SPE 28904

GiiHii
e-
,.

Society of Petroleum Englnews

Reliability Analysis on PVT Correlations

Giambattista De Ghetto, * Francesco Paone, and Marco Villa, AGIP SpA
*SPE Member

Copyright 1994, Society of Petroleum Engineers, Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the European Petroleum Conference hefd In Londen, U.K., 25-27 Octcber 1994.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Prqram Committee following revfew of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s), Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Englneer8 and am subject to Wxrection by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily refIect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication revfew by Editorial Committees of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract ofcd morethan 3@Jwords. flfustrationsmay not be mpfed. The abstract should contain cakspicuous acknowledgment
of where and by whom the paper 1$presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. SoX 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A. Telex 163245 SPEUT.

fhfSTRACT:This paper evaluates the reliability of the most common empirical correlations used for deter&dn g reservoir fluid properties
whenever laborato~ PVT data are not available: bubblepoint pressure, solution GOR, bubblepoint OFVF, isothermal compressibility, dead-oil
viscosity, gas-saturated oil viswsity and nnderssturated oil viswsi~.
The reliability of the comelations has been evaluated against a set of 195 crude oil samples collected tlom the Mediterranean Basin, A&@ the
Persian Gulf and the North Sea. About 3700 measured data points have been collected and investigated. AU measured data points are reported
in the paper. For all the correlations, the following statistical parameters have been ealculatecl a) relative deviation between estimated and
experimental values, b) average absolute percent error, c) standard deviation.
011 samples have been divided into the following four dift%rent API gravity classes extra-heavy oils for AH< 10, heavy oils for IO<AFK
22.3, medium oils for 22.3< API< 31.1, light oils for API> 31.1.
The best era-relations both for each class and for the whole range of API gravity have been evaluated for each oil-prope@.
The fimctionrd forms of the correlations that gave the best results for each oil property have been used for finding a better correlation with
average errors redueed by s-lOO/o. In particular, for extra-heavy oils, since no correlations are available in literature (except for viscosity), a
special investigation has been performed and new equations are proposed.

Introduction
The calculation of reserves in amoil rewrvoir or the determination of
its pdormancc and economics, requires a good knowledge of the
fluids physical properties. Bubblepoint pressure, GO% OFVF and
compressibility are of primary importance in material bshmee.
eahxdation, whereas viscosity plays an important role in production
test interpretation and in well problem analysis. Iderdly, these
properties are determined tlom laborato~ studies on samples
eolkted fi-om the bottom of the wellbore or bm the surface. Such
experimental data rue however not always available bwause of one
or more of such reasons a) samples wllected are not reliable, b)
samples have not been taken because of cost savina c) PVT rmalyses
are not available when data are needed, this situation often occurs in
productionhest interpretation in exploration wells.
In such cases PVT properties must be determined by using empirical
derived correlations. ObviousIy the accuracy of such wrrelations is
critical for the above mentioned ealculatione and it is not often
known in advance.
Despite the great number of work performed in the past 50years on
PVT correlations, each of them seems to be applicable with a good
reliability only in a welldeflned range of reservoir fluid
characteristics. This is due to the fact that each correlation has been
developed by using samples belonging to a restricted geographical
sre~ with similar fluid compositions and API gravity.
This work is aimed at analysing the reliability of literature
correlations, Iisted in tabIe 1, not only in the range of input data
defined by each Author, but even in the wider range of Agips
reservoir fluids, shown in table 2. The reason for this is to determine
the performance of a wrrelation developed fm a particular area, the
North Sea for example, when it is applied to oils from North Africa
or the Mediterranean Sea.
In additio~ this wiII make it possibIe to extend the use of some
wrrelations in ranges of API gravity in which no correlations have
been proposed yet (except for viscosity> for oils with density lower
than 10 APL
LrrERATuRERIwfEw
The following presents a review of the most known correlations
published in literature. The range of input data used in developing
each correlation and the corresponding errors reported by each
Author are provided in tables 3,4 and 5.
In 1947 Standin~lm/ published two correlations for determining,
respectively, the bubblepoint pressore &b) and the oil-formation
volume factor (OFVF) at bubblepoint, horn known values of
reservoir temperature (Tr), solution gas-oil ratio (GOR) at bubble
poin~ oil gravity (ye) and gas gravity (yg). In all, 105 experimentally
determined data points on 22 different erode-oilhutaml-gas mixtores
ftom California were used.
In 1958 Lasater~ presented a new correlation for Pb. In all, 158
experimentrdly measured bubblepoint pressores from 137
indepdent crude oil systems from Canada, western and mid-
wntinental U.S., and South America were used in his work.
In 1959 Chew and Connall~5r proposed a correlation to predict the
gas-saturated oil viscosity (pol) as a timction of dead-oil viscosity
(pod) and GOR, The comelation was developed from 457 crude oil
samples tlom Canada, USA and South Ameriea. The study showed
that at a tixed GO~ the relation between pol and the corresponding
pod is a straight line on logarithmic co-ordinates.

