.

Pwr Correlations for Mkidle

East

crude oils

Muhammad

All Al=Mwhoun,

SPE, King Fahd U. of Petroleum and Minerals

/37/8
. . . ..-

~$ p~~~~epo~
~~~~,
~
~
~v~
for ~~e
Summary. Empirical equations for estimating bubblepoint pressure, nil
.. ~
density, solution GGR, and stockEast crude oils were derived as a fimction of reservoir temperature, total surfkce gas dative
tank oil relative density. These empirical equations should be valid for all types of oil and gas muturea
.
with properties failing
within the range of the data used in this study.

Introduction
PVT correlations are important tools in reservoir-performance calculations. The major use of PVT data is in carrying out materialbalance calculations.
In 1947, Sttding ~pubiished correlations for determining the
bubblepoint pressure and FVF from known values of temperature,
solution GOR, gas relative density, and oil API gravity. A total
of 105 experimentally determined data points on 22 different crude
oil and gas mixtures from California were used in deriving the correlations. Standing reported an average relative error of 4.8% for
the bubblepoint pressure correlation and an average relative error
of 1.17% for the FVF correlation.
In 1980, Gla.w4 presented correlations for calculating bubblepoint pressure, oil FVF, and total FVF from known values of
temperature, solution GOR, gas relative densky, and oil API gravity.
A total of 45 oil samples, mostly from the North Sea region, were
used in obtaining the correlations. G1a.wrepcmed average relative
errors of 1.28%, -0.43%, and -4.56% for the bubblepoint pressure, the bubblepoint oil FVF, and the total FVF correlations, respectively.
Reviews of other empirical PVT correlations were presented by
Sutton and Farshad5 in 1984.
Standing used a graphic method and GlastDused both a graphic
methcd and lir
regression analysis in the development of their
PVT correlations. The graphic estimation and curve-fitting, however, do not lead to the best estimate. Therefore, this study developed the correlations using only linear and nonlinear multiple
regression analyses to obtain the highest accuracy.
This paper (Ms with PVT COmlatiOIIS ~x~jU~~v~jy fcr am+jes
of Middle East crude oils. However, they should be valid for all
QW ef g~i~fl ~fi~~ums wft properties faiiing within the range
of data used in this study. Moreover, this study evaluates the accuracy of Standings and Glasos PVT correlations, which are
shown in Table 1. Error analyses were done for this study and also
for Standings and Glasgis correlations to compare their degree of
accuracy. Finally, nomography for bubblepoint pressure, bubblepoint oil FVF, and two-phase total FVF wem conshucted on
the basis of the developed empirical correlations.

Bubblepoint Pmasure. The following generaI relation of bubblepoint pressure of an oil and gas mixture with its fluid and reservoir properties was assumed *:
Pb.=mss7gP70*n

. .. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(1)

Table 3 shows the 160 experimentally dckrmined bubblepoint

pressures obtained from PVT analyses of 69 different Middle East
oil/gas mixtures. The nonlinear multiple regression analysis was
used to develop the following relatioa.
pb =5.38088X 10 3R$7t~~g-

1.577540y~.143700T-370,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(2)
where
bubblepoint PWSSUE,
R. = solution GGR,
78 = dissolved gas relative density (air= 1),
70 = stock-tank oil relative density (water= 1), and
T = absolute temperature.

Pb =

Bubblepoint Oil FVF. Gil FVF at bubblepoint pressure can be derived as a function of solution GGR, average gas relative density,
oil rehttive density, and temperature as follows:
B& =j(R.,

Tg, -yo, T). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(3)

The foUowing empirical equation was developed by use of the

nonlinear multiple regression analysis and a trial-and-error method
based on the 160 experimentally obtained data points shown in Table 3:
B% =0.256805X 10-ZR~T4Z~7$323~T;l.=
+1.63 x10-ST , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(4)

PVT Data
ThePVTanalyses of 69 bottomhole fluid samples from 69 Middle
East oil reservoirs were made available for this study. The experimentally obtaind data points were 160 each for the bubblqmint
pressure, pb, and bubblepoint oil FVF, Bd, correlations, and
1,556 for the total FVF, B,, correlation. The ranges of the data
used are shown in Table 2.

where B% is au intermedii
oil FVF value.
The bubblepoint oil FVF correlation @q. 4) was further retined
by applying the lii
regression analysis on the same data. This
regression analysis yielded the following equation:
B~ =0.497069+0.862963x

PVT Corrohtlons
The correlations for bubblepoint pressure, bubblepoint oil FVF,
and two-phase total FVF were developed by use of the linear and
nonlinear multiple regression analyses shown in the Appendix.

+O. I132594X10-2F+0.318099

X1O-5F2,

. . . . . ...(5)

where
F=R$T423~&232~y;

650

10 3T

1.~~

Journal of PetroleumTechnology,May 1988

tooccur. The microp

rocesaor units also have logic that can detect
when a well is logged up rather than pumped off and can prevent
prematw shutdown. The microprocessor unit can store data in
memolyandthemtransmitthe data bymdioorotherc0mawnication
links uponcommand toacentral hoatunnputer. Tbiaallowarhe
micqmXeWXunita to beusedwithout comrnunhtion, orthecultral communication can be added when justified.
Coneludons
1. Pumpoff control is a profitable technique to be used on rodpumping wells except iu low-resemoir-pressure, high-PI wells.
2. Sevehl studies have shown that minimum crit&ia for justificadonofpumpoffcontrol area20% reduotionin energy consump
tion, a2S%reduction inpullingjoba, anda lto4%increawin
production. These are achievable when compamd with good operation witbout pumpoff control. If poor qemtion currmtly exists,
then greater benefits are available.
3. The anaiog and micqmceam r local logic type of pumpoff
controllers are rwxxnmended. The decision to use central communication to a host computer should be juatitkd individuaUy,
~
on the existing conditions in a given field.
Admowlodgmont
Wethankthemmagementof
to publish this paper.

Roforoneos
1. Wcstemml, G.w.: ~
~of
~~;
MM SPE 6853~
x the 1977SPE /innual Techakal Cuaference arai Exhibhion, Denver, Get. 9-12.
2. Ghauri,W.K., Gaborae,A.F., ad Magnuwn,W.L.: Chiu@nSCooceptain C@maateWaterflooding-West Texas Daaver Unit Ro@ctAIIIllustrativeExample, JPT (Iuac 1974) 595-606.
3. Ghauri, W.K.: Producdon Techao@y Ex#ence in a Large Carbonate Waterflood, Deaver Unit, Waawn Sao Andres Field, West
Texas, paper SPE 8406pmated at tk 1979SPE Anmd Technical
Cdererm and Exbibitioa, Las Vegas, Sept. 23-26.
4, HUa@r,I:Il., HUM!, M., d Reiter, c: !kmr Uiiit %%!!SW
VdhlWC
and Pum@ffCoatrol
S@tan,
JPT(Scpt. 1978)1319-26.
5. Gibbs,S.G. ml Nec!y,A.B.: ComputarD@nosisof Down4de CuIdidonsin SuckerRodPumpingWella,WT(Jan. 1966)91-98; Tin.,
AIME 237.
6. Kramer, M.J.G., Martin, J.D., ad hkdy, A.B.: Wnaite AldySiSof
SuokerRod PumpingWells,''paperSPE l1037pramtedat thel982
SPE Aimial Teeiina COiiff
and BxMition, New Grieans,
Se.@6-29.

Shell Weaern E&PInc. forpemkion

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

649

TASLE l-PVT

CORRELATIONS OF STANDING AND GLASO

Standing
Pb = la.zl(~.l~g)o~(loo-r~
-0025~~1 ) -1.41.
B* -0.9759+ 12x 10 s[R,(T~/TO)05 + 1.25 TF]2.
Glaeo
pb = antilog[l .7669 + 1.7447 logp: - 0.30218(109p~)z],
where

P;= (~.hs) o.8t6 T~f~~#@S

B*= 1.0 +arrtifog[ - 6.58511+ 2.91329 IW B% - 0.27683(Iw B~)2],

