PYT Correlations for Middle

East Crude Oils

Muhammad All AI.Marhoun, SPE, King Fahd U. of Petroleum and Minerals

Summary. Empirical equations for estimating bubblepoint pressure, oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure, and total FVF for Middle
East crude oils were derived as a function of reservoir temperature, total surface gas relative density, solution GOR, and stocktank oil relative density. These empirical equations should be valid for all types of oil and gas mixtures with properties falling
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, Standing 1-3 published 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, GlasCi'4 presented correlations for calculating bubblepoint pressure, oil FVF, and total FVF from known values of
temperature, solution GOR, gas relative density, and oil API gravity.
A total of 45 oil samples, mostly from the North Sea region, were
used in obtaining the correlations. GlasCi' reported 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 Farshad 5 in 1984.
Standing used a graphic method and GlasCi' used both a graphic
method and linear 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 deals with PVT correlations exclusively for samples
of Middle East crude oils. However, they should be valid for all
types of gas/oil mixtures with properties falling within the range
of data used in this study. Moreover, this study evaluates the accuracy of Standing's and GlasCi"s PVT correlations, which are
shown in Table 1. Error analyses were done for this study and also
for Standing'S and GlasCi"s correlations to compare their degree of
accuracy. Finally, nomographs for bubblepoint pressure, bubblepoint oil FVF, and two-phase total FVF were constructed on
the basis of the developed empirical correlations.

Bubblepoint Pressure. The following general relation of bubblepoint pressure of an oil and gas mixture with its fluid and reservoir properties was assumed 1 :
Pb =f(Rs , 'Y g' 'Yo' T) . ............................. (1)

Table 3 shows the 160 experimentally determined 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 relation:

. .................................... (2)

where
Pb =
Rs =
'Y g =
'Yo =
T =

bubblepoint pressure,
solution GOR,
dissolved gas relative density (air = 1),
stock-tank oil relative density (water = 1), and
absolute temperature.

Bubblepoint Oil FVF. Oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure can be derived as a function of solution GOR, average gas relative density,
oil relative density, and temperature as follows:
Bob=f(Rs ' 'Yg' 'Yo' T) . ............................ (3)

The following 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*b
=0 . 256805 x 10 -2 R s0.742390",Ig0.323294",10- 1.202040
o

+ 1.63 x 1O- 3 T, ................................ (4)

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

where Bbb is an intermediate oil FVF value.

The bubblepoint oil FVF correlation (Eq. 4) was further refined
by applying the linear regression analysis on the same data. This
regression analysis yielded the following equation:
Bob =0.497069+0.862963 x 10 -3 T

PVT Correlations
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.

+0. 182594 x 1O- 2F+0.318099x 1O- 5 F2, ........ (5)

where

Copyright t988 Society of Petroleum Engineers

650

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

TABLE 1-PVT CORRELATIONS OF STANDING AND GLAS(I)

Standing
Pb = 18.2[(R s /,), g)0.83(1 00.00091 TF -0.0125,), API) -1.4).

Bob = 0.9759 + 12 x 10 -5 [Rs(')' gl')' 0)5 + 1.25T F )1.2.

Glas0
Pb = antilog[1.7669 + 1.7447 log P; -0.30218(log p~)2),
where
p~ = (R s/')' g)0.816 T?172')' AP7 989 .

Bob = 1.0 + antilog[ -6.58511 +2.91329 log B~b - 0.27683(log B~b)2),

where
B~ =

R s (')'gl')'0)0.526 +0.968T F
B t = antilog[8.0135 x 10 -2 +4.7257 x 10 -1 log B; + 1.7351 x 10 -1 (log B;)2),

where
B*-R (To.51
t -

0.3)

')'g

-1.1089

')'0

2.9xl0-0.00027IRs

TABLE 2-RANGE OF DATA

Bubblepoint pressure, psia
Pressure, psia
Bubblepoint oil FVF, RB/STB
Total FVF below Pb, RB/STB
Solution GOR, scf/STB
Average gas relative density (air= 1).
Stock-tank oil gravity, API
CO 2 in surface gases, mol%
Nitrogen in surface gases, mol%
H 2 S in surface gases, mol%
Reservoir temperature, OF

130 to 3573
20 to 3573
1.032 to 1.997
1.032 to 6.982
26 to 1602
0.752 to 1.367
19.40 to 44.6
0.00 to 16.38
0.00 to 3.89
0.00 to 16.13
74 to 240

Total FVF Below Bubblepoint Pressure. The following general

relation was assumed for the total FVF below Pb:
Bt=f(Rs "I g "10'

A verage Percent Relative Error. This is an indication of the relative deviation in percent from the experimental values and is given
by
nd

E r =(1/nd)

Bt =0.159579 x 10 -4 R~644516"1 g -1.079340

X"lg724874T2.0062IOp -0.76191O, ................... (7)

where B~ is an intermediate total FVF value.