References and illustrations at the end of the paper

375
 2 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ON PVT CORRELATIONS
In 1975 Beggs and Robinsond lmblished two new correlations for
calcniating~ and pol. The eqm-t.ionsresuited tlom a study of 2533
viscosity measurements involving 600 different crude oii systems.
An accuracy of -0.64V0 for the dead-oil viscosity correlation was
found when tested against the data used for its work. When tested
against 93 cases from literature, the average error increased to
114.27V0.The Authors did not explain the reason for we huge errors
but simply warned that the extrapolation outside the range of the
data used to develop the correlation should be done with care.
In 1977 Vasquez and Beggs7t presented correlations for predicting
GOR and OFVF of a gas-satnrated crude oil, as a function of crude
oil API gravity, yg, reservoir temperature and pressure @r). IIStotai,
6004 data points were used, distributed into two groups (less than 30
API and greater than 30 API) because of variations in the volatility
of crude oil. The Authors found yg to be a strong correlating
prumneter in the development of the GOR correlation. Because yg is
dependent on the conditions under which the gas is separated f.lom
oil, a correlation to normaiise yg to a separation pressure of 114.7
psia was also developed by the Authors and tested against 124 data
points tlom 27 different fluids. Vasquez and Beggs aiso investigated
the viscosity (PO) smd the isothermal eompressibiiity (Co) of under
saturated oiis, using 4486 data points for the Co correlation and 3593
data points for the ~o correlation.
h 1980 Glaso/s/ presented correlations for estimating Pb, OFVF and
Pd, as a function of Tr, totai surface gas gravity, GOR and API
gravity. Because the first two correlations were developed using data
tlom 45 oii samples with pamffinicities equivalent to North Sea OHS,
an adjustment to the API gravity term was suggested for using the
correlations with oiis of a @erent compositional natore. Glaso aiso
provided a method for correcting the pre&cted Pb for the presence of
C02, N2 and H2S in the totai tiaee gases. The correlation for pod
was developed horn data obtained tlom 26 crude oil samples.
In 1988 Egbogah and Jacld9 proposcxi two dMerent correlations for
estimating pod. The tirst one was a modified Beggs and Robinson
correlation obtained by using 394 od systems from laboratories of
AGAT Engineering, Ltd. The second one introduced a new
parameter to estimate the ~od the pour point temperature (Tp)
which is, by definition, the lowest temperature at which the oil is
observed to flow. Because Tp seemed to be related to crude oil
paraffi content (it increases tith the paratlin eontent), the Authors
believed that important chemicai compositional aspects of crude oil
couid be considered in the viscosity correlation by introducing this
parameter. The average error of the equation with Tp was siightly
lower than the moditied Beggs and Robinson correlation (4.3% vs. -
5. ls~o). Since Tp is not an easiiy-measurable parameter on field the
latter correlation has not been investigated in this study.
In 1988 MarhounlW published empirical correlations for estimating
Pb, OFVF at bubblepoint and totai OFVF for the Middie East crude
oiis, as a function of Tr, yg, GOR and API. A total of 69 PVT
anaiyses of bottomhole fluid samples were available for the
development of correlations. Only the correlation for Pb has been
considered in this work.
Jrs 1988 Asgarpour, McLauchiin, Wong and Cheun~l]/ presented
a new set of correlations to estimate Pb, OFVF and GOR (at and
below bubblepoint) as a tbnction of yg, yo, Tr and GOR The
correlations were based on more than310 different crude oil samples
tlom Western Canada. Because the physicai properties of each
geological formation in Western Canada exhibited ditTerent
behaviour, it was necessary to develop correlations for 3 different
geological formations. Aithough the average errors of the
correlations are very low, the paper has not been considerd in this
work since intlormation about the geological formation of crude oii
samples were not avaiiable, and because this information is not easy
to gain on field.
In 1989 Labedi112 published a new set of equations for estimating
OFVF, oil density at and below bubblepoin~ and Co of the Atl-icau
376
SPE 028904
reservoir fluids, as a tbnction of easilymeasnrable field data as tirst-
stage separator pressure and GOR API, Pr and Tr. PVT data for 128
samples were coilected horn Libya, Nigeria and Angola reservoirs.
Oniy the compressibility correlation has been considered in this
study.
In 1990 Kartoatmodj#3 presented new empikai correlations for
predicting OFVF, Pb, pod, pal, w and Co as a timction of
measurable parameters such as Tr, separator gas gravity (GGPsP),
API and GoR. A total of about 1400 ditRerent samples were used to
develop the correlations. Most of them were extracted by PVT
reports tlom South East Asia, Caiiiiornia and Alaska and a
reasonable group horn literature. The new correlations were
&veloped using the fimctionai form of the previously published ones
which gave the best estimate. The Author aiso presented a
correlation to convert OFVF and GOR from ditlkrentiai to flash
liberation prccess at the separator condition. The OFVF, GOR and
Pb correlations were developed using both flash vaporisation data
and differential vaporisation data, (the latter converted to flash using
the above mentioned conversion factor). Kartoatmodjo stated that
these correlations are applicable to a flash process only. Applying
these equations to a difi+erentiaiprocess might lead to errors of up to
20Y0.
h 1990 Majeed, Kattan and Saiman/14 proposed a new general
correlation for estimating po as a timction of Pr, Pb, pol, GOR and
API. The correlation was developed using 253 experimentally
determined oil viscosity vaiues on 41 ditTerent oil samples from
North A6iea and Middle-East oii reservoirs. The correlation is
derived from plotting (Pr-Pb) Vs (po-pol) on a log-log paper. The
plot shown a series of straight iiies of a constant slope whose
intercepts could be represented as a tisnction of API and GOR.
In 1990 Rollins, McCain Jr. and Creege#15/ developed an
empiricai equation to estimate stcck-tank GOR as a timction of
separator pressure and temperature (Psp, Tsp), API and GGPsp. The
cmrelation was obtained using a logarithmic model on a totai of 301
black oil samples. The solution GOR, obtained by adding the stock-
tank GOR from equation to the field-determined separator GOR, has
been d%cted by an average error of less than s~o.
In 1992 Labedi/ld pubiished a new set of cm-relations to predict
pod, I.LO1 and PO. The data-bank for the development of cm-relations
consisted of about one hundred laboratory anaiyses, representing the
fluids of the entire producing reservoirs in Libya. Each equation
developed is a function of easiiy-obtainable (is@ such as APL Pr and
Tr. In pm-titular, with regard to the pol eorrelatio~ ail equations
previously published correlate pol to pod and GOR. k this study ~ol
is a direct fimction of ~ API and Pr, parameters more easily-
measurable in the field than GOR L&xii aiso pubiished a
relationship between differential and flash APL Even if the API used
in ail of the oii viscosity correlations developed in this study was
obtained by flashing the fluid sample to the atmospheric pressure,
which can be easiiy done in the field by flashing the weii directly to
the stock-~ this relation makes it possible to utiiise the viscosity
data tiom the samples that we not flashed to the atmospheric
pressure, but diflkrentiaily iiberated. The new correlations can be
applied to other geographical areas such as the Middle East. the
North Sea and some-p~ of North and South America, but they
should be used witbin the limit of input &h, in particular they
shouid not be extrapolated for crndes of less than 32 API.
In 1993 Petmsky and Farshad/]7/ presented new empiricai PVT
correlations for estimating Pb, GOR OFVF and Co, as a tknction of
commonly available field data. A totai of 81 laboratory PVT
anrdysis, made on crude oiis extracted from reservoirs offshore Texas
and Louisiana were used to develop the correlations. Authors found
that their correlations could predict the PVT properties with average
absolute errors ranging tim 0.64% for OFVF to 6.66%0for Co. The
correlations were developed speciticaiiy for Gulf of Mexico crude
oils but Authors said that the same equations couid be used in other
SPE 028904 G. DE GHETTO, F. PAONE, M. VILLA
regions of the world. Chdy the compressibility correlation has been
considered in this work.
hMMLITY ANALYSISON -TURE CORREI.MTONS
This work analyses the most well-known correlations described in
literature for estimating PVT properties such as bubblepoint
pressure, oil formation volume factor and solution gas-oil ratio at
bubblepoint, dead-oil viscosity, gas-saturated oil viscosity, under
saturated oil viscosity and isothermal compressibdity. It does not
however include those correlations which require, as input data,
parameters which me not easily measurable on field or not
obtainable tlom PVT reports. Table 1 shows schematically the
Authors and the relative correlations considered for each property
examined.
Starting exclusively with the PVT studies carried out over the last 30
yeare on Agip oils, a selection was made excluding those lacking all
the input data necessay to use PVT correlations. In this way, a very
heterogeneous sample of 195 crude oils was setup, representative of
diverse reservoir conditions and production scenarios, in order to
ensure that the conclusions obtained tlom this analysis would be
generally valid and have an extensive applicability to wide rauge of
operative situdions.
The 195 oils come horn the Mediterranean Bas~ Africa, the Persiau
Gulf and the North Sea. Table 2 lists the range of input and output
parameters of all Agips oil samples while table 6 reports the
experimentally-measured PVT data involved in the present study
(about 3700 @ta points).
Tables 3 and 4 list the rsmge of input and output parameters upon
which each Author based the development of his correlation
(Authors defined range). The first table shows the bubblepoint
pressure, the solution gas-oil ratio, the oil formation volume factor
and compressibili~, the second shows the viscosity. On comparing
the values of these tables with those in table 2, it can be observed
how the group of ~lp oils covers a much wider raage of physical
characteristics. For example, with regard to the API ~viv> all the
equations, with the exception of Egbogah and Jac~9 for viscosity,
were tested on oils having an API higher than 14 (Tab.3 and 4),
while the group tested here has 28 samples with API< 14 (Tab.6).
The density of an oil is a timdamental characteristic as it reflects its
chemical composition, on which all the fluids main properties
depend. For this reason, the API gravity was chosen in this study
among all the different parameters used for class@ing oil$ therefore
Agips oil sample was divided into 4 difikrent classes of API gravity
as follows:
. extra-heavy oils API <10
. heavy oils 10< API <22.3
. medium oils 22.3< API s 31.1
light oils API >31.1
The last three classes correspond to a standard ckwsitication of
oil#O31/on the basis of the API gravity, the extremes of the ranges
which ident@ the different classes can vary as there is no
universally recognised classification. The first class was designed
in this study mainly for the following rcasom
variations in the properties of crndes depend chiefly on the
presence of the most heavy hydrocaAxm@7Bm91W
in the past few years, oiI companies have become increasingly
interested in reservoirs with the extra-heavy oil#35n71.
. there are no correlations in literature which covm the range of oils
w-kb APIs 10, except for viscosities.
The reliability of each correlation and for each parameter was
therefore tested both for Agips entire sample and for each API
gravity class. The results obtained for each gravity class twe believed
to be vcxy significant as it is plausible that samples belonging to the
same class are physically and chemically more comprusble than
samples from different classes. On the other hand, the study of the
entire group of oils makes it possible to ven~ the behavionr of the
377
3
con-elation in a range that is different SU4 in most cases, wider,
than that considered by the Author who proposed it.
The reliability study for individual classes and on the entire group of
oils, was carried out usiug graphic rmd statistical instruments.
Calculated vs. measured-value diagrams were created for each
parameter studied (Ci vs. Mi) in order to have a clear and immediate
view of the behaviour of each correlation. For reasons of space, not
all the calculated value vs. measured-value graphs, relative to each
correlation, have been included in this paper. Instead, it was decided
to show a single diagram which gathers the best results obtained for
individurd classes of oil . The diagrams for each property estimated
areshowninfigums 1,3,5,7,9,11, 13 and 14.
The qualitative analysis carried out by means of diagrams was
accompanied by a statistical anrdysis, of which the starting point
was the relative deviation between estimated and expenmsutalvalue
(&), thus defined
~i_Q-Mi .100 (1)
Mi
After having calculated the Ej for all the available samples, results
were subjected to a statistical analysis calculating the average
arithmetical value (E ) of the Ei mid their standard deviation (SD),
i.e., the dispersion o!?the Ei around their average value ~, ushg
the following equatiom
(2)
SD= ZiI~[Ei
-J (3)
/ N-1
Ihe correlation providing the smallest ~ value was judged to be
the best. When equal ~ was found for more correlations, the lowest
standard deviation value detined the best one. Table 7 provides the
best results obtained from the statistical analysis, for the different
parameters estimated, on the whole group of oils rmd for each API
gravity class. In addition to this table, it was decided to show all the
statistical results obtained from the correlations studied for each
property, in order to have a general idea of the behaviour of the
different equations chosen from literature. The results can be seen in
the diagrams of figures 22 to 28.
A statistical study similar to tbe previous one was carried out
exchdi.ng those samples with characteristics which did not fall
within the ranges proposed by the different Authors (rauges rdready
defined in tables 3 and 4). Table 8 provides the best results obtained
in this second study. We should however stress that the exclusion of
oils with characteristics which do not fd within tbe range proposed
by the Authors has often led to huge reductions in the number of
samples analysed, sometimes more than 70%. The statistical results
obtained on samples with less than 10 oils were not presented as
they were not considered to be representative. The results provided
by this second rmalysis are therefore to be considered less
representative than the earlier ones. Below is a discussion of the
results obtained for each property estimated, wi@ regard to the
analysis of the entire group ofAgip oils. The same procedure will be
applied later to describe the results of the analysis in the range
proposed by the Authors.
-TS OFIIEL.UllsLITY
ANALYS3S
PERFORMEO
ONAGIPSSAMPLES
Ml the results are discussed with reference to table 7 and to figures
1,3,5,7,9, 11, 13 and 14.
Bubblepoinfpressure
Standings correlation/lm/ has given the best results, both in the
entire .goup of oils, with an average error of 16.IVO,and in the class
of extra-heavy oils (average error 9. 1/0) rmd heavy oils (average
error 15.1VO).However, the analysis has shown that in generrd, the
errors of the dit%rent correlations decrease as the API degree
increases. This bchaviour was observed in ahnost all the properties
