperature of 180F. All correlations decrease
as expected with increasing oil gravity. Under the conditions just described, the lowest gas/oil ratio is computed with Glas
(1980) correlation. The highest are computed with Velarde, Blasingame and McCain (1997) below 0.8 gravity and by Al-
Marhoun (1988) above 0.8. All correlations are concave. The least sensitive with oil gravity is Glas (1980) with a variation
of about 1500 scf/STB over the range of oil gravity and the most sensitive is Velarde, Blasingame and McCain (1997) with a
variation over about 6000 scf/STB. Moreover, the last correlation, having such a wide variation at the lowest oil gravities
should be avoided at very low oil gravity, especially as it was compute for oil gravity higher than 0.77.

The variation of gas/oil ratio with gas specific gravity is presenting in Fig. 9 over the range 0.5 to 1.5, at a bubble-point
pressure of 2500 psi, oil specific gravity of 0.85 and temperature of 180F. All correlations increase as expected with gas
gravity. The highest gas/oil ratios are computed with Al-Shammasi (1999) for gas gravity below 0.85 and by Al-Marhoun
(1988) above 0.85. They all increase with gas gravity as expected and all are concave, except Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt
(1994). Similarly to the behavior of bubble-point pressure, Velarde, Blasingame and McCain (1997) and Al-Marhoun (1998)
are the most sensitive with gas gravity, with a variation of 3000 scf/STB for the latest over the gas gravity range 0.5-1.5.
Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994), Glas (1980) and Vasquez and Beggs (1980) have very similar behaviors and are the least
sensitive to gas gravity with less than 800 scf/STB variation over the full range. Some equations are applied over a wider
range on which they were computed, they are not unphysical and give meaningful results. Velarde, Blasingame and McCain
(1997) and Al-Marhoun (1980), resulting from mathematical computation of the bubble-point pressure rather than correlation
from database by the authors should however be used with caution.

In Fig. 10 we present, for the conditions described above, the relative difference between the minimum and maximum
computed values within all the correlations as a function of (A) temperature, (B) bubble-point pressure, (C) oil specific
gravity, and (D) gas gravity. Although these curves would be different had we used other values for the fixed input
parameters, they are indicative of how much the computed values may vary from correlation to correlation. The computed
gas/oil ratio may be very different depending on the correlation used and therefore great care should be used regarding the
correlation chosen depending on regional characteristics of the field studied.

Table 8 Gas/oil ratio correlations and their input parameters and ranges, and when applicable, other variables.
*
All publications are
referenced at the end of the paper
Correlation Year
Oil
API
Gas
T (F) Pb (psi) Other parameters
Standing
*
1947 16.5 63.8 0.59 0.95 100 258 130 7000
Lasater
*
1958 17.9 51.1 0.574 1.223 82 272 48 5780
Vasquez, Beggs
*
Glas
*
1980 22.3 48.1 0.65 1.276 80 280 150 6641
Al-Marhoun 1988 19.4-44.6 0.752-1.367 74-240 121-6557
Casey, Cronquist
*
1992 733 - 8065 R
sb
, P
Petrosky, Farshad
*
1993 16.3 - 45 0.578 0.852 114 - 288 1574 - 6523
*
1994 14.4 58.9 0.379 1.709 75 - 320 14.7 6054.7 P
sep
, T
sep
Velarde, Basingame, McCain
*
1997 11.6 56.2 0.555 1.367 70 - 327 70 6700
Al-Shammasi 1999 6 63.7 0.51 3.44 74 341.6 31.7 - 7127
Graphs global range 10 70 0.5 1.5 60 - 350 50 - 7000
OTC 22972 19

Fig. 6 - Solution gas/oil ratio correlations from the various authors discussed, as a function of temperature, at oil specific gravity
0.85, gas specific gravity 1, and bubble-point pressure 2500 psi

Fig. 7 - Solution gas/oil ratio correlations from the various authors discussed, as a function of bubble-point pressure, at
temperature 180 F, oil specific gravity 0.85, and gas specific gravity 1.
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Temperature (DegF)
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

g
a
s
-
o
i
l

r
a
t
i
o

(
s
c
f
/
S
T
B
)