A refinement to the total FVF correlation was done by further
applying linear regression analysis on the same data. This regression analysis yielded the following equation:

B t =0.314693 +0. 106253 xlO- 4 Ft +0.188830X 1O- 10 F?,

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

an experimental value and is defined by

where xes! and xexp represent the estimated and experimental

values, respectively. The lower the value of En the more equally
distributed are the errors between positive and negative values.
A verage Absolute Percent Relative Error. This is defined as
nd

Ea =(I/nd)

lEi I

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

and indicates the relative absolute deviation in percent from the experimental values. A lower value implies a better correlation.
Minimum/Maximum Absolute Percent Relative Error. After the
absolute percent relative error for each data point is calculated,
lEi I, i = 1,2 ... nd, both the minimum and maximum values are
scanned to know the range of error for each correlation:
nd

Emin = min lEi I

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

i=1

and
nd

Emax =

F =R 0.644516"1 -1.079340"1 0.724874T2.006210p -0.761910

E
i=1

..................................... (8)

where

E i . ................................ (9)

i=1

T. p) . ........................... (6)

Nonlinear mUltiple regression analysis was applied to develop the

following relation, which is based on the 1,556 experimentally determined two-phase total FVF:

max lEi I

................................. (13)

i=1

g o '

B t is in RBISTB.

Error Analysis
The statistical and graphic error analyses were used to check the
performance, as well as the accuracy, of the PVT correlations developed in this study and by Standing and Glas0.

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.
Standard Deviation. Standard deviation, sx' is a measure of dispersion and is expressed as
nd

Statistical Error Analysis. The accuracy of correlations relative

to the experimental values is determined by various statistical means.
The criteria used in this study were average percent relative error,
average absolute percent relative error, minimum/maximum absolute percent relative error, standard deviation, and the correlation
coefficient.
Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

s; =[1/(nrn-1)]

E?, ....................... (14)

i=1

where (nd - n -1) are the degrees of freedom in multiple regression. The symbol x represents Ph. Bob, or Bt . A lower value of
standard deviation means a smaller degree of scatter.
651

TABLE 3-SURFACE PROPERTIES AND EXPERIMENTALLY

DETERMINED BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURE AND BUBBLEPOINT OIL FVF

Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70

---

652

Bubblepoint
Pressure,

Bubblepoint
Oil FVF,

Pb

Bob

(psia)

(RB/STB)

GOR,
Rs
(scf/STB)

3,573
3,571
3,426
3,405
3,354
3,311
3,297
3,279
3,250
3,228
3,223
3,218
3,204
3,201
3,198
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
2,900
2,896
2,871
2,865
2,845
2,836
2,831
2,804
2,789
2,751
2,687
2,652
2,639
2,636
2,617
2,607
2,588
2,559
2,558
2,530
2,521
2,504
2,445
2,413
2,401
2,392
2,365
2,359
2,350
2,344
2,259
2,256
2,249
2,231
2,230
2,177
2,172
2,172
2,148
2,133
2,132

1.875
1.471
1.451
1.997
1.431
1.425
1.458
1.430
1.747
1.413
1.387
1.686
1.372
1.920
1.986
1.392
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
1.368
1.327
1.682
1.403
1.642
1.384
1.352
1.333
1.304
1.718
1.323
1.647
1.371
1.315
1.284
1.786
1.323
1.349
1.440
1.548
1.329
1.576
1.318
1.479
1.279
1.274
1.789
1.599
1.257
1.300
1.272
1.398
1.316
1.213
1.273
1.734
1.286
1.432
1.240