estimated (see figs. 22 to 28 for confirmation). The behaviour of
 4 RELIABILITY AN-~YSIS ON PVT CORRELATIONS
Standings correlation for extra-heavy and heavy oils should therefore
be considered as fairly anomalous. For the medium and light oils, the
best results were obtained with Kmtoatmodjo and Glasos
comelations respectively.
It should be pointed out that the errors found here were always
greater than those given by the Authors in their original publications,
shown in table 5, except for Ksrtoatmodjo. This behaviour was
found in the majority of cases for all the properties snalysed.
Solution gar-oil ratio
The best results are provided by the Vasquez-Beggs and
Kartoatmodjo correlations with errors always higher than 20V0.
Standing% correlation for extra-heavy oils is the exception with an
average error of 13.7/0.
Oilformation vo.?umeftior at bubblepoint
Of the seven properties rmalysed, this one was estimated in the best
way. The highest emors did not exceed 2.5~0. Vasquez-Beggss
correlation gave errors of less than half of those indkated by the
Authors (Tab. 5).
Isothermal compressibility
The estimation errors range from 14.8~o in Labedis correlation for
light oils to, 38.7 in Vasquez-Beggss correlation for extra-heavy oils.
The best result for the entire sample was that of Vasquez-Beggs with
an average brror of 24.5V0.
Dea&oil vkosi@
This property was the one estimated in the worst manner for all the
COITelatiOUS.The IOWeSterrors are greater than 25/0 with the
overall average error 36.2%. The errors are very high especially with
regard to the classes of heavy and medium oils. This behaviour is
justifiable bearing in mind that the correlations estimate this
property ~th only two input variablex API and reservoir
temperature. The correct measurement of this property is ditlicuit to
achieve even in the laboratory.
Gas-saturated oil viscos~
The average errors of the best correlations range between 14 and
22V0.The best results were provided by Kartoatrnodjos correlation
with an overall error only 3 percentage points greater thau that found
by the Author in his own work (Tab. 5).
Figure 9 shows the distribution of the points calculated with the best
correlations where the input variables (deaddl viscosity and
solution gas-oil ratio) tie measured values obtained horn PVT
reports.
Figure 14 shows the results of the same correlations where the
calculated value was used as _@putdata of the dead-oil viscosity.
Noteworthy is the increese h dispersions of the points around the
bisector which corresponds to an average error increase of more than
20 percentage points. The difference is due to the fact that by
including a calculated rather than a measured input in an equation,
the estimation error of the equation in some way combines with that
made on the calculated input even if the latter has been calculated
with the best correlation. The greater the error on this input, the
greater the correlation error. Since the correlations which estimate
the viscosity values at ditlerent pressures are all inter-connectixl, the
lower the estimation error of the dead-oil viscosity, the better the
estimation of the gas-saturated oil viscosity. The same applies to the
correlations relative to the nndersatnrated oil viscosity wkich have
the gas-saturated oil viscosity among the inputs. This proves the
importance of correctly determining the dead-oil viscosity, which on
the other hand, is the property calculated in the worst way. The
observations made can be naturally and easily extended to all the
other propertie$ in fact, a quantity estimated by using measured
input variables will undoubtedly be more reliable than one estimated
with calculated inputs.
Undersatnrated oil viscos~
The best correlations showed a maximum error of 12.3% (Labedi,
extra-heavy oils), with excellent results for medium and light oils.
Note that Labedis correlation]a which had in fact been gauged with
oils with API >32 (Tab. 4), showed excellent results even for the
378
SPE 028904
other classes of oil (see also fig.28). It should also be pointed out
that the error in estimating the viscosity normally becomes smaller
and smaller as we go from atmospheric pressure viscosity to
reservoir pressure viscosity (see fig. 26, 27 and 28). It is likely that
the input variables which estimate the reservoir oil viscosity (bubble
point pressure, reservoir pressure and GOR), characterise the
phenomenon better than the inputs of the dead-oil viscosity ~API
and reservoir temperature).
RESULT% OF RELIABILITYANALYSISPERFO~ ~ THE
AUTHORSDEFINSDRANGE
The results are discussed with reference to tables 7 and 8.
Bubbkpointpressure
Compared with the analysis above mentioned, the errors decreased
by a maximum of 5.5 percentage points (medium oils). However,
they increased by 8 points in tie case of heavy oils. It should be
stressed that for all the properties examined the extra-heavy oils
were completely excluded from this analysis. Literature is rather
lacking in equations for these oilfi among those anrdysed, only
Egbogah and Jacks correlationigi for dead-oil viscosity considered
samples with densities of up to 5 API. However, these results were
not included as they were considered to be of Iitie significance,
since they were obtained from less than 10 samples.
Sofufion gav-oil rtio
The most signitleant improvements were found in the class of light
oils, where the error decreased by 16 percentage points. Worthy of
note is the behaviour of Rollins-McCain-Creegers correlation which,
applied to all the oil samples gave vexyhigh errors (see also fig. 23),
while, bearing in mind the ranges of the input variables, the average
e.mr was 4.3% for light oils and 8.7/0 for the entire group.
However, the number of samples in the analysis of Rollins
correlation dropped to 42 compared with the 187 samples used in the
study on Agips sample.
Oilformation volumefdor ai bubb.kpoirrt
The correlations which estimate this property seem to be generally
valid as the aurdysis of the range led to an average error decrease of
less than the percentage point (with SDalready good accuracy).
Isothermal compressibili@
The analysis led to an error decrease of not more than 5 percentage
points. The most signitkant improvements for the entire sample of
oils were Ibm 2LM0/0 to 19.8/0.
Dea&oil viscosi@
The most significant improvements were found in the class of heavy
oils where the error fell by 7 percentage points. In the other cases the
variations were lower than the percentage point.
Gas-saturated oil v&cosa
The analysis produced no appreciable error decreaseq in fact the
errors increased by 1.7 percentage points in the case of heavy oils
and 1.2 points on the whole Agip sample.
Utuiers@mzted oil ticos~
Even in this case, the analysis ia the ranges produced results which
were at times worse than those of the previous s~dy on the entire
sample. Clearly, the correlations which estimate these properties are
more easily extendible or at lea~ are less atl?ected by the oils
characteristics.
DEVELOPMENT
OFMoD- CORREI.ATIONS
The results obtained tkom the above-explained reliability analysis
shows thaL except for the OFVF correlation, the average errors in
determiningg PVT properties are still high especially when oils are
beyond the Authors detined range. Furthermore, many fields owned
or operated by Agip (especially in Italy and the Mediterranean Ses)
produce heavy and extra-heavy oils that are not extensively studied,
in terms of PVT correlations, in literature. For these reasons, the
need to improve the reliability of the literature correlations on Agips
oil samples has been recognised.
 .
.
SPE 028904 G. DE GHETfO, F. PAONE, M. VILLA
The functional forms of the correlations that in the previous
reliability arudysis on Agips samples gave the best results, for each
PVT property and for each API gravity class, have been used as
models for a best-fit activity aimed at improving the accuracy of
literature correlations in predicting PVT properties for typical Agips
oils. Those correlations which had produced the best results on
Agips entire sample were chosen (Tab. 7) as these results should be
considered as being more generally valid compared with those
obtained from the analysis limited to the Authors ranges (Tab. 8)
and therefore, on a smaller number of samples.
Maintaining the same functional pattern of the starting model, the
numerical coefficients of the different equations were re-calculated
by applying multiple, linear and non-linear regressions by means of
the SAS program which carries out these regression analyses using
the minimum squared method.
The modified correlations were obtained for both each of tie four
classes of density into which the Agips oil sample was divided and
for the entire group, for the sake of completeness. Since however,
oils from the same class are more comparable than oils t20m
different classes, the availability of four different equations, one for
each class, to estimate the same property, is certainly more reliable
than a single correlation for all the oils. For this reaso~ we believe
that the equations obtained for the different classes are more
significant than those obtained for Agips samples.
In order to test the reliability of the modified equations, the same
graphic-statistical instruments as those in the previous study were
used. The results obtained are shown in Tables 9 and in fig. 2,4,6,
8, 10 and 12 prepared in the same way as those for the study on the
entire sample with the literature equations, in order to be able to
compare the two sets of graphs more adequately. In fact, with regmd
to the above statements, it was preferred to create measured vs.
calculated diagrams each containing the behaviors of the new
equations for each class, rather than visnalise the trend of the new
equations obtained for Agips sample. In some cases, it was
necessary to eliminate some samples from the class being aradysed
in order to make tie regression more reliabl~ however, the
exclusions nearly always involved the more numerous classes and
never exceeded 50/oof the entire group. The study dld not tie into
consideration the correlations which estimate the oil formation
volume factor at bubble point as the estimation of this property
carried out using the equations chosen tlom literature was felt to be
very satisfactory. Appendix A shows the analytical form of the new
correlations.
RESULTS OF ~m ANALYSISPERSORMEDON MOD-
CORRELATIONS.
The results of Tab. 9 obtained for the dtierent mouerties are shown
below, and are compared with those of Table 7 ad; secondly, 8.
Bubblepointpressure
The starting models used for improving the estimate of this property
were Standings correlation for the classes of extra-heavy, heavy and
light oils, Kartoatrnodjos for the class of medium oils and Standings
again for the regression on Agips samples. Note that for the light
oils it was preferred to use Standings model, even though for this
class, the best results were provided Glasos correlation (Tab. 7). The
reason for this was that the complexity of Glasos equation (which
also takes into account the content of non-hydrocarbon substances)
made the regression analysis difficult. With regard to Kartoatmcdjos
correlation on the other hand, the multiple non-linear regression was
carried out by keeping the equation supplied by the Author tied for
the input variable ygcorr. This procedure was also followed for the
other properties whenever the starting model was one of
Kartoatmodjos equations. The new correlations reduced the
estimation errors tlom a minimum of 2.6 to a maximum of 4.9
percentage points (s= Tab. 7 and 9). Regression in the class of
extm-hcxwy oils, having given results worse than the starting model,
is not shown. Standings correlation was considered sufficiently
379
5
I
reiiable for estimating oils bubbIe@nt pnxmre with API < IO.
Comparing the diagrams in fig.1 and 2 it can be seen that the most
significant improvement in the new correlation is in the pressure
range up to 5000 psia.
Jn order to SIIOWan easy interpretation of the resuk obtained with
the reliability studies performed h this work, the best results of the
statisticrd anrdyses (on Agips sampIes and on modified correlations)
are compared in a histogram for each PVT property (see fig. 15 to
21).
Each histogram shows the value of the most imptntant statistical
parameter ~, average absolute error) both for the four classes of
oil into which the sample was divided and for the entire group.
tloktion gas-oil rtio
The equations used as model were those of Standing for extra-heavy
oils, Vasquez-Beggs for heavy oik and for the entire group and
Kartoatmcdjo for the medium and light oils. The regression of
Vasquez-Beggs equation was carried out keeping tixed the equation
of the ygcorr provided by the Authorq this was done every time the
starting model was a Vasquez-Beggs correlation. The new equations
reduced the estimation error tlom a minimum of 5 to a maximum of
13.5 percentage points. The comparison between the diagrams in
fig.3 and 4 shows that the most obvious improvements were in the
GOR range from 500 to 1500 sct7STB. Significant also was the drop
of 13.5 error percentage points for the medium oils (Tabs. 7 and 9).
From table 8, relative to the study in the Authors range, we can see
that the error for the class of light oils is lower than that given by the
new model. However, this is not of extreme importance since, as has
already been sai~ the results of the analysis in the ranges were
obtained tlom a much snudler number of samples. Therefore, the
results of the new equations are mainly compared with those in
Table 7, obtained flom tie same number of samples. This last
observation is valid for all the properties estimated.
Isothermal compressibility
The models to regress were Vasquez-Beggs correlation for extra-
heavy, heavy and medium oils and for the entire group and Labedis
for light oils. This set of new equations provided the most significant
impmvements. The error decreased from a minimum of 6 to a
maximum of 30 percentage points for extra-heavy oils. Comparing
the diagrams in fig.5 and 6 it can seen that the greatest
improvements were obtained for compressibilities between 5 and 20
x 104 psia-l.
Dea&oil viscosity
The medels chosen were Egbogah-Jacks correlation for the extra-
heavy, heavy and light oils and for the entire group and
Kartoatmodjos comelation for medium oils. The dead-oil viscosity is
the most critical property to estimate with empirical equations. In
fact, although the errors dropped down to 13 percentage points with
the new equations, values higher than 30% (heavy and medium oils
and the entire jyoup), are still present. On the other hsn~ the
viscosity, not being a state property also depends on the behaviour of
the fluid. All the correlations assume that the fluid can be considered
Newtonian, but this is not always true, especially where high
viswsities are concerned. To attempt to estimate a quant.by of this
kind using equations which only use two input variables ~API and
reservoir temperature) becomes even more difticnlt. In any case, not
even laboratory measurements of viscosity can be considered
completely reliable: in fact particularly in the range of high
viscosities, dift%rences of 100/0between two measurements taken on
the same sample by two different equipmen~ gauged in the same
way, are normrd. The diagrams in figures 7 and 8 compare the trend
between the old and the new equations. They reveal that the most
significant improvements are to be found in the range of viscosity
lower than 10 cp which confirms everything stated above regarding
the non-Newtonirm behavionr of a highly viscous fluid.
Gowoturoted oil wkcosity
The starting models for the regression were Kartoatmodjos
correlation for the classes of extra-heavy, heavy and medium oils and
for the entire group, and Beggs-Robmons correlation for light oils.
 .