Standing (1947)
Lasater (1958)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Mahroun (1988)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Bubble point pressure (Psia)
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

g
a
s
-
o
i
l

r
a
t
i
o

(
s
c
f
/
S
T
B
)

Standing (1947)
Lasater (1958)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Mahroun (1988)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
20 OTC 22972

Fig. 8 - Solution gas/oil ratio correlations from the various authors discussed, as a function of oil specific gravity, at temperature
180 F, gas specific gravity 1, and bubble-point pressure 2500 psi

Fig. 9 - Solution gas/oilratio correlations from the various authors discussed, as a function of gas specific gravity, at temperature
180 F, oil specific gravity 0.85, and bubble-point pressure 2500 psi
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

g
a
s
-
o
i
l

r
a
t
i
o

(
s
c
f
/
S
T
B
)

Standing (1947)
Lasater (1958)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Mahroun (1988)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

g
a
s
-
o
i
l

r
a
t
i
o

(
s
c
f
/
S
T
B
)

Standing (1947)
Lasater (1958)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Mahroun (1988)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
OTC 22972 21

Fig. 10 Solution gas/oil ratio relative differences between minimum and maximum of all correlations, as a function of (A)
temperature, (B) bubble-point pressure (excluding Lasaters correlation as out of range) (C) oil specific gravity, and (D) gas
specific gravity, in the same conditions as described in Fig. 6 to Fig. 9.

Oil Formation Volume Factor Correlations
In this section, we discuss and compare the oil formation volume factor computed with the correlations presented in the first
part of the paper, as a function of temperature, oil and gas gravity and solution gas/oil ratio. The correlations implemented in
our in-house PVT library are summarized in Table 9 along with the ranges over which they were computed. The correlations
Al-Marhoun (1992), Casey and Cronquist (1992), Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994) and Elsharwaky and Alikhan (1997) are
explicitly expressed as a function of the additional input parameters of pressure and bubble-point pressure. Both were fixed
equal (as 2500 psi) to compare all correlations of Table 9 at bubble-point pressure.

In Fig. 11 we report the variation of oil formation volume factor as a function of temperature over the range 60 to 350F at
fixed input oil gravity of 0.85, gas gravity 1 and solution gas/oil ratio 1000 scf/STB. As expected, formation volume factors
increase with reservoir temperature although with various behavior for the different correlations. The highest values are
computed by Glas (1980), Standing (1947) or Elsharwaky and Alikhan (1997). The lowest are computed with Almehaideb
(1997) at temperature below 210F, and by Vasquez and Beggs (1980) above it. They have different sensitivity with
temperature with the most sensitive being Almehaideb (1997) with a variation of about 0.56 rbbl/STB over the full
temperature range and the least sensitive being Vasquez and Beggs (1980) with a variation of about 0.12 rbbl/STB. As
before, we applied most of the correlations over a wider range than that on which they were computed, but none give
unphysical or unrealistic response.

Fig. 12 shows the oil formation volume factor as a function of oil specific gravity over the range 0.7-1 (70 to 10API), at
temperature 180F, gas gravity 1 and solution gas/oil ratio 1000 scf/STB. They all decrease with oil specific gravity with the
exception of Vasquez and Beggs (1980) for oil gravity above 0.876 (30API), from where formation volume factor increases.
This behavior is related to one of the coefficients of Eq. 15 (Table 4) being negative for API below 30. The change of
behavior at 30API is clearly seen on the graph (Fig. 12). Amongst the correlations, the highest values are computed by
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
Temperature (DegF)
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

g
a
s
-
o
i
l

r
a
t
i
o

(
%
)
(A)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Bubble point pressure (Psia)
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

g
a
s
-
o
i
l

r
a
t
i
o

(
%
)
(B)
0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

g
a
s
-
o
i
l

r
a
t
i
o

(
%
)
(C)
0.5 1 1.5
0
50
100
150
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

g
a
s
-
o
i
l

r
a
t
i
o

(
%
)
(D)
22 OTC 22972
Petrosky and Farshad (1993) for oil gravity below about 0.83 and by Standing (1947) above it. The lowest values are
computed by Vasquez and Beggs (1980) below 0.78 oil gravity and by Almehaideb (1997) above it. Except for the irregular
behavior of Vasquez and Beggs (1980) correlation, all are concave. The most sensitive to oil gravity is Farshad and Leblanc
(1996) with a variation of about 0.43 rbbl/STB over the full oil gravity range and the least sensitive is Elsharkawy and
Alikhan (1997) with a variation of about 0.05 rbbl/STB. As before, most correlations are hereby used on wider ranges than
those used to computed them by the authors. None give unphysical or unrealistic behavior out of their range.