where
S% _R,(~/yo)O-

+ 0.988TF.

B,=antilog[8.0135 x10-2+4.7257x10-l

109L3;+1.7351 XIO-I(IW

B~2],

where
B;= R,(T#s/y/3p

TABLE 2-RANGE

1.1mTo2gx10-0-R*

OF DATA

Bubblepointpressure, peia
Pressure, paia
Bubblepointoil FVF, RB/STB
Total FVF below pb, RB/STB
Solution GOR, acf/STB
Average gas relative density (air= 1),
Stock-tank oil gravity, API
C02 in surface gases, mol%
Nitrogen in surface gases, mol%
H *S in surtaee gases, mol%
Reservoir temperature, F

130to 3573
20 to 3573
1.032to 1,997
1.032 to 6.982
26 to 1602
0.752 to 1.367
19.40 to 44.6
0.00 to 18.38
0.00 to 3.89
0.00 to 16.13
74 to 240

Total FVF Below Bubblepoint Pressure. The following general

relation wm ~sumed for the tti ~
below pb:
Bt=~(Rs~7g>

70s

T* P).

.0......

Avemge PmentRefative Envr. This is an indication of the relative deviation in percent from the experimental values and is given
by

Er=(l/nd)

ly=o. 159579x10 -4R$.6t4516Tg- L079W

X7: ZM874T2.006210P-0
.761910 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0)

where B: is an intermediate total PVP value.

A refinement to the total PVP correlation was done by further
applying linear regression analysis on the same data. This regression analysis yielded the following equation:
.-.----i06253 x iO-4F, +u. ltmwux iO-l~Fj,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g)

where

Ei=[(x~_~ew)/xew]

ixl~,

i=l,2

. . .tid, . . . . . . . . . . .(10)

where Xem and Xew represent the estimated and experimental

values, respecdvely. The lower the value of E,, the more equally
distributed are the errors between positive and negative values.
Avemge Absolute Pement Relative Error. This is defined as

Ea=(hd)

~
i-l

~2~lcP

lEil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(11)

d indicates the relative absolute deviation in percent from the exYAEs.

A lower value implies a better correlation.
aximum Absokte Parent Rdiziive Envr. After the
absolute percent relative error for each data point is calculated,
iEii, i=i,2. . .nd, ti the hum
d _trm
values we
scanned to know the range of error for each correlation:
d

Ed=

filEil

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(12)

i= 1

and
d

Em=
w~73~@4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(9)

Ei is the relative deviation in percent of an estimated value from

an experimental vaiue and is defied by

msx lEi I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13)

i=

~f =K9w%g-

Ei.

i= I

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...(6)

Nordii multiple regression analysis was applied to develop the

following dation, which is based on the 1,556 expmimmd y determined two-phase total FVF:

Bt=0.3i4693+0.

-0761910.

B, is in RB/STB.
Emor AMlysls
The statistical and graphic error analyses were used to check the

performance, as well as the accmaey, of the PVT emrelations developod in this study and by Standii and GIsw.

The accuracy of a correlation can be examined by maximum absolute percent relative error. The lower the value of maximum absolute percent relative error, the higher the accuracy of the
correlation is.
Stam&udlbidion
. StandaKJdeviation, s., is a measure of dkpersion and is expressed as
d

Statiatkal Error Analysis. The accuracy of eorrelations relative

totheexperkmd
valueaia ~by
Varioussmdstidmeana.
The criteria used in this study were average percent relative error,
average absolute percent relative error, minimum/maximum abaolute percent relative error, standmd deviation, and the correlation
coefficient.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

s; =[l/(nd-n-l)]

E;,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)

i=l

where (rid-n - 1) are the degrees of freedom in multiple regression. The symbol x repmsem pb, Bd, or B,. A lower value of
standard deviation means a smaller degree of scatter.
651

TABLE 3-SURFACE PROPERTIE8 AND EXPERIMENTAUY

DETERMINED BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURE AND BUBBLEPOINT OIL FVF

Bubblepoint
Preaeure,
Number
:
3
4
:
;
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
X!
21
22
23
24
z
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
36
39
40
41
42
43
:
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
:
z
z
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
$?

652

(f!$a)
3,573
3,571
3,426
3,405
3,354
3,311
3,237
5,278
3,250
3,226
::=
3,204
3,201
3,196
3,180
3,155
3,155
3,127
3,101
3,080
3,066
3,057
3,057
3,030
3,003
2,841
2,925
2,801
2,200
2,686
2,671
2,865
2,845
2,835
2,831
2,804
2,789
2,751
2,667
2,652
2,639
2,636
2,617
2,607
2,586
2,559
2,558
2,530
2,521
2,504
2,445
2,413
0 An4
C,W I
2,382
2,365
2,359
2,350
2,344
2,259
2,256
2,249
2,231
2,230
2,177
2,172
2,172
2,146
2,133
2,132

Bubblepoint
oil FVF,

GOR,

(R&13)
1.875
1.471
1.451
1.897
1.431
1.425
1.456
. .-*

(W&B)
1,507

; :T7
1.413
1.387
1.686
1.372
1.920
1.886
1.382
1.384
1.427
1.411
1.376
1.360
1.420
1.445
1.371
1.636
1.340
1.421
1.406
1.352
1.365
1.852
1.386
1.327
1.662
1.403
1.642
1.364
1.352
1.333
1.304
1.716
1.323
1.647
1.371
1.315
1.284
1.786
1.323
1.349
1.440
1.548
1.328
1.576
1.3?8
1.478
1.278
1.274
1.769
1.583
1.257
1.300
1.272
1.396
1.316
1.213
1.273
1.734
1.286
1,432
1.240

1,203
775
750
1,151
742
1,578
1,602
730
700
816

838
686

1,579
825
825
867
---

700
660
667
811
679
1,151
811
693
700
818
1*579
825
742
1,143
811
1,203
867
775
750
1,507
700
1,143
811
672
685
1,578
683
746
1,151
565
1,203
..X{
805
486
521
1,602
1,143
521
468
748
421
602
1,493
585
~
521

Average
G**
Re~ayn
Density,

Gravity
at 60F,

(a~~ 1)

(yA~l)

0.851

38.3

::%
0.930
O.m

&
42.6
34.2
34.2
35.4

:Z
---Cr.uoz
0.925
0.783
0.600
0.894
0.752
0.930
0.360
0.757
0.774
0.789
0.802
0.774
0.755
0.788
0.812
0.778
0.884
0.786
0.812
0.774
0.774
0.789
0.930
0.778
0.752
0.951
0.812
0.925
0.788
0.783
0.600
0.755
0.851
0.774
0.951
0.812
0,770
0.766
0.930
0.603
0.774
0.807
0.894
0.815
0.925
- rU.r6d
0.029
0.796
0.801
0.960
0.851
0.801
0.815
0.824
0.307
0.802
0.788
0.803

~p!

Temperature,
&
225
175
E
185
175
180
125
240
175
175

z
34.4
32.0
39.9
32.6
42.8
44.6
33.1
32.2

160

E
32.2
29.7
35.4
36.5,
32.0
38.9
30.6
36.5
33.2
32.2
34.2
42.8
&
38.4
36.5
40.2
35.4
34.4
=!
38.3
32.2
38.4
36.5
32.Q
30.8
42.8

E
175
185
170
100
175
175
140
165
175
160
175
160
175
140
100
145
100
100
240
140
160
100
100
100
100
100
E
100
foo
100
100
170

:::
36.1
38.9

z
100
180
100
175

z
34.5
:;
30.1
44.6
38.4
30.1
33.3
28.8
36.1
38.1
21.9

iR
n
9%
-.--

E
33.3
&a.f

0.801

30.1

175
180
100
150
135
140
165
150
175
145
100
100
120
?50
110

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

TABLE 3-BURFACE PROPERTIED AND EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED

BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURE AND BUBBLEPOINT OIL FVF (continual)

Bubblepoint
Preaeura,
Numbar
?;
72

73
74
75
76
77
78
73
80
W
62
83
84
65
86
87
66
89
00
91
32
33
34
95
96
97
:
lm
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
103
110
111
112
113
ii4
115
116
117
116
119
120
121
122
123

4m.
1c+
125

(~a)
~,:~~
2,035
2,016
1,930
1,888
1,981
1,862
1,328
1,912
1,830
1,!$47
1,834
1,624
1,766
1,641
1,631
1,630
1,603
1,480
1,477
1,4n
1,437
1,405
1,405
1,378
1,377
1,367
1,232
1,282
1,265
1,230
1,205
1,133
1,180
1,180
1,159
1,153
1,137
1,095
1,O@l
1,061
674
--654
847
687
642
601
~
516

e.=
=1O
506

Bubblepoint
oil IWF,
(Rl$&

0.815
1.013
0.801
0.676
0.798
0.307
0.824
0.615
0.802
0,923

1.267
1.226
1.165
1.259
1.250
1.210
1.347
1.238
1.291
1.223
1.188
1.177
1.246
1.216
1.156
1.262