6 RELIABEJTY ANALYSIS ON PVT CORRELATIONS SPE 028904

The regression reduced the estimation error tlom a minimum of 1.8
to a maximum of 6.8 percentage points (see tables 7 and 9). In each
case the maximum estimation error with the new correlations was
15.2~0. Diagrams in fig. 9 and 10 show that the new correlations
improve the estimate in the range of high and low viscosities Q-1OO
cp and< 1 Cp).
Undersoturoted oil ticos~
The models to regress were Kartoatmodjos correlation for heavy oils
and Labedis for the other classes of oils and for the entire group.
The new equations brought the maximum estimation error to 6.4/0
(Tab. 9). No new correlation was proposed for the class of light oils
as the regession of Labedis equation gave an error higher than the
starting mcdel. The diagrams in fig. 11 and 12, which compare the
trend of the old and new equations, show that the improvements are
distributed along the entire viscosity range.
CONCLUSIONS
The reliability analysis of the literature PVT correlations carried
out on 195 oil samples tlom Mediterranean Bask Aflica, Persian
Gulf and North Sea, gave the best results for the estimate of tie
OFVF, with errors lower than 3V0.The estimates of Pb, @ and
po exhibited average errors of 16.lVO, 19.2~0 and 7.3~o
respectively. The GOR, Co and pod estimates were less precise
the average errors of the best correlations were 22.6V0, 24.5%
and 36.2~0 respectively.
The anrdysis showed that the errors of the various PVT
correlations, tested against 195 oil samples revealed, on average,
errors 2-3 times greater than those claimed by the Authors in their
original paper.
The new PVT correlations proposed in the paper gave errore
lower, on average, than 10 percentage points when compared with
the best literature correlation for each PVT property. h particular,
for the isothenmd compressibili~ of extra-heavy oils, the new
correlation revealed an error lower than 30 percentage points.
It is believed that the new correlations are sutliciently extendible
as they were obtained on a very heterogeneous sample of oils.
A deep literature review has shown that except for viscosily,
there ~e no PVT correlations for extra-heavy oils ~API < 10).
The proposed new equations for such oils provide average error of
6.5%. for solution GOR 8.5V0 for isothermal compressibility,
17.4~0 for dead-oil viscosity, 12.6V0for gas-saturated oil viscosity
and 4% for undersaturated oil viscosity.

NOMENCLATUIU p, Vo Undersatnrated oil viscosity, ep.

API Stock-tank oil gravity, API pod, Vcd Dead-oil or gas-tkee oil viscosity, cp.
Ci Calculated value pol, Vol Gas-saturated oil viscosity, cp.
co Isothermal compressibility of undersaturated
oil, psia-l S1 Ikl.muc COnVerSiOn FACTORS
Ei Relative deviation between estimated and
ex@mental value, YO
EQ AAE Average absolute error, %
GOR, Rs, Rtot Solution gas-oil ratio tlom flash test, sct7STB.
Nm31m3 x 5.55I9 = SCt7STB
Log Logaritluu on base 10
KPa x O.14504= psia
Ln Natural logmithm
Mi Experimental value psia - 14.7= psig
N Number of data points C X1.8+ 32=F
OFVF, Bo, Botb Bubblepoint oil formation volume factor. KPa1 x 6.894757 = psia1
bbWfB
cpxl.O=mPaxs.
Pb Bubblepoint pressure, psia.
Reservoir pressure, psia. . bbl x 0.1589873 = m3
Pr, P
Psp Separator pressure, psia.
Rst Stock-tank gas-oil ratio, sct7STB. REFERENCES
* Separator gas-oil ratio, sct7STB. 1 Standing M.B.: Volumetric and Phase Behaviour of Oil Field
S.D Standard deviation Hydrocarbon System, SPE-AIME, Ninth Printing (1981).
Tr, T Reservoir temperature, F. 2 Standing M.B.: Oil-System Correlations Petroleum Production
Tp Poor point temperature, F Handbook, Fnck T.C.(ed.), SPE, Richardson, TX (1962) Vol. 2,
Tsp Separator temperature, F. Cap 19.
YC02 Mole tiaction of C02 in total surface gases, 7. 3 Standing M.B.: A Pressure-Vohune-Temperature Correlation for
mol Glasos4 bubblepoint correlation. Mixtures of California Oils and Gases; Drill&Prod. Pratt., API
(1947), pp 275-87.
YH2s Mole tkaction of H2S in totrd surface gases, %
mok Glaso# bubblepoint comelation. 4 Lasater J.A.: Bubble Point Pressure Correlation Transaction
AIME (1958) 213, pp 379-81.
YN2 Mole flaction of N2 in total surface gases, ~0
mol Glaso# bubblepoint correlation 5 Chew J. & Connally C.A.:A Viscosity Correlation for Gas-
Saturated Crude Oils Transactions AIME, (1959) Vol. 216, pp
Yg,GGtav) Average specitic gravity of total surface gases.
23-25.
ygcorr, GGcorr Gas Specific gravity at separator pressure of 6 Beggs H.D. & Robinson J.R.:Estimating the Viscosity of Crude
114.7 psia. Oil Systems JPT, (September 1975),pp114041.
ygpsp, GG(Psp),ysp Gas Specific gravity at any separator pressure. 7 Vasquez M.E. & Beggs H.D.:Correlations for Fluid Physical
yO>
yoss Stock-tank oil specific gravity. Properly Prediction, SPE 6719, (1977).

380
 .