Fig. 13 shows the variation of oil formation volume factor with gas gravity, over the range 0.5-1.5, at temperature 180F, oil
specific gravity 0.85, gas specific gravity 1 and gas/oil ratio 1000 scf/STB. Casey and Cronquist (1992) and Almehaideb
(1997) are not part of this graph as not dependent on gas gravity. All correlations but Vasquez and Beggs (1980) increase
with gas gravity. The mathematical expressions of these correlations present gas gravity as numerator, except for Vasquez
and Beggs (1980) correlation where the gas gravity is in the denominator. It is therefore mathematically expected to get this
special behavior for Vasquez and Beggs (1980) although it is physically unexpected. Without considering Vasquez and
Beggs (1980) correlation, the highest formation volume factors are computed with Elsharwaky and Alikhan (1997) below 0.8
gas gravity, by Standing (1947) between 0.8 and about 1.1 and by Petrosky and Farshad (1993) above it. The lowest ones are
computed either by Farshad and Leblanc (1996) or Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt (1994) for gas gravity above 0.65. The
sensitivity with gas gravity is the highest for Petrosky and Farshad (1993) with a variation of 0.44 rbbl/STB over the full
range of gas gravity and the lowest for Elsharkawy and Alikhan (1997) with a variation of about 0.11 rbbl/STB.

Fig. 14 shows the variation of oil formation volume factor with solution gas/oil ratio over the range 50-3000 scf/STB. For the
fixed input parameters of temperature 180 F, oil specific gravity 0.85 and gas specific gravity 1. All increase as expected
with gas/oil ratio. Under these conditions the lowest values are computed with Almehaideb (1997) for gas/oil ratio above 900
scf/STB. The highest values are computed by Standing (1947). The most sensitive with gas/oil ratio is Standing (1947)
correlation and the least sensitive Almehaideb (1997) with a variation of about 2.2 rbbl/STB for the former and about 1
rbbl/STB for the later. Although some correlations are hereby applied over wider ranges over which they were computed,
none give unphysical or unrealistic results.

Fig. 15 shows the relative differences between the minimum and maximum computed formation volume factors over all the
correlations as a function of (A) temperature, (B) oil specific gravity, (C) gas specific gravity and (D) solution gas/oil ratio,
under the conditions as described earlier. Although the curves are dependent upon the chosen fixed input parameters, they
indicate the expected variation one may obtain using one correlation or another. They show that the relative differences are
smaller than those we described for bubble-point pressure or gas/oil ratio correlations. Formation volume factor however is a
very important parameter for surface facility planning and it should be determined accurately. As for bubble-point pressure
and gas/oil ratio correlation, the conclusion is that none of these correlations should be used blindly. They should be chosen
after careful reservoir and fluid characterization, at least on surrounding areas of the field under study, and considering the
given field conditions.

Table 9 Formation Volume factor correlations and their input parameters and ranges, and when applicable, other variables.
*
All
publications are referenced at the end of the paper
Correlation Year
Oil
API
Gas
R
s
(scf/STB) T (F) Pb (psi) Other Parameters
Standing
*
1947 16.5 63.8 0.59 0.95 20 - 1425 100 258
Vasquez, Beggs
*
Glas
*
1980 22.3 48.1 0.65 1.276 90 - 2637 80 280
Al-Marhoun
*
1992 9.5 55.9 0.575 2.51 0 - 3265 75 300 15 - 6641
Casey, Cronquist
*
1992 19.6 43.5 95 - 2395 136 - 327 733 - 8065 P
Petrosky, Farshad
*
1993 16.3 - 45 0.578 - 0.852 217 - 1406 114 - 288
*
1994 14.4 58.9 0.379 1.709 0 - 2890 75 - 320 14.7-6054.7 P
sep
, T
sep
Farshad, Leblanc
*
1996 20.5 39.6 0.573 1.337 66 - 1230 Not reported
Almehaideb
*
1997 30.9 48.6 128 - 3871 190 306
Elsharkawy, Alikhan
*
1997 19.9 42.76 0.663 1.268 39 - 1586 130 250 302 - 4375
Al-Shammasi
*
1999 6 - 63.7 0.51 - 3.44 6 - 3298.6 74 - 341.6
Graphs global range 10 70 0.5 1.5 50 - 3000 60 - 350