1.208
1.269
1.268
1.180
1.152
1.245
1,152
i.i4i
1.132
1.215
1.102
1.027
1.220
1.191
1.114
1,125
1.163
1.036

230

261
255

;Z

Journalof Petroleum Technology, May 1968

(7A?I)

1.272

1.452
1.222
1.375
1.228
1.354
1.228
1.257
1.253
1,387
1.425
1.344
1.533
1.313
1.337
1.203
1.387
1.280
1.327

233

138

(ai7~ 1)

n
E74S
..

477

343
331

(J!4?B)
aa~

126
127
128
123
130
131
132
133
134
135
4a

392
370

API
Gravity
at 60F,

1-

1.110
1.163
1.173
1.045
1.096
1.148
1.033
1.124
1.125
1.076
1.080
. -em
I .Uw

421

GOR,

Average
Gaa
Relative
Daneity,

521
692
746
585
605
755
692
1,087
803
347
755
412
S60
417
389
347
412
417
331
755
412
469
417
302

;&!
1.056
0.676
1.013
0.333
:s
1.002
0.360
::=
0.973
0.380
0.921

Ai

G.i
36.2
30.1
41.9
30.1
35.1
28.6
33.3
38.1
3$!,1
39.3
41.9
36.0
41.9
36.2
26.1
39.3
31.0
38.6
31.2

Temperature,
&
4 nc

;;
160
85
150
100
100
100
80
100
100
170
115
100
80
100
165
125
160
150
185
150
100
160
160
160
80
130
155
130
160
80
130
100
100
100
lW
74
130
185
100
150
160
--175
100
100
80
100
165
145
160
155
105

127
141
266

i%
0.360
0.960
0.931
1.002
0.980
0.973
0.821
1.010
0.980
1.002
1.168
1.056
0.931
1.188
0.989
--0.942
1.056
1.186
1.031
0.942
1.182
1.182
1.025
1,~~
1.192

::?
31.0
31.2
28.4
33.3
31.0
36.5
31.2
28.9
28.2
36.5
31.0
28.4
37.0
31.2
38.6
31.2
22.6
28.9
31.2
27.2
32.i
22.8
31.2
27.9
32.1
37.3
37.3
25.1
~:5
37.3
25.;

; cm

141
156
168
62
104
168
79
100
166
74
79

1.072
1.308
1.367
0.675
1.126
1.367
1.146
1.247
1.367
1.083
1.146

27.5
27.1
30.5
31.6
27.4
30.5
23.5
26.0
30.5
27.4
23.5

130

%
412
331
512
417
433
z
~
168
E

; ~~

4 An.
1.U6J

1.108

74
103

. -.
I.Wii
1.335

1.079
1.033
1.086

45
44
61

1.123
1.050
1.272

n- A
&l.*
25.4

21.8
30.2
26.2

205
170
160
165
E
125
160
145
120

155
E
160

653

TABLE 3-BURFACE PROPERTIED AND EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED

BUBBLEPOINT PREBBURE AND BUBBLEPOINT OIL FVF (eontlnued)

BLI:&u~nt

But&lq#nt
GOR,

Average
ma
Relatlve
Oen@ty,

~pf
Gravity
at 60F,

Temperature,

YAP1

Number
141
142
. .-iW
144
145
146
147
146
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
j%
159
160

(#a)
246
240
--236
236
231
214
214
211
166
166
179
174
174
163
161
~~
147
130

(R&B)
1.065
1.066
1.072
1.090
1.001
1.051
1.047
1.052
1.075
1.061
1.039
1.075
1.045
1.061
1.036
1SW
1.047
?.032
1.062
1.041

(J!!)

45
61
44

The assumptionof normal distribution of errors allows establishment of ~ntldence

intervals for the estimated value. If
Xm =.xe *z, then the confidence limits, z, in percent, are
S==68.3, 2X=95.45, and 3s, =99.73.
Cbnddon Clr@cient. The correlation coefficient, r, represents
the degree of success in reducing the standad deviation by regres
sion analysis. It is defined SS6

P 1

}1[(X*-.Z~~p)i12/}1

[(~q-~)i12

, . . ..(15)

where
d

-F=(l/n~)

(X~p)i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16)

i=l

The correlation coefficient lies between Oand 1. A value of 1 indicates a perfect correlation, whereas a value of O implies no correlation at all among the given independent variables.
Graphic Error Analysis. Graphic means help in visualizing the
accuracy of a correlation. Two gfaphic analysis techniques were
used.
Cms$pfot. In this tedmique, all the dmated values are plotted
vs. the experimental values, and thus a crossplot is formed. A450
[0.79-rad] straight line is drawn on the crossplot on which estimated value is equal to experimental value. The closer the plotted data
points aii b &s iti, the &tter the correlation is.
Erwr Distribution. Tbe deviations, Ei, for a good correlation
aree
to be as close aspodble to the normaldistriion.
Tbe uation of a norrnaldistribution curve to fit any data set can
be derived by use of the mean and standard deviation of that data
set. 7 This technique involvea pmenting relative _
of devio-A L-f-:- - -~~~s ~mih~stomm.
6*WU
=11
Lug
u @4~*tiu~m
~mc
to it. The accuracy of the correlation is then judged by matchhg
the error distribution with the normaldistribution curve.

Compwkon

of Corrolatlons

StatisticalError Analysis. Average percent relative error, average absolute percent relative error, rninirnumhaximum absolute
percent relative error, standard deviation, and correlation coefficient were computed for each correlation.
654

(ai?: 1)
1.123
1.272
1.050
1.356
1.267
1.123
1.272
1.050
1.356
1.251
1.356
1.165
1.251
1.165
1.105
~.f~
1.165
1.;85
1.182
1.162

:
46
61
44
61
39
61
29
39
z
a
29
m
2

. (API)
21.8
26.2
30.2
25.4
26.5
21.6
26.2
20.2
25.4
19.4
25.4
23.6
19.4

(~n
160
140
165
190
155
130
100
125
160
160
130
160
120
160
lm

z:
-~.~
23.6
23.s
26.2
29.2

i~
100
160
120

Table 4 presents the co-n

of errors relative to the experimentall~ determined bubblepoint pressure of 160 data points
@imated from the three correlations. The cmrelation for bubblepoint premure of this study achieved the lowest emors and standard deviation, with the highest comletion coefficient accuracy of
0.997, as prmented in Table 5. Standings correlation stood second in aceumcy, with a correlation coefficient of 0.979. Glas#s
correlation showed poor accuracy, with the highest errors and the
10WCIW Correlation
C4WffiCkDt
of 0.891.
Wimated bubblepoint oil FVF end the experimentally obtained
bubblepoint oil FVF for the 160 data points are given in Table 6,
akmgwhhtherelativedmhtiontbreachdatapoint.Forbubblepoint
oil FvFcormMon , this study again achieved the highest accura7.
~, foU~d by G~ @ Sti~~
M ti~
@ Tabie
Atotalof l,556data points used indeveloping the total FVF
correlation was sorted according to tbe percent relative error, and
51&pointswemAectedby
takingeveTyotller 3opointstorefkct
theaccumcy. Thesekcted51datapointsfort otalFVFwithreservoir properties of the oil samples are given in Table 8. The relative error for each data point is also presented in the same table.
The statisdcal error analyses for the two correlations are presented
in Table 9. This studys codauon. fortotal FVFoMained bigher
~
than GIasos correlation.
GOSSPIOtS.
The crossplot of dmated vs. experimental values
for bubblepoint presswe codations
are presented in Figs. 1
tbrough 3. Mostoftheplotted pointaofthis study 'scomeWonW
very close to the perfect correlation of the 45 [o.79-rad] line. The
correlations of standing and Glas9reveal theii Ovemdmatl .OD.Acr.1..
+. --1A-..
1.-.... -I .- + --&fi#~g t-h~.,6.., 2 .4.
?Weu
UIUGU
more- overWW.b=wuu
timation than Standi@s cordation.
Tile crossplot for bubblepoint oil FVF correlations are given
in Figs. 4 through 6. Moat of the plotted data points of this studys
comeladon fall on tbe 45 [0.%had] line, Mcating its high degree
of comlation, while the correlations of Glasoand Standingreveal
MU

OV~&~

~ti~

~ bJMi@fi

CM ~

Of

1.5

P*!W.

[1.5 res mshtock-tank m3].

The piotted i,556 data points of this studys correlation for total
FvF fall very close to the perfect C43rrelationof the 45 [o.79-rad]
line (see Fig. 7). Gntheotber hand, the plotted 1,556 data points
of Glases codation scatted above or below the 45 [0.79-md]
line, as prmentd in Fig. 8.
Error INstributimI. Error distribution histograms with overlaid
normal-distribution curve for tbe bubblepoint pressure correlations
Journal of PetroleumTechnology, May 1988

,
TABLE 4-COMPAR180N OP BUBBLEPOINT PREBSlfREB EBTIMATED
..
-...a -- .-., --- . .. .. .. . . .. -. . -m AA-m., . -A.mum Inm asuuT, simwusq
Alsu CsLAsw
DT eUmIUIIUIW

Number
:

3
4
:
:
1:
11
12
1?
14
15
18
17
18
19
20
2
23
24
25
26
27
26
23
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
33