SPE 028904 G. DE GHEiTO, F. PAONE, M. ViLLA 7

8 Gkeo O.: Generaiised Pressure-Volume-Temperature
CorreIationeR JPT (May 1980), pp 785-95.
9 Egbogah E.O. & Jack T.Ng Au Improved Tempcratnre-Viscosity
Correlation for Cmde Oil Systems, Journal of Petroleum Science
andl?ngineerirzg, 5 (1990), pp 197-200.
10 Ai-Marhoun M.A.: PVT Correlations for Middie East Crude
@is, JPT (MSy 1988), pp 650-66.
11 Asgapnr S., McLauchiin L., Wong D., Cheung V.: Pressnr&
Volmue-Tempcratnre Correlations for Western Canadian Gases
and oils Petroleum Society of CIM, paper No 88-39-62 (1988),
pp 62-1162-24.
12 Labedi R.: Use of Production Data to Estimate Volume Factor,
Density and Compressibility of Reservoir Fluids: Journal Of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 4 (1990), pp 375-90.
13 Kartoatmcdjo T. New Correlations for Estimating Hydrocarbon
Liquid Properties (Thesis), The University of Tuiss, The
Graduate School, (1990)
14 Majeed G.H.A., Kattan R.R. and Sahnan N.H.: New correlation
for estimating the viscosity of under satorated crude oils, Journal
of Canadian Petroleum Technology, (May-June 1990), Vol 29,
No.3, pp 80-85.
15 Roiiine J.B., McCain W.D.Jr., Creeger J.T.: Estimation of
Solution GOR of Black Oils, JPT (January 1990), pp 92-94.
16 Labedi R. Unproved correlations for predicting the viscosity of
li@ crndes, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 8
(1992), pp 221-234.
17 Petrosky G.E. Jr., Farshad F.F.: Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Correlations for Chdf of Mexico Crude 011s} SPE 26644, (1993),
pp 395-406.
18 Beai C.: The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas, Crude Oii
and Its Associated Gases at Oil Field Temmxatnres
Pressures) Oil and Gas Pmpet-@ Evacuation and Reserve
Estimates, Reprint Series, SPE, Richardson, TX, (1970).
19 Slotte in Frick T.C.: Petroleum Production Handbook SPE-
AIME, (1962), Vol 2.
20 Calhoun J.C. JE Foundamentrd of Reservoir Engineering;
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK (1947) 35.
21 Trnbe A. S.: Compressibility of Under satorated Hydrocarbon
Reservoir FIuids, Transaction-AIME (1957)210, pp 341-44.
22 Majeed G.H.A. & Sahnan N.H.: An empirical Correlation for Oil
FVF Prediction%Journal ofPetroleum Technology.
23 Obomanu D.A. & Okpobori G.A.: Correlating the PVT
Properties of Nige&m Crudes, Transaction ASME (1987) Vol
31 Chierici G.L.:Principi di Ingegneria dei Giacimenti Petroiiferi,
Vol 1, Agip-S.P.~ (settembre 1991).
32 Paone F.: Stndio di AfMabiliti delie Correlazioni che Stimano
le Proprietti degli Oli di Giacimento, Tesi & Laurea in
Ingegneria Mineraria, Urdversiti degli Studi di Bologna, (13
ottobre 1993).
33 Closmann P.J., Seba R.D.: A wrrelation of viscosity and
molecuiar weight, The Journal of Canadian Petxolemn
Technology, (Juiy-August 1990), Vol. 29> No.4,pp115-116.
34 McCsin W.D. Jr., Reservoir-fluid property Correlations-State of
the A& SPE Reservoir Engineering, (May 1991), pp 266-272.
35 Pnttsgnnta V.R., Miadonye A., B. Singh : Simple concept
predicts viecosi~ of heavy oil and bitumen; Oii & Gas Journal
(Mar. 1, 1993), pp 71-73.
36 ~-Blehcd M.S.~ Sayyouh M;H., Desouky S.M.: API Gravity and
Viscasity Determine Crude Oil Sulphur Concentration
Petroleum Engineer International (Jnne 1993), pp 56-60.
37 Singh B., Miadonye A., Puttagunta V.R.: Heavy oil viscosity
range from one tes~ Hytibon Processing, (August 1993), pp
157-162.
38 McCain W.D. Jr.: Chemical Composition Determines Behavionr
of Reservoir Fluids, Petroleum Engineer International, (October
1993), pp 18-25.
39 MeCain W.D. Jr.: Black Oiie and VolatiIe Oils-whats the
Dtierence? Petroleum Engineer International, (November 1993),
pp 24-27.
40 McCain W.D. Jr., Bridges B.: Volatile oils and Retrograde
Gases-whats the Difference? Petroleum Engineer International,
(Jsmnuy 1994)>pp 35-36.
and
APPENDIX A- MOD- CORREUmONS
l-Bubblepoint Pressure:
Heayy oils: Modified Standings correlation
r~ ,0.7885 1
,b=15.7286.,,xJ
.;R;,, (A-1)

109, pp 214-16.
24 Aii J.K.: Evsiuation of Correlation for Estimating the Viscosity Medium-oiis: Modified Kartoatmod.ios correlation
of Hydrocarbon Fluids, Journal of Petroleum Science and 0.9997
-Engineering, 5 (1991), pp 351-69. ( )
25 Sutton R.P. and Farshad F.: Evaluation of Empirically Derived (A -2)
Pb =
PVT Properties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils, SPE Reservoir 02181.~(72153.API )/(T+460)
Engineering, (February 1990), pp 79-86. 0.09902 ygmm
1{) J
26 Caiiegari A., De Ghetto G.:Stadio di Atlldabiliti di Correlazioni
per la Stima deiie Propneti di Oii di Giacimento; Agip (rapporto
interno), (Gennaio 1992).
27 Lang K.R., Donohue D.A.T., P.H.D., J.D., Senior Series
Ygcorr = YgPsp . 1+-0.1595. AP14078
[
.(2,
)-0466
.~g
&11 [ 114.7
EditorYPE 406-Petroleum Engineering IHRDC E and P Vidw
Library edizione in Lmgna Itaiiana a cum di G.Fkunmengo . Light oils: Modified Standings I x-relation
(LACH) e ADFO.M.R. 0.7857

1
28 Davis J.C.:Statistics and Data Anaiysis in (leology, John Wiley ~o0.0009.T
& Sons, New York (1973), pp 54-127 Pb =31.7648. ~ (A -3)
~o0.0148AJ?I
29 SpiegelStatistics, Collana Schaum, (May 1976).
30 Chierici G.L., Ciucci G.M., Sclocchi G.: Two-Phase Verticai 1[ g
Flow in Oils Wells-Prediction of Pressure Drop: JPT (August
1974), pp 927-38, Transaction AIME, 257.

I 381
 .

8 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ON PVT CORRELATIONS SPE 028904

Agips sample Modified Standings correlation -705.288+ 2.2246.Rs+ 26.0S44.Tg- 208Q823.ywm - 9.6307~
co= (A-12)
[( ,0.7646 1 Pg.lo5

.$:::::]
,b=21.472g.,,2j A-4) :=,@,p.[l+o.5912.fll.T
Light oils: Modified Labedis correlation
co= 10+6ti -B01878.AP13M .TgOl66 -
[ )

( )(
. Extra-heavy oils: Moditied Standings correlation
.10-88 B. .T&34 (A- 13)
Pb .lO(O .01694 PI-O.00156.T) 128 ~A-5) -1-: )
Rz=y .
g 1o.7025
[ 1 Agips sampkx Modified VasqueAleggs comelation
. Heavy oils: Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation _16S28+4.133. R+22.12. Tg13~.8. yW= +lo.5..4F1
co= (A - 14)
. ~bL2057
YgcOrr .10 10.9267 .API/ ( T+460 ) Pg.lo5
Its= (A -6) where
56.434
where P -4
ygmrr = y@p . 1+ 0.5912. API. Tsp - .bg ~ 10

[)1
P 114.7
ygcow = y,#~p . 1+ 0.5912. API. T~p-Log - 10-4 [ [)1
114.7
[
Medium oils: Modified Kartoatmodjos correlation 4-Dead-oil viscosig
)0%% .pb09868 .10 ( 7.4576.fipl)/(T+460 ) (A-~)
Rs = 0.10084 .(ygm= . Extra-heavy oils: Modified Egbogah-Jacks correlation
where . ()
log log pd + 1 = 1.90296-0.012619. AH -0.617480 log ()Tg

Ygcorr = YgPsp . l+o.1595.APzo4078

.
[
.(T$p)-0246640g &

Light oils: Modified Kartoatmodjos correlation

[ .11 . Heavy oilx Modified Egbogah-Jacks correlation

log . log Ad + 1 =2. 06492-0.0179. API -0.70226. log(Tg) (A - 16)

(A-15)

0.3873.pbI.1715 .10(12.753API) /( T+460)

()
(A - s)
as= o.01347.(ygmm ) Medium oil% Modified Kartoatmodjos correlation
where /Jti = 220.15-109. T- 35560 .[LOg(AH)~zk(T)- 457874 (JL - 17)

11
-0.2466 SP where
Ygcorr = YgPsp . l+o.1595.APIo478 .(ZP, . Log
114.7
[ [ .(Tsp)-02&6Jog &
Ygcorr = Y@p . l+o.1595.APz04078
Agips sample Modified Vasquez-Beggs comelation [ [ .)1
. ~bL1535
Ygc017 .10 9.441API/ (T+460 ) I.ight oils: Modified Egbogah-Jacks correlation
Rs=
37.966
(A -9)
. ()
log log #d + 1 = 1.67083-0.017628- API -0.61304- log ()Tg
where

Ygcorr = YgPSP - 1+ 0.5912. API. Tsp . Log

&
[)1 114.7
10-4 A@ps sample: Modified Egbogah-Jacks correlation
(A-18)

[ log . log #d
() + 1 = 1.8513-0.025548. API -0.56238. log ()Tg
(A-19)
3-Isothermal Compressibility
. Extra-heavy oils Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation
889.6+3. 1374. Rs+ 20.Tg 627.3 .ygww 81.4476. API 5-Gas-satnrated oil viscosity
Co= (A-IO) Extra-heavy oils: Modified Kartoatmodjos correlation
Pg. 105
where .uO1= 2.3945+0.8927. F+ O.001567.F (A - 20)
where
Ygcorr = YgPsp . 1+0.5912 .API. Tsp. Log
[ [)1

PSP 1o-4
114.7 F = -0.0335+ 1.0785.10
(
~ = ~o-0.00081.Rs
-OlJfj0845.~
)
.PP+0.3432T)

co.
Heavy oils: Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation
-2w1.8+2.9646. Rs+25.5439 .Tg-1230.5. ygm

Pg.lo5
+41.91.API
(A-11)
Ygcorr = YgPsp . 1+0.1595 .AP14078
[
.(,p)-02&
+11 [ 114.7
where
P
Ygcorr = YgPsp l+05912~I = 10-4 Heavy oils: Modified Kartoatmodjos correlation
TsPbg ~~b 7
[ [.11 flol =-0.6311 +1.078 .F-0.003653. F2 (A-21)
Medium oils: Modified Vasquez-Beggs correlation where
-()()oo845.~ .&.431+0.5158.Y )
(
F = 0.2478+ 0.6114.10
)

I 382
 ..* .,.
.

SPE 028904 G. DE GHEITO, F. PAONE, M. VJLLA 9

~ = ~o-o.OOOsl.l?s
TABLE 1: FLUID PROPERTY CORRELATIONS
Fluid Property I Correlation
.(T,P)-246.LQ ~
Ygcorr= YgPsp . l+o.1595.AP14078 Bubblepoint pressure standing ~ml , Lasater14, Glaso 181
[ [ .)1

. Medium oils: Modified Kartoatmodjos correlation Kartoatmodjo /13f@.kfOdIoIUI/10/

#ol =0.0132+0.9821. F- O.005215.F (A - 22) Solution GOR Standing, Vasquez-Beggs J,

where Kartoatmedjo,
(0.3855+0.5664.y) RolEus-McCain-Creeger 5
F = 0.2038+ 0.8591.10-000084$W .Ad
( ) ,..- Standing, Vasquez-Beggs, Glaso,
OFVF
~ = ~o-0.00081Rs

.(T,p)-024.Lo.
~.11
Kartoatmodjo

Ygcorr = ygPsp . l+o.1595.dP14078 Isothermal Vasquez-Beggs, Kartoatmodjo,

[ [
compressibility Labech 1, Petrosky-Farshad/171
Light oilx Modified Beggs & Robinsons correlation
, ~,6.@s+,50)-02135] ,A-23, Dead-oil viscosity Slotte 91
, Beggs-Robinson a,
POI = 25.1921.(Rs+ 100)- 0487 .,ud Glaso, Kartoatmedjo,
[
&ips sample Modified Kartoatmodjos correlation Egbogah-Jacl@, Labedi la
(A- 24) Gas-saturated
oil Chew-Connally 15~ , Beggs-Robinson,
/iol =-0.032124+0.9289- F- O.02865.F2
where viscosily Kartoatmodjo, IA@ la

F= 0.1615+ 0.704.10-0000583k P~+07881y) Vasquer-Beggs, Kartoatmodjo,

( ..=) Undersaturated oil
-0.000396.Rs viscosity Majeed-Kattan-Salrnan 14,

.(TP)-24
.0.0.
~.11
y=lo
~&,& /la

Ygcorr = YgPsp . 1+0.1595. APIM78

[ [

6-Undersaturated oil viscosity

Extra-heaw oils: Modified Labedis correlation

[[-)[ 11
~o-2.19 1.055. ~b0.3132
pod I TABLE 2 AGIPS RANGE FOR PVT PROPERTIES SAMPLE I
P
IJO==PO1- l-~ (A- 25) Tank-oil gravity (API) 16 to 56.8
~o0.0099 . API . . A- -* .- ,C-fi cm
.--- ----
r temwwratnre (P} I 80.6 to 341.6
Heavy oilx Modified Kartoatmodjos correlation VW.. \- w.-, ------ _ --- --

iut pressure (psia) I 107.33 to 661 3.S32 1

/f. = 0.9886.#ol +0.0027630(P - Pb) .
. . . . . . .. (-.;.> llA<tn9
1.5939 (A - 26)
. -o. o1153.#o*17933 +0.0316. #o, Lb\ r, I -. . . . .