OTC 22972 23

Fig. 11 Oil formation volume factor at bubble-point pressure correlations from the various authors discussed, as a function of
temperature, at oil specific gravity 0.85, gas specific gravity 1, and solution gas/oil ratio 1000 scf/STB.

Fig. 12 Oil formation volume factor at bubble-point pressure correlations from the various authors discussed, as a function of oil
specific gravity, at temperature 180F, gas specific gravity 1, and solution gas/oil ratio 1000 scf/STB.

100 150 200 250 300 350
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2.1
Temperature (DegF)
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

f
a
c
t
o
r

B
o

(
r
b
b
l
/
S
T
B
)

Standing (1947)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Mahroun (1992)
Casey & Cronquist (1992)
Almehaideb (1997)
Elsharkawy & Alikhan (1997)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

f
a
c
t
o
r

B
o

(
r
b
b
l
/
S
T
B
)

Standing (1947)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Mahroun (1992)
Almehaideb (1997)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
24 OTC 22972

Fig. 13 - Oil formation volume factor at bubble-point pressure correlations from the various authors discussed, as a function of gas
specific gravity, at temperature 180F, oil specific gravity 0.85, and solution gas/oil ratio 1000 scf/STB.

Fig. 14 Oil formation volume factor at bubble-point pressure correlations from the various authors discussed, as a function of
solution gas/oil ratio, at temperature 180F, oil specific gravity 0.85, and gas specific gravity 1.
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
1.55
1.6
1.65
1.7
1.75
1.8
1.85
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

f
a
c
t
o
r

B
o

(
r
b
b
l
/
S
T
B
)

Standing (1947)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Mahroun (1992)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Solution gas-oil ratio (scf/STB)
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

f
a
c
t
o
r

B
o

(
r
b
b
l
/
S
T
B
)

Standing (1947)
Glaso (1980)
Al-Mahroun (1992)
Almehaideb (1997)
Al-Shammasi (1999)
OTC 22972 25

Fig. 15 - Formation volume factor relative differences between minimum and maximum of all correlations, as a function of (A)
temperature, (B) oil specific gravity, (C) gas specific gravity and (D) solution gas/oil ratio, , in the same conditions as described in
Fig. 11 to Fig. 14.

Conclusion
In this paper, we have reviewed over 30 correlations published in the literature for the computation of bubble-point pressure,
gas/oil ratio and oil formation volume factor; those have been implemented in our in-house PVT library for black oil
reservoir fluid characterization. These reviewed correlations were computed by their authors over either regional or global
data banks. This paper had no intention to bring yet another correlation to the industry nor to valid the existing ones against a
regional or worldwide data bank, but to use, to compare, and to evaluate the existing correlations, one against the other, and
to present how various parameters affect the calculated fluid properties with different correlations.

In this paper, we have graphically compared the selected black oil correlations against each other. We compared the
correlations used for bubble-point pressure calculation as a function of reservoir temperature, oil specific gravity, gas specific
gravity and solution gas/oil ratio. We also compared correlations used for solution gas/oil ratio calculation as a function of
temperature, bubble-point pressure, oil specific gravity and gas specific gravity and the correlations used for formation
volume factor calculation as a function of temperature, oil specific gravity, gas specific gravity and solution gas/oil ratio. As
one may expect, although most have exhibited similar behaviors, different correlations do give different results and have
different sensitivity to the input parameters. These observed differences are expected as the studied black oil correlations
were computed from different types of oil and operating conditions. No correlation should be used blindly. They should be
carefully chosen for reservoir fluid characterization by taking into account the parameters presented in this paper.