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
4748
49
50
51
52
53
~
55

56
57
56
59
60
67
62
z
65
66
87
68
69
70

Experimental
Bubblepoint
Pressure
(psia)
~,~~
3,571
3,426
3,405
3,354
3,311
3,297
3,279
33
3,223
3,216
3,204
3,201
3,196
3,180
3,155
3,155
3,127
3,101
3,090
3,066
3.057
-, ___
3,057
3,030
3,003
2,941
2,925
2,901
2,300
2,876
2,871
2,665
:E
2,631
2,604
2,789
2,751
2,667
2,652
2,633
2,636
2,617
2,607
2,566
2,559
2,558
2,530
2,521
2,504
2:445
2,413
*G,W
An*1
2,392
2,365
2,359
2,350
2,344
2,259
,. . . .
Z,zw
2,249
2,231
2,230
2,177
2,172
2,172
2,148
2,133
2,132

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

Estimated Bubblepoint
Pressure (pale)
This
Study

~,~
3,446
3,267
3,650
3,398
3,329
3,246
3,080
3,213
3,141
3,065
3,211
3,293
3,340
3,332
3,286
3,177
3,195
2,918
3,112
3,352
2,982
2,97A
3,027
2,963
3,143
2,822
3,031
2,887
2,734
3,037
----3,817
2,677
2,984
2,701
2,735
2,721
2,658
2,611
2,837
2,703
2,534
2,760
;:Z
2,660
2,741
2,541
2,566
2,354
2,462
2,456
2,389

nc4.3
C,QI0

2,257
2,393
;:=
2,466
2,267
* ~-:=
2,123
2,277
2,345
2,173
2,231
2,157
2,033
2,132

Deviatkm in Percent
of Estimated pb
This
study

Standing
A 9.,6UU

Giaao

A AnA
.,-

~ ~c~~

3,452
3,275
4,141
3,222
3,155
3,143
3,107
3,611
2,864
3,037
3,463
3,016
3,766
3,833
3,012
2,832
3,067
2,947
2,930
3,139
2,668
9 R7n
-,-.
2,860
3,182
2,943
2,722
2,622
2,721
2*645
3,425
--2,693
2,656
3,460
2,609
3,050
2,654
2,529
2,592
2,879
3,254
2,500
3,180
2,396
2,441
2,516
3,114
2,420
2,408
2,547
2,687
2.362
_,___
2,887

3,040
3,845
4,404

-3.51
-4.65
7.20

:&l
3,594
3,735
3,841
3,423
3,512
3,785
3,539
4,254
4,161
3,478
3,427
3,550
3,804
3,396
3,651
3,450
!?9flQ
-,--3,322
3,666
3,430
3,210
3,273
3,273
3,254
4,090
--3,308
3,276
3,888
3,139
3,600
3,264
3,119
3,203
3,332
3,959
3,094
3,579
2,866
3,025
3,126

;:
-1.47
-5.76
-1.14
-2.71
-4.23
-0.21
2.77
4.34
4.20
3.35
0.71
1.31
-6.74
0.36
8.49
-2.75
- ~.?~
-0.97
-2.21
4.66
-4.06
3.63
-0.50
-5.73
4.85
-1.88
0.41
4.88
-4.74
-3.39
.-2.97
-4.70
-5.10
5.59
2.15
-0.19

XX
2,979
2,883
3,331
2.7A3
-, --3,334

-::

6<,&l 1

. ..9
e,wf

2,439
2,282
2,289
2,913
2,881
2,171
2,171
2,148
2,291
2,046
2,359
2,087
2,714

2,780
2,691
2,741
3,667
3,415
2,681
2,625
2,579
2,743
2,395
3,107
2,590
3,417

-::
-0.89
Q54
-0.98
. **.W

-5.85
1.44
;%!
-::
-- :s
-4.56
2.10
7.70
0.06

2,081.
2,134
2,056

- :E
-1.72
2.78

:E
2,567

-4.70
-0.01

Standing
.__.
~g.~

-3.32
-4.41
21.61
-3.92
-4.71
-4.66
-5.28
11.11
-6.17
-5.77
7.61
-5.81
17.84
19.87
-5.29
-5.15
-2.79
-5.77
-5.52
1.60
-5.81
-e *9
-;~
5.03
-1.61
-7.44
-3.52
-6.21
-8.79
16.26
-6.22
-7.21
21.62
-7.98
7.73
-5.35
-9.31
-5.80
-0.20
-7.;
-7.$
-8.38
-2.78
21.70
-5.38
-4.62
1.04
7.32
- ~,~
11.34

. .-al/

- k:
-2.98
23.97
-=3:;2
-3.77
-4.51
-:::
- :=
24.%

-3.13
-:2

Giaae
~gJg

10.32
12.23
29.33
9.07
9.50
9.m
13.91
16.18
8.03
6.88
17.62
10.45
33.19
30.73
9.37
8.62
12.53
15.25
9.51
16.14
12.52
?.=
8.67
20.96
14.23
9.16
11.89
12.82
12.21
41.21
15.26
14.35
29.55
10.70
27.15
18.40
11.83
18.43
24.02
49.27
17.24
35.78
13.32
18.03
20.79
50.77
11.05
17.74
14.35
33.03
~~,~j
38.16

.A a.?
IU.w

18.21
13.76
16.21
56.05
45.70
17.81
lf3.3a
- 14.67
22.%
7.41
42.72
19.22
57.32
18.%
23.84
20.40

655

TABLE 4-Comparison
OP BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURES ESTIMATED BY
CORRELATIONS PROM TENSSTUDY, STANDING, AND QLABO (continued)
Ex&kfmrf;i
Number
71
72
73
74
75
76
2
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
:
91
92
83
84
85
96
97
96
99
100
101
.I aUL
103

104
105
106
107
106
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
116
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
136
139
140

656

Prasaure
(psia)
2,124
2,036
2,0i 6
1,990
1,988
1,981
1,862
1,926
1,912
1,880
1,847
1,834
1*824
1,786
1,641
1,631
1,630
1,603
1,480
1,4n
1,472
1,437
1,405
1,405
1,376
1,377
1,367
1,292
1,262
1,265
1,230

Estimated Bubblepoint
Praaaure (pa&)
This
Study
standing
Glaae

St;
-1.87
1.17
-7.74

1%
1,801
1,878
1,982
1,827
1,815
1,745
1,789
1,805
1,646
1,625
1,464
1,582
1,434
1,373
1,436
1,290
1.26s
.,___
1,374
1,362
1,371
1,422
1,287
1,376
1,276
1,246

2,015
1,984
---Z,Z6Z
1,852
1,870
1,846
2,061
1,871
1,911
1,745
1,973
2,020
1,736
2,354
1,812
1,892
1,624
1,836
1,821
1,639
1,636
1,534
!,AjA
1,554
1,551
1,460
1,668
1,457
1,476
1,455
1,319

2,364
2,473
2,863
2,452
2,276
2,437
2,555
2,356
2,378
2,163
2,460
2,366
2,166
2,921
2,027
2,489
1,979
2,256
1,874
1,829
1,878
1,656
!,~
1,832
1,828
1,738
2,078
1,761
1,732
1,756
1,550

1,205

I,om

--1,321

1,644

-8.92

1,183
1,~so
1,180
1,159
1,153
1,137
1.085
1,094
1,061

1,304
1,201
1,197
1,167
1,190
1,151
1,038
1,062
1,086
954
952
868s50
881
852
625

1,400
1,367
1,2s4
1,335
1,365
1,309
1,451
1,337
1,160
1,332
1,054

1,674
1,674
1,566
1,821
1,889
1,585
1,639
1,638
1,411
1,565
1,216

9.31
1.75
1.46
0.67
3.24
1.21
-5.16
-2.90
2.57
-1.21
8.86

1,115
1,197
703
723
757

1,450
1,443
791

;:
5.86
-10.40
5.51
-4.10
-1.86
3.34
3.46
3.86

874
854
847
697
696
642
601
584
516
515

ZZZ
2,059
i ,880
2,008

Daviation in Percent
of Eatimatad Pb

618
E
!W
539684

649
628

713

343
331
327
x
283
281
255

- :;
-2.66
2.81
1.96
-1.75
-4.84
-1.89
2.19
-::
-10.20
-1.33
-3.14
-7.04
-2.45
-10.21
-am
.
-2.18
-1.13
-0.46
- W
7.46
0.84
1.27

585
534

477
444
421
406
392
370

789
766
896

- :E

L?
423
437
419
390554
357
347
316
311
276
268235
233

334

508
367
395
326
.421
284
272

830
660
270
447
636
503
314
289
401
240
157
217

:E
1.64
-4.62
::
-0.51
2.53
3.10
4.15
4.91
6.56
8.47
7.26
4.80
2.76
-8.64

Standing
-5.14
-2.00
12.22
-1.91
-5.91
-1.75
- ;::
-0.03
-7.69
8.82
10.14
-4.60
33.30
-1.78
22.14
-0.35
14.53
9.54
4.19
11.12
6.76
Q.=
10.66
12.55
6.01
22.05
12.80
15.17
15.01
7.25

Glaae
11.31
21.54
33.10
23.21
14.49
23.02
30.21
22.31
24.26
14.45
33.20
30.09
18.85
65.41
23.50
51.40
21.38
40.76
26.63
FE
29.18
9QM
&.30.42
32.63
26.24
52.03
36.29
35.12
36.83
26.01

9.66

36.44

17.34
15.85
8.84
15.16
16.36
15.03
32.49
22.23

40.33
41.62
34.40
39.65
44.75
40.29
49.69
49.74
32.98
61.97
39.36
5.20
71.22
79.52
13.60
14.11
22.87
27.52
19.51
20.31
37.58
26.91
23.96
38.43
27.40
-36.78

3;::
20.54
-0.48
31.63
48.88
0.90
3.82
17.87
20.57
11.19
15.49
26.24
15.55
17.32
42.95
36.27
-20.66
15.06
41.41
16.82
29.91
48.02
~~
11.34
45.29
8.04
-10.00
6.62

3;:
10.76
18.04
46.74
-6.16
18.05
-1.47
38.25
-8.71
-39.76
-14.71

Journal of PetroleumTechnology, May 1988

TABLE 4-COMPARISON OF BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURES ESTIMATED BY

CORRELATIONS FROM TWS STUDY, STANDING, AND GLASO (oontinued)

Number

Experimental
Bubblepoint
Pressure
(paia)

Oaviatbn in Peroant
Of Estimated pb

Estimated Bubblepoint
Pressure (paia)
This
Study
Standing
G265
223260
214
247
224
282
314
242
248
237
195
226

Glaae
230
210

This
Study

141
142
143
144
145
148
147
148
jAg

248
240

233

- ~.=
d

150

205

227

200

-2.19

151
152
153
154
155
158
157
158
159
180

188
188
179
174
174
183
161
148
147
130

197
175
184
185
170
149
154
144
137
125

245

199
112
185
107
84
89
101
94
85
59

-::
2.53
-5.31
-2.40
-8.71
-4.18
-2.74
- &&~
-3.57

238
231
214
214
~~f

9* n

k?
158
138
130
147
138
117
108

This Study
Standing . Glaae
17.76
0.03
6.60
3.88
12.08
25.22
0.01

0.03

0.28

10.40

48.89

79.52

16.020
0.979

29.983
0.891

4.536
0.997

of this study, Standing, and Glsso are presentedin Figs. 9 through

ii. Tine error ranges of ii5, f40. and *80% are used for this
studys, Standings, and Giasos correlations, respectively. This
studys correlation has a mean almost equal to zero, while the peak
iie@ of h normai-distfloution curve for the Standing and Girt,w