( )
S.m) I 8.33 to 2985.87

.(zp)-o%.
+.11
where
.-.. --.. \- ..-
! 4.39 to 527.43
I-.+.1 -,+..- .. l!l.mrihr(9:=1> I n 67.4tn 1 7s9 I
Ygcofr = YgPsp . 1+0.1595 .APZO4078
[ [

Medium oils Modified Labedis earelat.ion

~o-3.8055 1.4131. pb0.6957
P Pd
l% #ol - l-~ (A - 27)
[( )[ ~o-0.00288.API
11 -- --- ..------, ,-=,
. Agips sample Modified Labedis correlation Gas-saturated oil viseosiiy (cp)
Undersaturated oil viscosity (ep)
10.07 to 295.9
10.13 to 354.6 I
)[ 11
~o-1.9 0.7423. pb0.5026
P P&
A) =IJol - l-~ (A- 28)
[[ ~o0.0243. API

383
I TABLE3: AUTHORS
DEFINEDIL4NG; FOR BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURE, ! XUTION OCR OFVF AND COMPRSSSIBIUTY CORRELATIONS [
vazquez-Boggz A1-Marhoon
-
1- Glaso Kwtoatmodjo Rollinz-MoCain
Creeger
Petmlcy-%shad W
I
1Tankdlgrwity~API) 16.5 to 63.8 I 17.9t051.1 22.3 to 48,1 I 14.4to 58.95 I 15.3to 59.5 I 19.4t044.6 I 18t053.5 116.3t045 132.2t048 I
I Bobblepiotprezsum (p@ 130 to 7000 148 to 5780 165 to 7142 I Oto6040 I 15 to6055 I 130t03573 I- I 1574to 6523 I 520t06358 I
100 to 258 I 82t0272 80 to 280 175 to320 I 170 (rllean) I 74t0240 I- I l14t0288 I 128t0306 I

OFVF atbubbkpoint (bbl/STB) 1.024 to 2.15 1- 1.025 to 2.588 1.032 to 1.997 - 1.1178 to 1.6229 1.088 to 2.92
Solution GOR (sd7STB) 20 to 1425 3 to W05 90 to 2637 26 to 1602 217to 1406

El=
Separator gas gravity (aiFl) 0.579 to 1.124 -
Total surface gas gravity (ah=l) 0.59 to 0.95 0.574to 1.223 0.65 to 1.276 0.752 to 1.367 0.5781 to 0.8519
Wparator preszure (pzia) 265 to 465 15 to 605 415 (mean) 29.7to 314.7 - 34.7 to 789.7

s-~~ (m 100(mean) 34to 106 125 (mean) 60 to 150 60 to 220

Reservoir pressure @sia)
-. = 20 to 3573 1700 to 10692 1-
Stock-tankGOR (sctWl13) . 1- 1- 1- 1- 14to 220 1- 1- 1
1SoparatorGOR(sof7STB) 1- .
1- 1- I 12 to 1742 1- 1- 1
:FOR VISCOSITY CORRELATION!
MajOed-Kattm
Be&gs-RobmOn @lso Kartoatnloi$io EgbogahJaok Lab-d chow-Connauy vazque.z-Begg$
I

a=
Sdmn

16to 58 20.1 to 48.1 15.3 to 59.5 15t051

70 to 295 50 to 300

15 to 5265 - 141t09515 711t07112

20 to 2070 - 9.3 to 2199 60 to 1334

+ 1- 160to 6358 I 132to 5645 498 to 4864

I Dead-oil viscozi@(.) I 0.616 t039.1 0.5062 to 682 1- 1 o.66to 4.79 I 0.38t050
I
I Gaz-zamated 1o.l15t03.72
oilvkosii (CP) 1- 0.096 to 586 1- I- 0.l17to 148 0.093 to 20.5
I
TABLE 5: AVSIUiGE ERRORS REPORTED BY AUTHORS IN THEYR ORIGINAL PAPRR
I Bubblepoint I Solution GOR I OFVF I Jzotknlal I Dead-oil viscositv I Gas-satwtd oil ! Undermturated oil vkwii
pmllrl compressibdity viscoEity
Author Stmlding VaqwZ-BeggZ Stinting Labodi Beggs-Robinson Beggz-Robinson VazqueZ-Beggz
.. ,.
AWW e error {xo) 4.8 -0.7 1.17 3 -0.64 -1.83 -7.541
Author Kartoatmodjo Va9qoez-Begg3 Kartoatmodjo Egbogah-Jack Kwtoatmodjo Kartoatmodjo
Average error (%) 3.8 23.2 4.7 23.7 -5.13 16.1 6.9
Author Gbieo Rollinz-MoCaia-Creeger Glaso Petrosky-Farzhad Kartoatrrmdjo Latmdi Majeed-Kattan-Sahnan
y
AveraI&? .,,. ~~~ * *Q
, \ ,, , ..4.
*
.
-nA2
- .TJ
K &c
v.
aOK
, .
.922
- -e
1. ..
lQQ
Author A1-Marhoun Krotoatnrtijo w Labedi
Avera&;e error /0 3.66 2 -2.61 -3.1
Author 1Kartoatmodjo
Average error (Vo) :

.
 .
TABLE 6 EXPERIMENTALLYMEASUREDPVT DATA
T Repal \P1 Tr pm J Pr (Dlw I 2?s(icfisTB) I RSD(sMsTB) I Rst(wtL8TB) Gaav.) TWI(VI I PSD(odd I Pb (od.) I Ycol Phmon mr3mmn I Yb3s(V.mn C(2&,D) OFVF V06(ix) Vd (CP) w (es)) I co fllllh)
1 6.0 147,9 342$.75 231.46 224.74 6.72 0.6% 131.0 38,021 2303391 Ln 0.29 0.02 0,679 1.117 1386.9 23s,9 334,61 5.10S-06
2 6,3 1622 5391.14 323.62 W5.42 22m 0.675 129.2 m.71 402L96 1.09 0.15 0.02 0.624 1.146 261.1 9Q.3 1a2,3 5.07E06
3 63 210,2 4
4813Z08 93.77 34,83 a94 1.429 128,3 71.01 697/54 78.20 130 O,M 1.403 Low 230,0 83,5 Ifi.o 4.462-06
4 7.3 23L7 8
4732.66 18,82 14.43 4.39 1.134 131.0 4206 249.47 40.43 0,37 0,03 1.044 1.037 21Lo n7.4 3428 4.522-W
s 7.5 1533 :3363.63 20&7c 20237 6.33 0,756 1310 33.02 wtzn 7.44 0.29 0,03 0,738 L105 1133.4 208.5 2783 4.n2J26
6 7.9 208,9 4148.14 25.48 16.10 938 lAn 176.0 8537 24ZD 36.45 ma O,w 1,403 LM7 3%.0 151.8 269.3 4.29E-03i
7 7.9 16S2 ssn.n 2$0.30 203.31 42.19 0,76S 129.2 %9.33 WQ2.23 137 0.18 0,02 0,633 1.127 443,7 106,1 149,9 5.02246
a 3.0 225,6 4494.79 5133 46.03 5.11 1.415 1314 42C6 619.32 6631 233 0.02 .1249 , 1.076 244.9 240.0 2073 s.lm-c6
9 8.0 210,2 4708,00 103.10 9Q.OS 13,05 1!491 17%3 8237 468.63 74.32 1.19 Os.s 1.471 L059 2VJ0 118,0 W3.5 A61S-C6
10 2.2 215,6 4W.L59 84.06 6937 14.49 IX-4 141.8 71.07 72330 66,01 Lsla 0.02 1,273 ion 2232 113.0 211.0 4AE.04
11 83 212.0 4883,S2 $9.27 76,67 12.63 1.470 1220 71,07 639,43 81,64 1.35 003 1,424 !.076 362.0 116,3 190.1 437E-M
12 8,6 217,4 4996.62 8-635 7Z6V 13.66 1.479 13s.8 7L07 626S7 8130 L3S 0. 1,424 1074 M&o 83.6 163.6 4.70E-M
13 89 212.0 4W3.15 6937 . - S62 8-337 597.% 7633 237 O.bs 1.364 1.047 219.2 M&s 5924 4.74EA26
14 9.0 210,0 4m2SM 6%83 . . 93.0 8537 634.13 7939 124 0JJ3 1392 LC69 103.7 73.7 1233 3.69!S.06
15 9,6 217.4 4$95.10 10254 W&n 7.n 1.129 1335 58.02 947.42 46,40 1.05 0$0 Lo95 1.024 117.2 49,2 75.2 4.42506
16 no 554.$ 28W.C-5 4S4,99 44%26 37.64 1.236 1s.0 1s6,64 2663S4 53.09 0.09 0.40 1203 1235 1163 13.2 12.6 7.17%C-S
17 )03 1526 2916.75 262.00 224,63 33,37 0.s61s 138.0 156.64 2076.97 0.47 0A3 002 6.722 1.148 113.0 24.7 27.7 5.4m06
109 134,2 33134 0.810 138-0 156,64 253217 0.48 0.19 m 0.723 1:124 19.7 20,0 ~:=
18 2%93.35 23497 %36 IISA
19 I Lo 167.0 573923 234.1$ 203,87 3J2.31 0,733 129.2 m.71 2s$3.96 290 0.16 0,00 0.653 Lll o 434.1 m.? 1m3 4.W2-06
20 11.0 132,6 2916.75 W&57 57s.42 113s 1253 1s4.0 5637 2916.75 49.74 0.18 040 124s Lw2 1s3.2 8.3 $3 7.03E-06
21 11.2 134.8 2850.M 316.51 2%136 24.53 0.s12 Iwo 1%,64 734.5s0 032 0.21 OJW an 7 1.174 105,0 194 21.4 7,03!245
22 11.4 133.1 23s3.74 W3.24 27276 33.03 0.7T6 1s$.0 156.64 262222 OAI 0.20 0,03 D.709 1.16 1 1M.6 213 W.t 5!012-06
22 13.4 210.?. 4813.e4 132.18 . . llISJ 7832 1763.69 1095 0,71 &w 0.704 1.124 98.7 253 $3.4 S,23E-C6
24 524 152.6 3916.75 269.99 26s,44 4.55 &714 626 42C6 243222 0.60 0.33 O,w woo 1X55 133,0 213 23.0 5.162-C6
3s 126 208.0 480538 186.16 . . 1s5.3 7832 2233.6 2 1151 0.48 0.02 0.697 1.13 2 W.1 23,3 22.9 3351H6
26 1Z8 2L4.6 4.519A5 17.21 IL10 &11 1323 176.0 8537 m.7 1 50.04 1s38 O.w 1.186 1,86 9 42.2 20.8 52t 3.02s-26
27 13.s 21L6 4410.67 20133 . . 76.1 3537 17363 3 3L83 0,95 O.eo 0,914 1.124 53.9 In.8 23,2 5.242-05
2$ 14.@ m. 2 2532.7 0 40.97 25.09 14s 1.23 5 1s$.0 136.64 1WZ63 14,08 6332 O.w 1.134 L064 47A 33.7 40.1 5.96z-w
29 14.6 23s9 3624m 4L93 3L63 k323 1.178 167. 0 8537 13794 22.41 2* 9 0,04 I*78 1403 138,0 63.4 109. a 207E-06
30 14.9 207$ 3iT7.53 25,04 17,64 7.44 5.2437 167, 0 S4.76 m.M 2231 5.H m 1X3 Ion 152.7 60.4 114.0 4.93E-06
31 15.1 207.7 3727s 2s.3
1 12.27 12.94 1244 167.0 23S7 m.7 1 12.92 B32 aw 1.040 Lo78 ma 69.9 1113 3.02EX
32 23.2 214,0 37$4.09 34.13 3s.64 18.4 9 1.964 123. 0 129/39 370.01 13.32 13.0 5 0.02 0.634 1.09 3 107.3 433 69.0 m3E-06
33 15.4 203,0 %65.16 21!49 13.43 6.05 1276 334. 6 4331 33335 5233 6,28 Om 1.)59 1.072 163.6 74.6 123. 4 534S-06
34 15.6 131!4 10M.49 10262 103.82 am 7sa 29,01 734,21 Om 0.99 0,02 0,7
a 1,0n !613 63?8 67.1 4.S7EW
33 m 231.3 4381.s4 33S.02 293.s 44.41 0.724 116. 6 WV6 2769.5 9 $,87 1.10 m 0.7C6 1.179 37.4 9.1 9.4 6.9m06
I
26 16.2 183.1 3322.47 9732 43.75 33.s 1.184 04.0 327,7I 697.64 B.71 5.93 0.24 0.799 L@% 43.7 21a Za,4 5.98SH6
37 16.4 140.0 1153.07 22034 3a24 L317 w. 0 1430 1074.75 98* 0.27 0,80 1511 L146 1126 28.4 M.o 6.K3J.06
38 17.Q 292,7 741134 146.40 133.32 12,M 1.232 m 0 56.37 1OJ-2.W S8.2 1 2A2 Om 1226 Ll 32 bo.1 5.6 14.5 3.m-06
39 17.6 194.0 4$7334 429.16 340.3 3 23.22 0.934 68.0 156.64 Ww 2 4.17 1.62 L83 0.729 12.4 8 23.4 4,0 4.9 7.38S46
40 1$.8 244,4 741L34 111,76 ml 1 31,63 lax m 4 136,64 999.23 3s.7$ 220 m 0s67 1,11 9 IL 7 3.4 103 4.C4E-06
41 19.0 2383 7047.4 9 113.7n 83.04 3J2.65 1372 )02.4 156.64 1247.19 313 202 0.46 0910 1,124 11.6 43 9,6 4.99E-M
~42 19,08 163,
4 1S06.47 It$as 17469 13.94 LW2 ?-6.0 7181 922-9 1 69.7$ 296 t.os 1279 1.112 50.9 16.9 19.8 5.6X-M
43 19.0 217.4 65$7.26 3W.12 m. 70 49.41 0.91 4 660 114s 2319w 132 L79 0,02 0.7 % 1,224 23. 9 7.3 113 6.WE-C6
u 19.2 163.2 n9-2.26 16633 1$26a u. 64 M 02 69a 7L07 796.27 79.79 138 0,w 138n L649 43.4 18.6 22,3 5M3-J36
4s 19.2 153.0 1593.32 109!93 97,16 1277 1.412 69.n 71,07 469,93 8037 79o O<on 1385 Lfm 493 27.2 34.6 51WS%6
46 193 154.4 lEr134 17244 15a90 16.34 1.406 93.6 71.07 79627 8133 202 0,@s 139I 1.101 5S3 20.8 24.3 531246
47 19.4 m. 4 1649.98 u7.83 164.23 13.60 L411 69s 7L.O7 $2.3.
24 6234 I.33 0.w 1395 1.112 4Lo 18.4 19.9 5.962-0+
48 19,s 240.8 721139 1129a 85.$3 3J3,15 1.059 m ,4 237.71 IC02,49 WA9 L21 OA1 0.9-24 133A 7.7 4.6 9.7 5332-%
49 19.$ m. 8 1934.4Q 145.I8 131.9 7 13,X 1417 $4,2 71,07 7%.27 81,94 L77 0.03 1,403 L099 320 19.1 22.6 5.63E-J36
w 19.3 178.7 5325.56 337..6
I 239.1 8 93.44 1.169 m.o 156.64 1322.76 1130 033 007 Lo04L22 1 43.1 19.0 7A,1 6.63E-C4
51 19.3 567.0 4229,07 23.27 14.93 10.44 1.103 75,2 58.07. 2%,n $.20 z 81 0,M 0S48 Lo59 23,1 27.A 36.5 4.7W-06
52 19.6 231.8 69s7.11 14032 87.94 5238 1,092 71.6 237,71 m% 63 23.9 3 L44 o.32 0.8$0 1,129 11.1 5,6 9,7 5.W2-06
53 19.7 170.6 IW7.54 18.5,
56 171.W 13s5 L336 80 .6 71.07 967A 2 73,6 7 L21 0333 1,313 LI 10 44.3 163 19,6 6.1$2-06
34 19.8 244.0 7137.42 125A7 103.3 2 31.6s 1347 Ibo.4 156.64 1!24.06 47.01 1-55 0,97 1,071 1,132 14.7 6.2 11.2 4,14E.C6
5s 19,8 163A 1$06.47 167.89 1s4.64 13.21 1333 75.6 71,07 0963s 74.% L% 0,00 13Is 1.108 47.2 18.0 21.2 6,03E-W
56 19,8 150,8 1749.47 147,96 140A6 7.52 1.236 69.8 5637 839.
7s 6436 L71 0,CQ 1.229 1,02 7 53.s 21.2 243 S.$3E.04
51 29.9 231.s 6336.c4 121.64 79.23 4234 Lws 104.0 m. 71 1067A9 2ZW 1.23 0,10 0.226 1.118 9.7 5.$ 10.5 5J94N6
58 21,0 1832 467334 302,27 4C4,18 %.0s 0.%s3 64,0 156.44 2249,95 4,89 1.52 1 .99 0.8 04 1208 10.7 2.1 z4 8.s424-6
39 21.2 Its.2 372!.n 404.0I 73s,68 168,33 1.062 m .4 73220 2432.3 2 0.54 0.52 0,co 0,665 L349 ti .9 4.0 4,6 223S-96
21.7
6 11,44 1632 1.421 u ,0 85,37 213,
21 66.4 9 10.00 o00 1.W6 L07o 11,2 8.8 10.0 5.83G-C+