Nomenclature
AARE = average absolute percent relative error
API = oil gravity API degree
ARE = average percent relative error
B
o
or FVF = formation volume factor
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Temperature (DegF)
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

f
a
c
t
o
r

r
a
n
g
e

(
%
)
(A)
0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

f
a
c
t
o
r

r
a
n
g
e

(
%
)
(B)
0.5 1 1.5
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

f
a
c
t
o
r

r
a
n
g
e

(
%
)
(C)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Solution gas-oil ratio (scf/STB)
F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

v
o
l
u
m
e

f
a
c
t
o
r

r
a
n
g
e

(
%
)
(D)
26 OTC 22972
GOR = gas/oil ratio
P = pressure
P
b
= bubble-point pressure
P
sep
= separator pressure
R
s
= solution gas/oil ratio
rbbl/STB = unit referred as reservoir barrels per barrels at standard condition
STD = standard deviation
T = temperature
T
sep
= separator temperature
g
= gas specific gravity (air=1)
o
= oil specific gravity

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the management of Schlumberger for allowing us to publish this paper. We also would like to thank
Paul Naccache and Andrew Rowe for very stimulating discussion on the subject of black oil correlations.

References
Al-Marhoun M.A., PVT Correlations for Middle East Crude Oils J. Pet. Tech, pp 650-666 (May 1988)
Al-Marhoun M.A., New correlations for formation volume factors of oil and gas mixtures, J. Can. Pet. Tech., 31, No.3
(March 1992)
Almehaideb, R.A., Improved PVT correlations for UAE Crude Oils, SPE 37691 Presented at the Middle East Oil
Conference and Exhibition held in Manam, Bahrain, (17-20 Mar. 1997)
Al-Shammasi A.A., Bubble Point Pressure and Oil Formation Volume Factor Correlations, SPE 53185 presented at the
1999 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in Bahrain (20-23 Feb. 1999)
Casey J.M. and Cronquist C., Estimate GOR and FVF using dimensionless PVT analysis World Oil, pp 83-87, (Nov. 1992)
Elsharkawy, A.M. and Alikhan, A.A, Correlations for Predicting Solution Gas/Oil Ratio, Oil Formation Volume Factor, and
Undersaturated Oil Compressibility, J. Pet. Sc. Eng. 17, pp 291-302 (1997)
Farshad F.F., LeBlanc J.L. and Garber J.D., Empirical PVT Correlations for Colombian Crude Oil, SPE 36105 presented at
the Fourth Latin American and Caribbean Pet. Eng. Conf. held in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad & Tobago ( 23-26 April 1996)
Glas . Generalized pressure-volume-temperature correlations, J.Pet. Tech., pp 785-795 (May 1980)
Kartoatmodjo T. and Schmidt Z., Large Data Bank Improves Crude Physical Property Correlations, Oil & Gas Journal, pp
51-55 (July 4, 1994)
Katz D.L., Prediction of the shrinkage of Crude Oils, Drilling and Production Practice, 137 (1942)
Labedi R.M., Use of Production Data to Estimate the Saturation Pressure, Solution GOR and Chemical Composition of
Reservoir Fluids SPE 21164 presented at the Latin American Pet. Eng. Conf. held in Rio de Janeiro (14-19 Oct. 1990)
Lasater J.A., Bubble Point Pressure Correlation, J. Pet. Tech. , SPE 957-G, pp 65-67 (May 1958)
Petrosky G.E. Jr. and Farshad F.F., Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Gulf of Mexico, SPE 26644 presented
at the 68
th
ACTE held in Houston, (3-6 Oct. 1993)
Standing M.B., A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for Mixture of California Oils and Gases, Drilling and
Production Practice, pp 275-87, API (1947)
Valko P.P. and McCain W.D., Reservoir Oil Bubblepoint Pressures revisited; solution gas/oil ratios and surface gas specific
gravities, J. Pet. Sc. Eng., 37 pp 153-169 (2003)
Vasquez M.E. and Beggs H.D., Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction, J.Pet. Tech, pp 968-970 (June 1980)
Velarde J., Blasingame T.A., McCain W.D., Jr. Correlation of Black Oil Properties at Pressures Below Bubble Point
Pressure A New Approach paper CIM 97-93 presented at the 48th Annual Tech. Meeting of the Pet. Society, Calgary, AL,
Canada, 08-11 June, 1997

Otc 22972 MS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Otc 22972 MS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

O

You might also like