correlations are at about 7 and 18% error. indicating overestimation by positively skewed error distribution.
Error distribution for this studys correlation for bubblepoint oil
FVF is a normal distribution with a mean almost equal to zero (see
Fig. 12). Norrnaldistribution curves for Standing and Glaso are
given in Figs. 13 and 14. The mean distribution of Glas#s eorrehkmyclwmtioftimml*m
ofti*,
wwings ccmdation indicated its overestimation by a positively skewed
nonnaldistribution curve with a mean of a60ut_2 %. The range of error dktribution for total FVF correlation for this
study is A 15% (see Fig. 15), while the error of Glas#s correlation ranges from -20 to +50%, as shown in Fig. 16. This studys
correlation distributed the error evenly across the entire range with
a mean of slmost 0.0%. Gn the other hand, the norrnaldistribution
curve for Glasos correlation shows a positively skewed error retribution with a mean of about 8%.
Nomography
On the basis of the mathematically developed PVT correlations,
correlation charts have been devebped for bubblepoint pressure,
bubblepoint Oti FVF, and tWC@SSe (oil/gas)totalFVF. The
chartsare presented in Figs. 17 through 19. The standatd procedures were followed in constructing nomography. 9*10
A nomogrsph is quite simple to use. The data points are connected from one scale to the other by a straight line. It is straightJournal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

217
182
137

:;
-10.10
19.40
33.01
7.17
10.83
-9.01
ai.a

10.96
31.98
-8.73
15.72
-9.27
-21.87
-20.34
-8.88
-7.97
-~.~?
-16.58

Glaae
-6.69
-12.53
-37.78
-6.70
10.03
-5.92
-10.31
- 35.s0
.-

UAO

-2.42
-:.:
3.48
-38.53
-51.48
-57.61
-37.39
- 36.s2
~g.g!
-54.35

forward in determining pb, Bd, and B,. Engineering personnel

will find these charts very simple and useful tools in determining
the reservoir performance or in designing production facilities.

TABLE 5-STATISTICAL ACCURACY OF

BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURE CORRELATIONS

Average relative error, %

Average absolute relative
error, %
Minimum absolute relative
error, %
Maximum absolute relatiie
error, %
Standard deviation, %
Correlation coefficient

- ;;
3.78
-5.28
9.22
4.92
-4.89
5.72

Standing

conoluslon8
1. PVT cmrelations for Middle Bast oil and gas mixtums have
Mz?fi&V:iOped. E@. 2, 5, and 8 krrm the basis for caicuisdng
the bubblepoint pressure, oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure, and ~
td FVF below bubblepoint pressure. Moreover, the nomogrsphs
emstructed in this study are so alternative solution without reducing the accumey achievable by using Eqs. 2, 5, and 8 in a much
easier manner.
2. Eqs. 2,5, and 8 were developed specifically for Middle Bast
oilandmsm ixturesb utcanbeused
foresdmabnrz
thesame PVT
Wiipropeties fsu*rsforrdltypesof
oilsndgas mmturea

ing within the range of data used ~Ath~s sttttd.

3. Deviations from eqerhenMy
deterdd
data, imiicated as
average percent relative errors, average absolute percent relative
We~
iowti
fo~ t!& study Lhm
errors, snd tlM stdd
deviio@
for estimations based on the correlations of Standing and Ghisg.
4. The correlation ecreffiiients of the correlations of this study
tiw~Hontie
Mtie Moti_lm~cl~rti
lthsn
those of Standing and Glaso.
5. The PVT correkdions can be placed in the following order
with respect to their accuracy: (1) for bubblepoint pmasure, this
study, Smnding, and Gw, (2) for bubblepoint oiI FVF, this study,
Gw
and Standing; and (3) for total FVF, this study and Glaso.
Nomondatum
~= (n+l) v*r
a = least-squares solution to tbe system Xz=y
B& = oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure, ItB/m
[rea m3/stock-tsnk m3]
W* = intermediate value for B&
bdoW
bubtdepoint
prSS.3~,
RB/STB
B, = m Oti ~
[rea m3/stock-tank m3]
~ = jnte~
v~ue for B,
E . e~r
Ea = average absolute relative error, Eq. 11, %
Ei = pxcent relativeerror,Eq. 10
E, = average relative error, Bq. 9, %

f =

function

F = correlationparameter, Eq.

5
657

TABLE S-COMPARISON OF BUBBLEPOW/T OIL FVFS ESTtMATED

SY CORRELATIONS PROM THIS STUDY, STANDING, AND GLASO

This
Study

1.875
1.471
1.461
1.s87
1.431
1.425
1.458
1.430
1,747
1.413
1.387
1.688
1.372
1.s20
1.985
1.392
1.364
1.427
1.411
1.378
1.360
1.420
1.445
1.371
1.636
1.340
1.421
1.408
1.352
1.385
1.s52
1.368
1.327
1.882
1.403
1.642
1.354
1,=

G
1.457
1.436
1.920
1.438
1.427
1.458
1.414
1.718
1.406
1.383
1.663
1.370
1.881
1.s54
1.380
1.377
1.422
1.3s2
1.388
1.350
1.423
1.444
1.380
1.628
1.348
1.422
1.368
1.&
1.381
1.843
1.383
1.316
1.689
- -; :G
1.388
~.~~

1.333

1.328

:
47

1.304
1.718
1.323
1.647
1.371
1.315
1.284
1.786

48
49
50
51

Numbar
1
2
3
4
5
8
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24

Standing
2.018
1.514
1.496
2.073
1.478
1.488
1.503
1.4n
1.811
1.442
1.430
1.748
1.403
2.037
2.109
1.408
1.403
1.464
1.458
1.388
1.378
1.474
1.480
1.388
1.717
1.374
1.482

Glaae
~
1.480
1.466
1.882
1.440
1.435
1.488
1.452
1.756
1.408
1.387
1.700
1.372

Daviatbn in Percent
of Estimated B ~
mis
Study

-0.98
-0.94
-1.06
-3.84
0.34
0.18
-0.03
-1.12
-1.77
-0.38
0.40
-1.34
-0.15
-2.01
-1.62
-0.84
-0.52
-0.36
-1.31
-0.57
-0.72
0.22
-0.07
-0.83
-0.43
0.66
0.10
-2.68
-1.04
-0.25
-0.51
-0.40
-0.67
0.43
0.16
0.30
0.33

Standing
::
3.08
3.82
3.11
3.04
3.10
3.32
;:
3.06
::
6.07
6.19
1.24
1.41
2.57
3.43
1.46
1.36
3.81
2.45
1.08
4.88

. Giaao
3.89
0.83
1.05
-0.23
::
0.75
:::
-0.28
0.71
-::
2.48
1.98
-1.16
-1.11
0.30
1.84
-0.84
-1.12

i:w
1.413
2.000
1.414
1.351
1.780
1.448
1.748
1.445
?.38Q

X
1.376
1.369
1.431
1.438
1.363
1.345
1.447
1.446
1.353
1.678
1.341
1.432
1.381
1.344
1.382
1.943
1.383
1.339
1.728
1.421
1.712
1.424
1.,._

~ o,&

~.?:

.3n

I .355

-0.38

1.285
1.748
1.303
1.655
1.371
1.235
1.284
1.804

1.326
1.916
1.344
1.748
1.419
1.334
1.322
1.864

1.304
1.875
1.322
1.708
1.389
1.312
1.300

-1.42
1.79
-1.48

1.69
0.01
9.15
-0.05
3.57

-::
-1.53
0.01

3.27
1.71
11.51
1.57
6.22
3.51
1.41
2.98

1.323
1.348
1.440
1.548

1.330
1.303
1.443
1.580

1.348
1.341
1.478
1.656

1.Q18
1.315
1.320
1.442
1.633

1.m
0.49
-3.38
0.23

9.97
1.86
-0.57
2.83

;:
-0.58
-2.18
0.16

52

1.329

1.333

1.348

1.314

0.33

53
54
:
~?

1.576
1.318
1.479
1.278
?.Gq~

1.585
1.320
1.485
1.283
f.=

1.703
1.330
1.524
1.2s3
~.=-m

1.678
1.285
1.488
1.259
f .plj

k:
0.41
0.33
6.48

58

1.788

1.642

1.599
1.257
1.300
1.272
1.3s8
1.316
1.213
1.273
1.734
1.286
1.432
1.240

i .61i
1.259
1.298
1.263
1.400
1.337
1.211
1.2s9
1.793
1.282
1.442
1.237

2.003
1.711
1.278
1.320
1.274
1.442
1.344
1.228
1.288
1.s50
1.307
1.487
1.281

1.854
1.678
1.251
1.283
1.242
1.414
1.311
1.188
1.278
1.308
1.282
1.460
1.237

=
27
26
23
30
::
33
34
35
36
37
38
;

41
42
43
44,

-,.

;
61
62
63
2
z
68
68
70

658

Estimated Bubblepoint
Oil WF (RS/STS)

Experimental
Bubblepoint
Oil FVF
(FM/m)

o.n

;;
0.12
-0.08
-0.72
0.16
1.58
-0.14
-0.30
3.30
-0.35
-::

::
-0.67
k:
6.00
3.38
2.55
5.85
3.20
6.52
4.42

6.S8
1.43
8.05
0.88
3.04
1.07
i .64
11.88
6.S8
1.67
k:
3.13
2.12
1.24
2.08
12.43
1.61
3.86
1.71

k:
-1.34
2.55
0.07
0.78
-3.23
-0.60
2.01
4.92
::
2.74
1.28
4.24
2.92
? .~~

- t:

5.47
-1.10
6.47
-1.64
0.83
-1.55
a a.
- U.ul
9.24
4.92
-0.52
-0.56
-2.36
1.18
-0.38
-1.19
0.37
10.01
-0.31
- k%

Journalof Pctrolcum Technology, May 1988

,
TASLE 5-COMPAR~
OP BUBWSMINT OIL WPO SSTIMATED
BY CORRSLAIWW PROM THIS STUDY, STANDINQ, AND QLAS@ (continwd)
El$J$e:
Number
71
72
73
74
75
;
78
73
80
81
82
83
84
55
:
85
59
:
92
93
34
95
85
97
38
99
lW
101
102
103
104
105
108
107
105
109
110
111