-1
60 2!.2 190,4 IW9,63
61 21.3 188,8 35%.44 142.35 142,2 5 08.2 46.41 lC.29
A8 L097 16.4 6.7 9.2 6.
62 21.3 179.6 6272.98 m 93 6339 11.55 L035 59,0 49,31 634.13 13,26 0.6S 0,m 0,971 Lo9$ 13,1 83 16.7 4.7sS-8$
63 220 134,6 1749.18 440.23 33a,84 311.41 1.263 IC4 .0 440,93 1749.18 13.75 2.67 al o 0,9 18 L262 20.5 z6 2,6 9.22FX6
64 23.1 1123 1315.51 141.
02 n. 17 63.$3 0,830 n .0 298,78 796.27 0,co 0.58 0,81 0.656 L0+2 69.8 35,9 40,7 6,052-6-6

-L A4-
63 23.3 276,8 3740.s8 3%,41 2s7.S9 108.82 L218 131s 440,92 2674. 54 43.7s 6301 0,@l Lo97 L276 3.0 1,2 1.4 1.24S-0s
66 B ,7 176,0 4216,31 120,
09 105.Is 14,93 107.6 42.061 76S.711 0,39 1,601 0,021 0,78s I.10! 11.11 7.71 10,9 5,63WX
 S::289()4
TABLE6 EXPERIMENTALLYMEASUREDPWDATA
- LPI Tr P3g Pr (P*) I Rs (wOSTB) I lUP (sc027B) I R31(1cfmB) CC(av.) T!pe373 I PIp(pda) I Pb(p48) I Yco2(*Am33 I YIU(Yemal) Vh3s(% JIWT3 Go(PSp) 03-VFVod (CP) VC4(Cp) Vo (Cp) co (31pda)
67 m *0.6 242231 93021 45.58] 12,44 1.197 140.01 43.511 2c3.161 27.391 234 0.34 L191 1.029 229 13.2 13.4 5.55E-b3
6a 14.5 129.2 11533,02 8,61 8.61 1.530 98,6 14.30 107.33 6.61 12.28 5,65 1.530 1.034 45,2 249 36,1 4,62E.b5
69 U.5 1625 I1437.35 34,75 1844 18.71 1,3$0 66,0 63.57 210.31 70.10 8,23 0,00 1.311 1.057 9.5 7.5 U 5.WSH6
70 14.7 1625 401!31
4 162.67 14993 12n o&66 104.0 56.37 IM5,74 022 1.39 0.Q3 0.821 1.115 lL3 7,2 9.8 5.973s-26
71 14,8 178,2 42$138
4 116.26 10334 1271 0.932 104,0 56.37 79427 0.40 1s4 O.w 0.863 2659 13.4 8.S 12.6 276E-06
72 13.o 2624 3699.97
3 564.63 42L39 143.24 L2E4 194.0 51L99 31C096 43.73 8.42 0,28 1.117 1.393 3.7 1.1 1.2 5.7723-06
n L5.o 117.5 1n7923 135,84 79.28 %57. 0.933 75.2 227.71 739.70 0.29 Los 033 0.491 Llxd 422 193 20.6 6A4E-06
74 U.2 198.5 4331,66
4 323,66 244.92 118.76 L2W n2.4 26242 Ixd,a 33.82 037 5.10 0.954 1.224 5.7 21 2.7 738S-M
75 U.7 271.4 369252
2 484,2$ 4$253 2276 1213 12?0 85.37 2231,1$ 46.41 6.92 0A6 1.176 L313 2.4 09 0.9 Lzmos
76 K,o 275.0 3713,02
3 57$.51 4*6,68 91.83 1241 78.8 227.71 3314.16 53.89 633 0,07 L163 lx-l 13 0,9 0,9 L34E-05
73 1.5,4 235.2 3669,31
3 643-$$ 559.82 82.72 122$ 87.8 227.71 M69.31 5123 7.14 03s 1.1+0 1337 21 0.7 0,7 1.21E-W
73 )7.0 27L0 3732.02
1 S9205 394.% 2N.09 3.232 149.9 72220 3527.45 40.71 10,69 0.23 1.070 1370 3.1 09 0.9 1262-05
m n3 2624 3710.12
2 591.17 437.70 133.47 1.295 194.0 $11.99 3106s3 51.75 7.17 0.49 1.179 1377 25 Lo L1 1.13s-05
so Y7.a 25J3.6 22691.n 629.$6 544.92 2494 LIY2 n.4 213.21 3%7,07 44.18 9.05 0.23 1.103 1352 24 0.7 08 L37E-05
81 27.8 134,6 ?2$26.16 702.= 64224 60.07 0.792 71.6 M5.65 3826,16 1244 9.29 236 0.733 1.283 3,7 09 09 8.543?-06
S2 27.9 2320 :5333,= .5W.33 S93.16 93.16 0.943 86,0 156.64 264333 1.18 214 0A4 0.W4 1.421 25 0.6 0,7 LOOE-05
83 M,o 114.s 11164.12 223.74 11139 114.15 0.928 7U %9.25 1166.12 0.22 O.za 0.69 0,703 Llw 229 5.7 5.7 Loo&d3
84 m 111.7 112$3.76 13LS4 56.07 75.51 0.934 n.o 298.78 634.13 0,17 0.s3 1.12 0,698 LIM8 213 14.2 13.7 5.$3E-C6
85 28,6 1112 11216.89 21YJ31 06.72 113.3$ 0.996 73.?. 440.92 934,97 W23 0.65 0.24 0.64I 1.090 Zla 7.6 7.9 9.42E-04
86 28.6 2s3.8 23726.0% 763.64 623.81 137.27s 1.249 174.2 440.92 37a6.04 49.6a 7.95 O,lz L130 1.424 13 0.6 0.6 123!3-05
87 38.8 m,4 44322.38 4w3 19Lt7 27.4.s5 L2$2 tow 440.92 1554A 8 10.4
6 1.07 0.46 @.790 1.3W 28 Lo 13 7.64Z-W
88 39.0 275.0 ? 3676,76 W.zl? 534.69 loom 1.233 7s.8 227.71 3676.7 6 4297 1270 0.03 L1C9 1.41 2 13 0,6 0.6 Lsaz-o$
89 24.0 105.8 I137%49 233.40 m3.64 29.76 0.624 7!.6 1%.64 335Ln 1.20 O.m OJYJ 0,603 Low u 13 13 6.3SC6
90 2%6 1624 114$9.10 245.28 214.03 3136 0.997 1220 129.09 3293,2 I 3231 L26 0,00 0.951 1.14 7 21 1.2 13 2273X6
91 24.7 334.6 1W2m W.n 38.06 3036 1.1% 83.3 156.64 38436 1.68 1.69 0,02 *.C4 1,07 0 4.9 3.1 3.6 6.4E-06
92 29,n 128.1 IM44.68 7L18 37.59 3239 1.257 0%6 87.02 321S 0.32 234 1.11 0,3374 Lw2 M.2 10.4 142 3.64EJ33
93 30.7 14!.4 I141%94 289.14 2s-3.22 34.31 0.949 123.0 12%09 1419.96 a4.95 279 Loo 0.%0 s L!% 22 13 13 7.6233.C6
94 m 26a,l :3713.02 781.99 607.93 174,02 Loo1 113. 0 440.92 3713,02 5.73 3,?4 0,21 am IAW L5 0.4 o.4 L21s-os
95 m 338.2 !1301,16 239.22 24534 13,86 1.494 127 0 24.O2 lm.1 5 4236 4,40 0.24 LMJ2 1.14 3 25 1.5 25 7.3m-06
% 31.1 185.0: 3753.09 7%.67 599.31 127.54 Om 104. 0 440.92 3733.09 2n 203 O.w 0,6$2 I.?m w a.7 0.7 L29E-05
97 3U 1202 !133727 53.19 3237 22.52 1238 74.3 3642 171,1
5 1.03 3.49 5,02 1-07SL057 11.2 79 9.0 6.19F,c4
m 3L6 24z6 :3003.% 69,23 61.63 7.61 L072 n. o ma 1 303.23 9.94 13.0s O.w 0s94 1.131 L4 L1 1A 7.9X-M
99 31.7 1763 :349932 78226 2JSL34 203.9 2 0.98 1 98.6 513.44 3345,23 1<7 5 0.23 O.w O.m 1AM 24 0.5 o.2 13$6-05
62
a lW 31.7 192.7! 5405.64 Eo6.% W9.97 116.59 0.8?84 86.& z?J3.61 38624 2 3.22 207 O,co 0.743 1362 L9 0.4 QA 124%05
03 101 3%o 219.2 :3456.24 4n.24 323s 13335 1s51 86.0 440-92 2453.08 17.25 o.n OAQ O.M1 2!436 z1 0.8 o.9 lJCE.03
102 )3,o 211.1! Wx.n 859.n 737A6 122.3 1 0.914 $6.0 L%.64 2713.70 zn 1.61 0.53 8.817 I,m L1 Q3 0.4 L33E-03
$03 >33 1927: 539s.49 1236.9s 1134.23 122.7 0 0.$59 86,0 237.71 4326.54 z% 214 0.C4 0.724 1.67I 1.6 0,1 0.2 1.$-3E-03
104 34,1 227.9 ,446733 70434 379.6 2 124.93 0.804 1220 511,99 4039.34 1.33 3.34 0.w 0,643 1.404 22 0.7 0.7 1,4s03
10s 34,5 2to.2: 3293,96 516.83 411,C6 ko5.76 1.040 95.0 L%.64 232s$2 131 L2n o.w Wo7 1343 20 0.5 @.7 9.51E-C6
126 34.6226A :5135.s7 108,76 $0.61 23.15 0.794 1220 136.64 839.78 175 251 o.(!4 0.672 L122 3.0 3.6 5.2 6.Z92W6
107 35.1 134.4 :2714.64 120,70 2J.O 3 84.67 Lm7 W3A 296.7 8526 m 1.20 240 0.w 0.726 LI 00 22 1.5 19 6346C6
Ma 3s6 190.4: 294431 2SL05 ?a6&5 ma 0 09 39 % .8 ML23 2774.62 0,$0 138 0.20 0,739 1,4n 29 0A 0A 1.63%0 5
109 35.7 2120: 33621 8 1?4.02 76.06 59.96 LOPS 132.0 1%,64 6613a 10.81 337 246 0,642 1.1s1 1.4 0.9 L2 8.183+$6
110 26.0 118.4 34434 105,OI 95.64 9.U 1337 91.4 29.01384 36 2732 5.49 4.34 M% 1002 27 L9 1.9 7.24s.06
111 %.2 148.0: 37M35 663J7 416,23 246.9 5 1,057 89.6 44032 1891 32 0.377 O,M 0,16 0.744 L3a3 20 0.8 0.9 8.4E-M
112 36.6 11$.4 35L@2 7212 36.42 35.70 1.073 86.0 85.37 327,79 10.4 3 16.39 4,65 0,914 1.060 26 zo 20 6.94!54
113 36s6 11)6.
6 478,6
3 36.% 833 48.63 1.137 n .0 m. 71 36933 7.86 12.$2 0.24 0.914 Lo55 27 21 21 6.2E-C6
L14 37.om 8. 407J.31 321,n 331,67 1s9,60 1.011 86,0 440.92 2373. 76 1so 0,69 0,OQ 0.6n 1335 1,6 0.s 0.6 Llm $
MS 37,0 221.0: 3322.6
7 m~ 54242 234.9 6 1.045 96,8 440,92 2338. 74 0so 1,66 o.02 0.722 1.495 1,8 0.4 0A L86!3-O$
1136 37.0 W-6.8 4879,1s 102LO 5 898.6 3 12242 0,902 $5.0 156.64 2%09$ 42 3.86 M-3 0.0t 0.319 L591 1,2 0.3 0,4 L43E.05
3J7 37.2 1526 2423,6
2 495.45 3464 149.01 Lo54 m .0 227.71 M37d34 0.n o,w o.00 0.770 L291 20 0.7 0.7 L103I-O5
118 37.2 lw 5 m3. % 4326n 31202 lm.59 0.797 w .8 440.92 2517 .$9 0,51 L24 0,00 0,6Z3 L239 w 1.1 1J 9.ME-04
119 37.2 300,9< 6348.3
2 1396.$6 1267.3 9 129,47 0.749 149.0 440.x3 600$, 78 4.96 0.46 0,24 0.707 1.793 1.2 0.3 03 2.741305
123 37.2 192A 3215,54 871.65 n2 w 14268 0,922 100,4 242,22 3337. 14 031 0.44 0,w 0,748 1,492 1.7 0.4 0.4 L61E.05
321 37.2 269.6 %97.!7 1001:29 905.63 175.66 0.266 Is&o 440.97 4243. 87 3.3$ 0,75 o.w 0,772 1.66 7 1.8 0.4 0.4 1.652-0
5
123 37,2 176,0 4s7234 1362,2 1 1118,1 5 247.06 0.927 68,0 W8.78 3753 .64 5,25 3,54 0,63 0,764 Lm 1,2 0.4 0A L82E-03
123 37.2 3C0,9 6248,3
2 U%.n6 1267.3 9 129A7 0.749 149,0 440.92 6JIW78 4.96 0.46 0,00 0.707 1.793 L2 o3 03 25m-o5
124 37.4 130.$ 253239 417.00 22274 194.26 1,264 n .0 440.92 1351.n 0,93 0.40 0,24 0.747 1.25 1 21 0.8 0.9 82.32-06
123 37.5 !463 3103.8
6 576.95 4126$ 144.06 0.909 104.0 440.92 2374. 46 0,15 0,55 0.2a 0,691 L3C6 53 1.4 1,5 9.492-M
126 37,5 .?43,I 630L99 530.92 1440. n 63.85 0.764 1s8.9 m. 71 6272,38 $.70 0,30 o,w 0,742 L8.54 1A o.3 0.3 24$%0$
m 37.5 271,4 %$2.31 864.21 676.Cn2 190.21 0.919 125.6 440.92 363211 3.21 0.34 0,C4 0.734 1.557 M o.4 0.3
128 37.7 245,1 6613,
$2 1654,36 1591 .29 62.07 0.m M29 227.71 .%1382 5,15 0.43 0,Co 0.716 1.939 Lo o.5 0,5 Z08E-0$
IB 37.$ 145.
4 2423.6
2 234.01 3&,4 1 175.61 1.416 91.9 440.92 763.22 L23 L21 0,60 0.761 1.1s L$ 1.0 1.2
330 37.@ 231.8 S249,0
8 1467.M 1245,1 8 22202 0.861 *M.0 440.92 4n7,01 1.59 1.09 0,Za 0.714 M 31 1.3 0,4 0.4 227E-0>
131 3?.9 223.2 4345.4
0 1357.94 12CQ.4 9 137,45 0.825 86.0 227.71 4267.08 1.49 0.45 0,w
132 38.0 171,5 3114.01