112
113
1+4
115
..-

Oii FVF
(RB/STB)
1.405
1.272
i AK9

1.222
1.375
1.225
1.354
1.225
1.257
1.253
1.357
1.425
; :Z
1.313
1.387
1.203
1.357
1.280
1.327
1.267
i .226

117
116
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
125
123
lW
131
132
133
134
135
136
137

1.165
1.253
1.250
1.210
1.347
1.235
1.281
1.223
1.186
l.in
1.245
1.216
1.156
1.252
1.205
1.253
1.258
1.180
1.152
1.245
1.152
1.141
1.132
f .215
1.102
1.097
1.220
1.191
1.114
1.125
1.153
1.086
1.110
1.163
1.173
1.045
1.098
1.148
1.038
1.124
1.125
1.075
1.Wo
1.059
l.lm

138
133
140

1.073
1.093
1.055

110

Journal of Pctrdcum Technology, May 1988

Estimated Bubblepoint
Oii W (RB/BTB)
s!!
m
1.264

f.~

1.216
1.388
1.219
1.357
1.207
1.247
1.272
1.383
1.448
1.358
1.588
1.325
1.402
1.216
1.410
1.258
1.333
1.277

standing
1.435
1.293

~.~ff

1.245
1.4*O
1.242
1.405
1.231
1.250
1.292
1.451
1.430
1.355
1.671
1.360
1.467
1.221
1.457
1.274
1.352
1.282

Giaso
m
1.271

$.~

1.224
1.352
1.220
1.387
1.m
1.261
1.271
1.433
1.4@

----l.zau

.1.Zw

1.150
1.252
1.255
1.207
1.371
1.225
1.254
1.229
1.195
1.170
1.252
1.200
1.155
1.253
1.203
;Z
1.183
1.144
1.27+
1.164
1.153
1.125
1. -1.On
1.088
1.203
1.191
1.113
1.119
1.157
1,078
1.087
1.191
1.155
1.M7
1.?05
1.154
1.111
1.143
1.119
1.057
1.078
1.053
1.103

1.173
1.251
1.265
1.210
1.425
1.241
1.233
1.245
1.195
1.197
1.276
1.221
1.171
1.286
1.225
1.300
1.320
1.188
1.157
1.292
1.152
1.151
1.145
. --1.ZWI
1.033
1.105
1.202
1.159
1.108
1.115
1.154
1,W
l.lm
1.173
1.173
1.OW
1.100
1.148
1.101
1.127
1.123
1.083
1.075
1.050
1.101

;:%
1.344
1.450
1.180
1.435
1.241
1.325
1.245
.-. .
1.Z14
1.157
1.231
1.235
1.178
1.410
1.215
1.254
1.219
1.155
1.173
1.251
1.2W
1.149
1.269
1.204
1.284
1.257
1.154
1.135
1.255
1.132
1.120
1.124
--i236
1.078
1.085
1.172
1.152
1.082
1.086
1.143
1,=
1.078
1.135
1.138
1.055
1.074
1.119
1.072
1.093
1.101
1.059
1.055
1.044
1.075

1.024
1.105
1.W2

1.085
1.084
1.079

1.058
1.083
1.055

Deviation in Peroent
of Estimated B*
&by

-::
n
n
w.au
-0.54

standing
2.03
1.55

4.03

. Giaso
-0.31

-0.05
e..
6.1%
0.19

;E
-::
0.22
-1.73
-0.78
1.04
0.35
1.54
1.05
1.65
1.14
0.33
1.W
-::
0.45
0.76
---- :.Z
-0.57
0.40
-0.24
- X
-0.55
0.01
-::
1.=
-1.32
-0.05
0.10
-0.33
-0.13
2.%
1.64
-0.72
2.m
1.M
- ;:
-::
0.12
-0.83
-::
-0.53
-0.53
-1.~
-1.13
q.85
1.23
4.00
0.53
0.48
1.07
1.71
-0.52
-::
-0.58
-0.4

1.40
- H!

;E
0.22
k:
4.62
4.54
3.04
9.01
3.60
5.03
1.51
-::
1.88
1.16
. -1.37
:5
1.19
-0.04
5.75
0.25
0.14
1.23
0.62
1.71
2.40
0.4
1.30
2.10
;:
4.07
1.55
0.45
3.80
0.55
O.w
1.11
-::
0.73
-1.48
-0.14
-0.51
-0.92
0.05
-fG@
-0.32
0.33
0.00
3.34
0.15
-0.01
0.18
0.27
-0.15
-:2
0.14

-::
2.42
-1.61
0.30
0.84
;2
1.41
:Z
- W
- :Z
-0.13
-1.50
-
-0.97
-0.65
-2.23
-1.21
-2.55
4.71
-1.53
-2.09
-0.78
-1.95
0.13
0.38
-1.32
-0.55
-::
1.20
1.43
-1.32
-1.41
1.65
-1.73
-1.85
-0.73
- ;:
-0.38
-3.83
-2.42
-2.91
-3.28
-1.73
- ~a~j
-2.82
-2.88
-3.02
0.97
-2.20
-2.54
-2.46
-2.73
-2.15
-1.74
-2.21
-1.38

-0.53
0.32

-2.83

0.07

-273

-0,65

-l.%
-2.78

659

TABLE 6-COMPARISON OF BUBBLEPOINT OIL FVFs ESTIMATED

BY CORRELATIONS FROM TNtS STUDY, STANDING, AND GLASO (continued)

Number

Experimantel
Bubblepoint
Oil FVF
(RB/STB)

141
142
143
144
145
146
147
146
143
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160

1.065

1.066
1.072

1.090
1.091
1.051
1.047

1.052
1.075
1.061
1.059
1.075
1.045
1.061
1.036
1.063
1.047
1.032
1.062
1.041

Eetimated Bubblepoint
Oil FVF (RB/~)
This
Study ~
Standing
m
1.066
1.047
1.0s4
1.068
1.046
1.074
1.071
1.046
1.106
1.097
1.066
1.060
1.067
1.064
1.042
1.052
1.036
1.030
1.045
1.034
1.039
1.046
1.034
1.062
1.060
1.057
1.045
1.065
1.066
1.056
1.063
1.045
1.076
1.051
1.065
1.030
1.044
1.032
1.056
1.061
1.041
1.037
1.026
1.022
1.054
1.032
1.062
1.044
1.033
1.031
1.007
1.022
1.026
1.056
1.040
1.060
1.036
1.023
1.027

Ft = correlation parameter, Eq. 8

n = number of independent variables
?td = number of data points

R;
Sx
T
T~
x

correlation cdficient, Eq. 15

solution GOR, scf/STS [std m3 /stock-tank ms]
standmd deviation, Bq. 14
temperature, R ~]
temperature, F ~]

Y = dependent variable, Eq. A-1

Tm

z =
=

-Yg=
70 =

(n Al\.,
.).@tti

T
Ixa-xewl
(141.5/7.)- 131.5 =stock-tank Oil gravity,
~lcms]
average gas relative density (air= 1)
oil stock-tank Aative density (water= 1)

API

subscripts
eat =
exp =
max=
min =

estimated from correlation

experimental
maximum
minimum

Standing

aaao

0.32
0.14
-0.13

-1.72
-1.67
-2.24

-1.99
-2.52
-1.40

-::

-1.21
-1.70
-1.71
-1.50
-1.26
-2.19
-1.29
-1.92
-1.07
-2.66
-1.56
-1.00
-2.11
-1.36

-::
-0.36
0.46
::
0.28
-0.06
-0.01
-0.21
-0.06
-0.25
-0.35
-0.22
-0.32

Average relative error, %

Average ebeolute relative
error, %
Minimum abaolute relative
error, %
Maximum abaolute relattva
error, %
standard deviation, %
Correlation coefficient

standing

Glaae

F
2.32

0.05
1.68

0.01

0.00

0.01

4.00

12.43

10.01

-0.01
0.66

1.160
0.997

3.366
0.665

2.559
0.962

praatadattbc
1984sPE Armual Technical cderlweand
Exhibidon, Hous!on: Sept. !6-19.
6. Wdpole, R.E. d Myers, R.H.: Pru&bii@ and Srmistics@r kkginecrs and &icnrists, IvfcMillan PublishingCo. Inc., New York City
(1985) 373.
7. Dixon, W.J. and Massey, F.J. Jr.: Intrddmn to Stati&d Analyses, KO@kusha CO. Ltd., Tokyo (1969) &i.
8. Leon, S.J.: LiworAlgebm
with /4pplicadons, MacMilhn I%blishing
CO. Inc., New York City (1980) 152.
9. Johnson, L.H.: Nomogmplryand EmpiridEqudons,
fmutb edidon,
John Wiley and Sons IDC., New York C@ (1966) 1S-57.
10. Davis, D. S.: Nomogqohy and Enqsirical Eqnatkw, second edition,
Reinhold Publishing Coq)., New York City (1962) 137-210.

AP~-U-r
and Nonilnoar
Muttiplo negroUbll

Acknourlodgmont
I express my apprdation to ShamawMm
H. Shenawi for his contribution in the computer work and construction of nomography.
~ncos
1. SQX&I# tilt.: A FmasuIHolumeTeqeramm
COrddonforMixcaMomiaoiIsardGasca, DriU. andPnd Pmc., APl(l947)
275.
2. Smnding, M.B.: oil-system correlations, Pcrn?lelata Pru&clion
ffandbock, T.C. Frick (cd.), SPE, RKhdson,
lx (1962) 2, chap. 19.
Behuvior@OilFii
H@mcar.
3. 8tmdins, M.B.: VoiwndcatniPJawe
bon $wsens, SPE, Richardson, TX (1981) 124.
4. ~
@ **Genedi@ FmasumVolumeTempemtm Corrdadons,
JPT (MSy 1980) 783-95.
5. Sutton, R.P. and Farshsd, F. F.: Evaluation of &ll@liCSdlyDeSiVCd
PVT Pro@ies for Gulf of Mexkm Crude Oils, paper SPE 13172
660

0.30
-0.16
0.14
1.67
-0.05
-0.62
-1.65
-1.23
0.66
0.38
-0.24
0.S9
-1.36
-0.22
-1.63
0.65
-1.35
-2.43
-0.41
-1.72

Thie Study

independent variable, Eq. A-1

z = average value of x-,
Eq. 16
matrix, Eq. A-3
X = nd)((n+l)
xT=~pwoftix
= _
7.

of Estimated B*
Thla
Study

TABLE 7-STATISTICAL ACCURACY OF

BUBBLEPOINT OIL FVF CORRELATIONS

P = absolute pressure, psie @&a]

Pb = bubblepoint pressure, psia pa]

=
=
=
=
=
=

Deviation In Percent

Linear.Thebasicconcept
of mrdtiple qression is to produce a
linear combination of idepdent
variables that will correlate as
closely as possiile with the depmdent variable.
Asample isofsize ndonwhich thepmpertiesy, Xl, xz. ..xn
aremeaaumd. Thex'sare thei&pendent
variables andtheyis
the depedent variable. The linear regression equation of y on xs
Cai3hewriltenas
y=ao+a1x1+a2x2+

. ..+a#n.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-l)

which represents a hyperplane in (n+ 1) dimensional apace. Eq.

A-1 ean be written for any observation point i as
yi=ao+apjl+azX~+..

. +a~ti,

i=l,2.

. .nd. . . . . . .(A-2)

Journal of Petroleum Tedmology, May 1988

TABLE 8-COMPARISON

GOR,
Number

(ae&B)
:
530
1,037
472
743
41
178
240

::
91
~~~
151
161
211
241
271