I
,, .
J
,,,
 TABLE6: EXPERIMENTALLYMEASUREDPVT DATA SPE28 904
T Report
133
134 3%,4 234.6 4104.63 711,24 380,17 131,02 0.8% 86.0 227.71 2924,01 1.72 0,58 O,m 0.723 1.435 1,6 0.4 0,5 1.4ss3-0s
135 3a.3 2%,6 36s4,03 1134.14 103634 47.60 0923 763 1s5,64 3527.37 12.67 1,1$ 0,(0 0,821 1.457 09 0,3 03
136 38s 2C4.8 321234 723.S6 5n.79 132.07 0983 96.8 24222 24%.14 ml 1.7s o.m o.n5 1.441 1.9 0.4 0,4
137 38.8 1526 2423,62 475.41 2X231 183.10 LU29 94.1 298-78 149391 0.3s 1.40 0.03 0.740 1370 L8 0,6 0.7
138 38,8 2?$.1 S30.534 445,41 92.67 52.74 0.7$3 1220 227.71 24%30 2,02 1.06 0,02 0.718 1392 23 0.7 0.9
139 X3.8 183,2 227133 524.10 324,19 139.91 1.460 86.0 7.%.7=3 1863.76 83.97 6.87 0,00 r42s 1270 M 0,7 0,7
140 39.0 271.4 6187.41 m3.39 3$329 177.49 1.023 1226 440.92 3243.09 4.63 1,66 0.02 0.764 1.483 1.4 OA 0,s
141 39.6 194.0 2223,62 436,43 734.46 199.98 1.464 86,0 440.92 172M2 83.47 7.03 0.02 1.299 1242 1.4 0s 0,6
142 39,4 181.4 33m.73 533.87 340.44 193,43 1,037 440.92 206247 132 0.92 0.02 0.721 1326 12 0.5 0.3
143 39;6 292.1 W-9.55 170034 1481.73 219.19 0.788 i:; $68.79 $3a22 3.68 0,8S 0,00 0.711 2047 0.9 0.2 02
144 39.7 325.4 1446629 3S0.% 97.16 0.939 $6.0 58AM 2219.11 1.64 1$4 O.w 0.700 136a 0.6 03 0,6
145 40.0 1380 3079.22 217.47 10L88 115.39 1.249 1022 67.02 511.99 0.70 5.67 0.C.2 1.044 1.187 M 0,9 1,2
146 40,0 W3.1 62%.00 1S45.40 152033 6207 0.752 155.9 227.71 5959.69 5.34 0,46 0,02 04733 1* 1.2 0.3 0.3
147 40,0 3M.4 14913,01 444.49 245.33 99.16 L136 179.6 34229 2140.73 m 226 0.Q2 0,714 1.412 0,6 03 0.7
148 40,0 334.4 14$62.70 410.79 320,18 9Q,61 1,095 15$.0 2m.i2 2133.54 1S4 2,07 0.s0 0.716 1372 0.6 03 0.6
149 40.1 2020 583$.62 174$.36 1510.73 249.W 0.924 1220 44&93 5760.99 4.46 033 O.m 04701 3.923 12 0.5 0s
130 40,4 ,2320 s51an 233,24 175.05 38.18 0.983 113.0 1s6.64 127635 3.02 129 O.(J2 0<769 L226 1.6 Lo 15
Ml 40.6 269.6 62%.53 u53.73 1077.$s 175s 0.56s 1s-$.0 440.92 4%5.06 3.26 0,77 0,02 0.751 L761 19 0.4 0.6
1s2 40,8 Iw.n 4739.91 91zn 0m97 111.76 0972 920 1s6.64 2637.s3 033 0,69 04W Oall 1368 L4 0,3 0,4
133 4Ln S8a.s 3369.28 529.s3 316.7S 21236 1$47 77.0 440.92 1834.76 1.44 0.7s O,w 0,719 1321 1.@ 0,4 0.4
154 41.0 266.0 49%328 1559.47 1470.64 $$.83 0J363 107.6 237.71 4992.2$ 3.4Q 0.28 0.03 0,70 3 1.91 6 0.8 0.2 02
155 4,1.0 2$7.6 6747.26 1s7535 176.27 0.763 S2zo 440.92 3575A2 4.03 031 O.w o.m7 1s1s LO 0.2 0.3
1s6 4Lo kru 6323.Z u9m2 1206.C4 19276 0.$16 15Z6 440.92 5106.86 3.12 0.76 O.CO 0.730 1X32 13 0.3 a3
137 41.1 296.6 6S98.10 1317.76 1348<42 16933 0824 174.0 4.W.92 5760.9$ 4.21 0,86 aw L9170a 2071 Lo 0,2 0.2
154 41.2 139.8 2740.1 1 9L7.18 618.26 294.92 0.993 75.2 440s 274411 o.2a 3Aa WI 0.706 1.30s 1a 0.3 0.s
139 413 226.4 426704 S30-6,64 M2$.$4 297.24 0.9n %6.0 440.92 3$W.02 150 0.49 O.w 0.733 1847 1.1 02 0.2
102 41,5 ,399.8 24m.04 769.s3 701.87 67.% 0.673 69.8 S537 2643,4 3 0.s5 230 0.02 0.210 IA24 1.9 0,5 0.6
161 4Ls ,= 714737 55552+5 1374.71 lW.S5 0318 116.6 440.92 5m9.84 269 0.67 0.02 U706 3.900 L1 0,2 0.3
162 4,L5 159.2 2.2s5.01 1403,19 94L05 464.1 4 L027 7$,8 723.W 363s.0I 0.12 2.29 O.w &@96 L6W 19 0,3 a3
163 41.5 235.4 3433.24 16S7.32 137271 224.6 1 0.s01 77.0 440,92 4W4M4 L64 OA7 aw 0$647 1s64 1.1 0.2 @2
a
as 164 41.7 167.0 3272.10 962.03 6S7.01 w. $2 - 92D 440.92 270210 1s16 1.5 0.4 0,4
+ 16S 4L7 167.0 243279 lo46.m $m2s 71.62 0.895 a&5 83.57 2s44,3 1 0.z 244 o.w 0.245 1382 1.s o3 03
144 4?o m. 2 4124.94 1746,29 1372.M 173.$2 - n. o 227.71 3%&29 L967 0.8 a2 a2
167 420 16S.? 2400s Mo6.9s 10034 123.64 0.637 86.0 156.64 3%202 O.x ZI o @,w 0,375 lh5 7 1.3 0.3 01
164 420 2s7.6 674736 Iw-f.o@ 1724.98 17211 0.$10 176.0 440.92 37W52 4.02 O@ 0,00 0.708 21w 0.9 0.2 &2
169 422 167.0 3aoLo3 M5932 82283 m.4 9 0.953 89.4 440.92 330L03 he s 231 0.M 0.724 1s80 1.3 03 0.3
tm 4Z4 341.6 13304.62 690.16 615.71 74.45 LQ45 1s8.o 156.64 2578.8 1 L67 4,34 o.m @.m 13n 05 03 %.4
171 425 150.1 33?5.3 1 64L47 333.9s 925.32 1.113 84.2 327.79 1517.12 @.25 4.47 0.C4 mn s 1394 1.9 0.7 @a
172 425 167. 0 241Z9s 8$4.s4 6322s 2s233 0.995 97.5 440.92 2631.02 e.72 NM am 0.733 IS s 1.7 0A a4
m 42.5 :167. 0 3s67s0 94299 7$6.76 1s6.23 0.$85 923 227.71 SE-2a02 0.16 L87 0.so *.767 1330 I3 0.4 a4
174 425 1s7.0 %62.3 1 921.61 76%0S 166.36 0.s93 78.4 m. 7M 294431 @.m 2.24 o.w 0221 1A89 1.6 0.2 @2
175 4Z5 167. 0 261W5 1I 13.66 80436 207. 32 0.991 9%.6 440.92 2944.3 1 0.52 z 44 o.00 0,811 1.s43 1.8 OA o,4
176 4Z6 167. 0 3314.1 6 1165.01 878.98 22?6.03 0.945 90.3 440.93 3214.63 0.M 3.76 0.Cf3 0<714 1.6Z2 1,6 03 03
m 42.8 233.4 40243-4 139+3.7
5 110294 204.8 10.9 28 824 440.92 396% 29 L26 0.7I 0.w o.6$8 1.84 6 0.7 0,2 0.2
In 420222 8 33$3.84 708.32 53298 m. 55 1,0+27 71.6 17L1s 2[22,48 L61 0.69 %.m ox 14 1.517 1.2 a,1 0.2
179 43.0 1s4.4 1601,
24 356.2I 26244 93.37 1292 80,6 156.64 IMS.74 5s33 $46 o.n L324 Lao1 0.9 a5 a6
100 43.5 167.0 361295 1364.28 %1,42 24204 0.913 n. 0 440.92 2441m o.21 21o o.02 0,m 1.653 1.4 0.2 @.2
181 43.6 139.1 349a34 941.0
5 &m34 10271 0.861 on .9 116.03 2488.09 0.M o.98 0,co 0,7s7 1328 1.7 0,6 0.6
182 43.6 197.6 2444.39 1s93.4o h365.% 527A3 Lo16 71.6 440.92 2760. 11 1.53 250 o.M 0.74s 1903 1.2 0,2 0.2
183 44.0237 9 6321.
w 1678.63 1412s1 243.10 0,8-4
7 194. 0 86734 5705.83 2 14 0.n 0.b2 OJ%7 1937 1J o!2 o3
184 44.5 2s9.4 6433.
97 1404.33 1221,42 182w 0.795 194. 0 % .&5 slm.a 2 21 o.76 a 02 a 702 1374 1,1 03 0.3
185 u9 296.6 6S98,1o 329*JS6 29823!7 31279 O.n5 138.2 72S.20 6358 35 4.18 0.69 a 00 0.7032.84 7 09 0.1 &2
106 45,0 276.8 6510,8 5 b2+4.6
3 1390,81 m. s?. 0.854 194,0 W-3.24 3697. 17 209 0,77 0,w 0.6% 1.941 1,0 0.2 03

1
187 45.4 225.5 5244.En 971.7
5 Y7.4.28 45.47 0,695 106.0 390.n 4322.00 1.09 203 o.M 0.454 1s19 Lo oA oA
la 4s.s 231.4 479257 2323.7s 2127.10 l%.65 0.%8 68.0 727.71 .40s288 1.39 021 o.00 0.736 2428 0.7 0,2 0.!4
189 46.9 99.5 1644.75 36276 236,18 !29.B 0.959 77.0 227.71 1380.
78 2.40 13.00 L24 0.773 1.174 13 0,7 0.7
190 47.0 140.0 2317.89 121,8
1 30.76 91.0s 1.7m 71.6 34.57 147.94 Ln !0.53 0,00 13W 1.129 1.8 1.0 I,1
191 49,2 172,4 3769.59 1617.27 14343 2 162,95 0.928 64,4 114,
3s 3161 .87 031 6.06 0,w 0,$44 1313 Lo o.2 0.3
192 50,9 lm ,9 2658,w 367.4
8 23332 143.% 1,40$ 95.0 85.37 64138 4.03 z In z 13 1.103 1.241 0.8 0,4 0.4
193 51.0 226,8 5974.w 2387.14 2W3A6 406,64 O.M1 86.0 440.92 421031 1.44 om 0.cd 0.736 2.$05 03 0,1 0.1
194 53.0 237.2 5956.79 219133 2020,8s 160.45 0.883 86.0 154,A4 2626.16 134 o.S2 o,w 0.790 Z478 0.5 0,1 0.2
195 56.81 140.71 umA71 300,91 23U2 46JM 0.449 71,6 156.44 1170,47 0.26 2411 0J331 0JJ37 1.1s5 0.s o.4 0,4 131s3.0
==s
C3
cm
z
k!
Cin

388
 SPF28904

mxa

A
m
g

A
g4xo--
s
m --

0 m w w Km o ma 4m am axa
W9uRIa ljda) - (F4

Fig.1: Bubblepointpressure,bestcorrelationsfromliterature. Fig.2 Bubblepointpressure,presentwork

20m--
m . tEIa
m

m

$ ,X0--
a

E
~
~ lox-- 1.

W --

m
0.

0 X4 Icm Mm ZLm Zmr 0 m Ica Lwr am nm

NEJs4rn($2/ns) ImsJm (WnBl

Pig. 3: Solution 00~ best correlations from literature Fig. 4 Solution GOR present work

3r- -

4 .%
~
2r- - ,9
. IsEa

0 *
/

:rO- -
,. 9
%
>
~15- -
e **
$
10--
.

5- -

0 ,~
0 3 10 Is m u ro n 0 J 10 Lrm r5313r

Wslm (II*, 10E-S6) - (w LW4

Fig. 5: Isothermal compressibility, best correlations from literature Fig. 6: Isothermal compressibility, present work

389
 SPE28904 L

10X -
\

I
!
1
.... .. . . . .. .....- .p-......n....
~J
-.-.-.,., m --
1

I , ,4
m
.. :< ~,%f~
_._,,., f..r.,..~ ...........~. ....-....
10 . .... .. ..w
.._-..&
II
.. ..._. 1

$% j 0-
- I

p
m
f
Al
........ .. .. . ..... ........ ... . .. .. . . . . . .. .
1 . . . . .. .. .... . ... .
~

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

1 -.-..,,.,,.....

7!
]
?,
I
61 -
I I
al m
al 1 10 lmr
al 1 10 m lm
- (d
~m [Q)

g. 7 Dead-oil viscosity,beat correlations from literature Fig 8: Dead-oiI viscosity, pres&t work

lLW .
,
I

lW

=~~id A.
.................. .....-.+.-...
.. .. ...... ......-
/
.........................{........... .. ....#4~,.,
.........................+
A AA
. . . .... . . . m --
I

..&.r . .......-..p ................

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,
.xi
.~.
,_,,,.,.,,,.,,,..,,.;
......
10

AI
1 ..-.--. ...----- 1- -

A, A
,
. .

@-l
>!i *.. !

, al
10 ml 19X
Lll 1 10 m ICa al 1
(q)
!4?.Lmn - [4

Fig. 9: Gas-saturated oil viscosity, beat correlations from literature Fig. 10: Gas-saturated oil viscosity, present work

ma Imr

rm- -
1

! 0- -

1- --

al -
al
al t 10 m Icm
al 1 10 m Im
!msrm(q]
!&lQJsm(q)

g. 11: Undersaturated oil viscosity, beat comelatiom from literature Fig. 12 Undersaturated oil viscosity, present work
 .
.,

SPE28904

al t 10 Im ml

- (d

Fig 13: Bubblepoint OFVF, best correlations f?om literature Fig. 14: Gas-saturated oil viscosity, best correlations
tlom literature (input dead-oil viscosity calculated)

6 -56.8
,., .. .. . .,,,,,,.,,,.,,, ,,. . . ..==
. __ ___
>31,1

10.22,3

<10

0 ?. 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Fig.15 Bubblepoint pressure corrdatiorx comparison of best results

6-s6.8
,. . .:,,.
>..,,. ............ ...
................. . .. .,
Pr.scat work
>31.1 .. ;.,.,,.,: :..,
... ,. ... X.,to,tu, odjo

/A,::e 22.3 -31.1

10-22.3

0 5 10 1s 20 25 30
Aver.,, .bs. [ute w,.,

Fig.16 Solution GOR correlatiorc Comparison of best results

-.
6 -56.8
,,..,.5 ,.. --.-. . . . .. . .. ... -.--. . -.

>31.1

:a::e 22.3 -31.1

10-22.3

C1O

Fig. 17 OFVF correlatiorr comparison of best results

391
 SPE28W14 -

0 s 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Aver*c. .bs.l. te err.r

Fig.18 Isothermal compressibility correlation comparison of best results

I -_ ?,,,..1 we,k
.

0 5 10 1s 20 2s 30 3s 40 4s 50 55
Averase ,bs,lute ,,,.,

Fig. 19 Dead-oil viscosity correlatiorr comparison of best results

6 -.$6.8

331.1

10-7.2.3

C1O

o 5 10 1s 20 23 30
Average absel. te wr.r

Fig. 20 Gas-saturated oil viscosity correlrdiom comparison of best results

6-s6.8

>31.1

:;, 22.3 -31.1

10-22.3

<10

Pig. 21 UnderSaturated oil viscosity correlation: comparison of best results

392
..

SPE28904

$0
M

04 4 ,~
(.10 10-m 2?3-w ) w Mkb (=11 lo-m 223-w ) ml NIMl
AHPm M Ran&

Fig. 22 Correlation for Pb, analysis on Agipssamples Fig. 23: Correlations for GOR analysis on Agipssamples

0.5
t
(=10
m

10-?23 223-w ) w uM
!%+=--=
(=10 lo-m 23 -w ) 31.1 NIdeb
Ml?m# MRarfc

Fig. 24: Correlations for OFVF, analysis on Agipssamples Fig. 25: Come.lationsfor Co, analysis on Agipssamples

<=10 IQ- 2?3 223-W ) WI 11M (=10 10-23 23-31.1 ) 31.I NIM
M Rm# Mkr@

Fig. 26 Correlations for pod, analysis on Agipssamples Fig. 27: Correlations for I.101,analysis on Agipssamples

(=10 10-223 -w
?23 ) w ii M
El Rsige

Fig. 28: Correlations for PO, analysis on Agipssamples