742
z
381
381
421

1,027
828
392

$
511
541
571
801
ml

z
814
5X
1,027
~,03?
676
352
24
1,081
728
1,091

::
721
751
781
811
841
871
901
931
881
931
1,021
1,051
1,081
1,111
1,141
1,171
i

1,044
1,091
814
1,$
4
723
575
814
4*
O&

,201

1231
1,281
1,291
1,321
1,351
1,381
1,411
1,441
1,471
1,Wi

310
1,432
35
1,432
682
373
1,044
635
1,357

1,531

1,4s3

742

1,556

Average
Gss
Relative
Daneity,
.(ai~~ I)
1.247
1.335
0.815
0.851
~.~?
0.779
1.123
O.&
1.056
1.188
0.768
1.002
0.s51
0.676
1.188

Stook-Tank
oil
Relatiie
Danaity,

1 X21X22. . .x~
.

ndlxnd2.

. .xn*

I)

(wE&=

0.937
0.930
1.25f
0.930
0.757
0.973
0.894
0.774
0.951
&7~9

0.6s8
0.202
0.859
0.626
&f17L3
0.654
0.923
0.665
0.917
0.670
0.654
0.666
0.626
0.816
0.870
0.302
0.629
0.662
0.802
0.632
0.626
n
n9n
.~
0.644
0.888
0.881
0.824
00844
0.824
0.629
0.626
0.824
0.862
0.912
0.604
0.%?3
0.842
0.644
0.854
0.662
0.642
6.87S
0.838
0.612
0.936
0.612
0.880
0.871
0.626
0.664
0.828
n Ku

0.960

i:iia

1.004

0.626

;%
0.602
1.356
1.002
0.951
Ml
n
.,
0.207
1.002
1.182
0.925
1$013
0.925
0.929
0.894
0.925
0.802
:s
1.123
0.812
1.013
1.010
0.802
0.812
i .387

h6 nd -f~ the n~ expefidd

exprsaacd in matrix form as
1 xl~x~z . . .x~n

OF TOTAL FVFS ESTIMATED BY CORRELATIONS FROM THIS STUDY

AND GLASO (SELECTED DATA POINTS)

ao

an

Journal of Petroleum Technolow. Mav 198x

Temperature
(OR)
664
614
579
683
m.n
Ulv
634

2rm
1,200
i ,200
1,615

E
559

E
950
1,000

629

1,400
1,400
1,050
160
1,400
1,800

609
664
849
634
619

z
1,700

803
~

4I,izuu
CM

609

1,200
700
80
1,200
i ,-&Jo
1,800
1,200

539
559
~g
619
z

;E
1,600

564
849
559

1,::

619
678

2,&?l
1,600

634

::E
2,0W
. -lWJ

684
619

;Z
664
1*E
2,665
1,400
2,800
2,400
2,715
~,~
915

634
2:
884

~~~n~

be

(R~&B)
1.166
1.276
8.842
2.733
; .588
1.623
1.328
1.192
1.522
1.381
2.816
2.124
1.866
1.643
1.316
1.259
1.557
1.959
1.091
1.341
1.650
4 =.
,.4

1.748
1.300
1.053
1.937
?.~i i
1.919
1.498
1.888
2.064
1.732
;E
6.137
1.524
1.698
1.437
1.648
-1.480
--Z.sn
1.383
2.188
1.411
3.350
1.382
1.267
1.571
1.331
1.936
?.48
4.3s3
4.236

Estimated
Total FVF
(RB/STB)

Deviation in
Percent of
IMmated B,

This
Study

1.266
1.389
7.400
2.s42
$.73i
1.943
1.403
1.259
1.802
1.460
2.740
2.218
1.944
1.706
1.365
1.303
1.605
2.014
1.119
1.371
1.665

1.546
1.652
8.466
2.898
i.652
1.639
1.666
1.286
1.883
1.744
2.524
2.304
2.279
1.896
1.837
1.661
1.761
1.987
1.475
1.585
1.991

i.588

i.%i5

i .89

1.775
1.318
1.085
1.954
i .di$
1.925
1.423
1.894
2.072
1.715
1.364
2.188
6.029
1.494
1.857
1.338
1.594
1.403
- .2.476
1.323
2.083
1.338
3.182
1.312
1.181
1.456
1.225
1.774
t.278
4.504
3.744

1.916
1.559
1.259
2.324
i .~g
2.201
1.594
2.053
2.140
1.779
1.552
2.622
6.831
1.515
1.831
1.510
1.801
1.462
3.122
1.446
2.272
1.581
3.764
1.278
1.308
1.614
1.253
2.008

1.84
1.38
1.07
0.84
Ac
WA
0.29
0.05
-0.19
-0.58
-0.84
-1.17
-1.50
-1.76
-2.01
-2.40
-2.74
-3.12
-3.50
-4.00
-4.36
-4.80
-5.16
-5.62
-6.20
-6.78
-7.33
-7.91
-8.44

This
study
10.28

Glaae

Y2

. . . . . . ..(A-3)

Glaae
32.74
45.12
-5.50
9.72
3.33
0.84
28S6
8.87
28.99
25.44
-3.49

::
7.66
7.08
:&l
5.83
5.28
5.00
4.76
4.41
4.16
3.85
3.75
3.48
3.06

k:
3.31
24.44
31.97
14.37
0.41
35.14
18.92
20.88
24.35
9.73
19.69
19.55
19.24
~~.~i

:~
2.25
2.12

14.70
6.38
8.16
2.69
2.74
12.44
28.43
8.05
-0.59
7.85
-::
0.17
21.03
4.71
3.85
12.06
12.36
-8.73
3.31
2.72
-5.83
3.59
- 7.8i
-2.36
1.66

-9. i 6

i.==

4.875
4.308

-9.80
-11.85

TABLE 9-STATISTICAL ACOURACY OF

TOTAL WF CORRELATIONS

ma study

Glaae

0.14
4.11

6.%
10.52

Y1

Yn~
1

Praaaure
(paia)
295

II
al

ExW~~tal

Average relative error, %

Average absolute relative
error, %
Minimum absolute relative
error, %
Maximum absolute relative
error, %
Standard deviation, %
Correlation eoaffieiant

0.00
11.85

4.840
0.234

0.00
50.45
14.260
0.971


ESTIMATED
.,
m
x
m
a
x
m
z
-4

1.00

I.+a

POINT

OIL

1.72

FVF

I.*@

. ..-.

t.na

&
al

Ill:..
x
w
m
a-

\
- i.
8>
..%

-
;,

~
;,.
. ..
.

r--

ESTIMATEO
* ,.

---

BUBBLE

,.

POINT

+a
-~

l.ra

OIL

FVF

1.s0

.
.8..
..
.. .. -.:

mm
c

EUBEjLE

1.24

1--1

k
K

.\

..
..

-u
o

..
. .

\.

-4

-1

0
1-

. .

7
<
7

II

..*: ..

x
.... .

..

. .
..
. .

h
n
.J

.e

.
!!
>
0

:
:

e
L

ICMIIW

W. ~

d~htion

coma (1)

I.! LA?IvE

for bubblopdnt prawre

(thk

Btudy800mmiOn.

VXDOE

(1)

12-Emwdfgm&ti~~tidl
Wrel@or!),

FVF(thfsstudys

Fig.

.
:

.
.

9
:
:

a
h

:
:
>
0
:
L

-U.W -n.vl -1*.-

-!$.s0 -S.W t.,.

ULAIIVC
Iwnc(s)

dld~on
F@. 1O-EIIW
Ing oorrolatfon).

,,,

,,

.
i

for bubblepointprouuro (3tand-

,
-I*.N +.N

, /
+.** 4.

664

O.n

,.

,.

,,.

Fig. 13-Error didrlbutlon for bubblepoint dl FVF (Standing

oorrddlon).

mlATlvccmo@
(:)
F@ 1l-Errmr
Corrofation).

-1.n O.M I.n

BELAIIVE
CmEon
(s)

distribution for bubblepoint pro8wro (W8@

QC1$l
IW tRCOR
14-Ermrdis!rlbution
rdatlon).

FffI.

*
(1)

for bubbfepdnt oil FVF (Gfaao cor-

Journal of Petvoleum Technology, May 1988

. .

UIAIIVC

mtam (1)
@ELallVE

lg. 15-Error
atlon).

R<

EIW~ [S)

distribution for totalFVF (this 8tudys corm.

lg. 16-Error

di8trlWtin

for total FVF (Gfno oorrofatfon).

Al AZ

3000 -

A3

moo
I

0.5
1000

\,

1
800 ~,
60C+

0.6
=

400
300

!==&--.T
..7
--,

~?

10000

6000

FI
41300

To

o.a

----

1000

600

0.9
100

3--V---

x,
%

l!2
\

0.9
20(

-+
o.a<

Lo

400

L5$ m

o.a

ao

1.0

60I

:.:

0.61

403

[.2

0.5~

0.7

100

304

[.3

20

I..l

Estimsts fovmstion SOIUSS factor t 24@F of a bubble point

liquid with GOR 1203 SCF/SIB, average gas relatlve
density
of 0.925 md stock tank oil relatiwe
density of 0.824.
kb~hd
aob k 1.?7.

Ew!F!!s
stimate
bubble point pressure at 2400F of a reservoir
luid with GOR 1203 SCF/ST8, average gas relative
density
f 0.925 and stock tank oil relative
density
of 0.824.
Memlined
Pb jS 33~ ~sfa.

Ffg. 17-Correlation

20

.5

10I

,1 .5
$

1.0

---2000

200

,,

10
~!g.

4n.-e
..

la..

m.mWII

A.d

WIWL

L.
WE

L..idd.--,
SSSSSJSJS8pUSfSS

-.

..

--

4VSI rvr.

cfuti for bubblepoint preaure.

Journal of Petroleum Technology. May 1988

665

S2=(XrX)-lX~jl

A?

moo

1000
am

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-S)

Nonlinear. Nonlinear multiple regression is achieved by reducing

the nonlinear relationship to a linear one by appropriate tranaforrnation of variables.
Taking the total FVF correlation as an example, Eq. 7 can be
written in a general form:

B, =a$:l

400

Y;2T$3

Ta4ps.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A+)

Eq. Ax can be tiuced

.Ulauuu.
. ... . .

200

to linear form by logarithmic tranafor-

log B,= log ah +al log R$+a2 log 78 +a3 log TO

100
So

+a410g

T+a510gp

. . .. . . . .. . .. . .

. . . . . . . ..(A-7)

60

or

40
w

y=ao+alxl

+a2x2+a~3+a4x4

+aq5,

. . . . . . . . . . . . .(A-8)

20

where
Y = log B,, ao=log a~,

Qi?5L!S

xi

10
Estlmsts h
phsse (oil -gss) totsl fomtion
volums factor
ti t ttsS PWSUW
Of lS@ fjsia of . ~SWVOi r
at lWF
ges relative
density
fluid with 60R 628 SCF/STB, wera~
of 0.a76 and stock tink oil relatlve
&nsltY
of o.a]b.
OSterdned
Bt IS 1.67.

Ftg.

19-CamhUon

chart for twqthaaa

(Wg@

totalFVF.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(A-4)

where Xiaann~X(n+l)
matrix, Ziaan(n+l)
vector, and ~is
~ nd v-r.
Given an ndx(n+l)
system of equations with n~>(n+l)
as
ahown inllq. AA, a vector Zfor which XZequals ~cannotbe
fti.
_,a~hfm
av~or
Zti~h
XZkmcl~
as possible to ~ia the maximum that can be achieved. Such a vector is the least-aquarea solution. The unique kast-aquams solution
totbesystemxir=yid

666

x5 =

T,

log p.

I@. A-8 can be solved by the method of linear multiple segreasion, as mentioned earlier.

S1 Motdo Conversion Faotors

or shortly as

x~=~ . . . .. .. . . . .. . . .. . . . .. ..

= .=
In. ..$,
P z~ =!cg Y*,

x3 = log To, x4=log

API
141.5/(131.5+ API) = $s3
E-01 =
bbl X 1.589873
=K
F
(F+459.67)/1.8
E+OO =kFa
psi x 6.894757
=K
0R/1.8
R
E-01 = std m3/m3
acf/bbl X 1.801 175
Canvadmhctorb

W.

cmgkSdaPEsnm~
maoivuffarW+W
Much6,1aaa. rhpu9cccpbd
rarpublb.
tbn June 22, 19S7. FWi#od mnUWlptmaeiv9docI.
1, laa7. PapM(aPE
W71e)flmf
and
Exhibirbsrhektln
=&m;t~4PE
Mlddb W
Oil ToahnhI
(hbmnaQ

Journal of Petroleum Tecbndogy, May 1988