1,507
898
898
1,579
825
825
867
898
1,203
775
750
1,151
742
1,579
1,602
730
700
818
898
700
680
867
811
679
1,151
665
811
693
700
818
1,579
825
742
1,143
811
1,203
867
775
750
680
1,507
700
1,143
811
679
665
1,579
602
693
746
1,151
585
1,203
567
805
498
521
1,602
1,143
521
585
469
746
580
421
602
1,493
585
805
521

Average
Gas
Relative
,Density,

API
Gravity
at 60F,

'}'g

'}' API

(air = 1)
0.951
0.802
0.802
0.930
0.779
0.779
0.799
0.802
0.925
0.783
0.800
0.894
0.752
0.930
0.960
0.757
0.774
0.789
0.802
0.774
0.755
0.799
0.812
0.778
0.894
0.766
0.812
0.774
0.774
0.789
0.930
0.779
0.752
0.951
0.812
0.925
0.799
0.783
0.800
0.755
0.951
0.774
0.951
0.812
0.778
0.766
0.930
0.803
0.774
0.907
0.894
0.815
0.925
0.782
0.929
0.798
0.801
0.960
0.951
0.801
0.815
0.824
0.907
0.802
0.799
0.803
1.008
0.815
0.929
0.801

(OAPI)

Temperature,
TF
(OF)

39.3
32.7
32.7
42.8
34.2
34.2
35.4
32.7
40.2
34.4
32.0
39.9
32.6
42.8
44.6
33.1
32.2
34.2
32.7
32.2
29.7
35.4
36.5,
32.0
39.9
30.8
36.5
33.2
32.2
34.2
42.8
34.2
32.6
39.4
36.5
40.2
35.4
34.4
32.0
29.7
39.3
32.2
39.4
36.5
32.0
30.8
42.8
33.0
33.2
36.1
39.9
33.3
40.2
34.5
39.1
30.1
30.1
44.6
39.4
30.1
33.3
28.8
36.1
38.1
21.9
33.0
43.6
33.3
39.1
30.1

225
175
150
235
185
175
180
125
240
175
175
220
160
190
230
175
185
170
100
175
175
140
185
175
180
175
160
175
140
100
145
100
100
240
140
160
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
100
100
100
100
170
100
200
100
180
100
175
200
175
160
100
150
135
140
165
150
175
145
100
100
120
150
110

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

TABLE 3-SURFACE PROPERTIES AND EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED

BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURE AND BUBBLEPOINT OIL FVF (continued)

Number
-71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140

Bubblepoint
Pressure,

Bubblepoint
Oil FVF,

Pb

Bob

(psia)
2,124
2,035
2,016
1,990
1,988
1,981
1,962
1,928
1,912
1,890
1,847
1,834
1,824
1,766
1,641
1,631
1,630
1,603
1,480
1,477
1,472
1,437
1,405
1,405
1,378
1,377
1,367
1,292
1,282
1,265
1,230
1,205
1,193
1,180
1,180
1,159
1,153
1,137
1,095
1,094
1,061
966
874
854
847
804
697
696
642
601
584
545
518
515
508
477
444

421
408
392
370
368
343
331
327
293
290
263
261
255

Iournal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

(RB/STB)
1.406
1.272
1.452
1.222
1.375
1.226
1.354
1.228
1.257
1.259
1.387
1.425
1.344
1.533
1.313
1.397
1.203
1.387
1.280
1.327
1.267
1.226
1.165
1.259
1.250
1.210
1.347
1.238
1.291
1.229
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
1.141
1.132
1.215
1.102
1.097
1.220
1.191
1.114
1.125
1.163
1.096
1.110
1.169
1.173
1.045
1.098
1.148
1.099
1.124
1.125
1.078
1.080
1.059
1.108
1.079
1.093
1.086

GOR,
Rs
(scf/STB)
692
585
803
521
692
498
746
469
585
580
805
755
692
1,087
692
803
347
755
412
560
417
389
347
412
417
331
755
412
469
417
302
389
469
412
331
512
417
560
433
265
302
433
232
196
265
433
189
196
266
266
127
141
266
127
141
158
168
62
104
168
79
100
168
74
79
74
103
45

44
61

Average
Gas
Relative
Density,

API
Gravity
at 60F,

"Ig

"I API

(air = 1)
0.876
0.815
1.013
0.801
0.876
0.798
0.907
0.824
0.815
0.802
0.929
1.004
0.876
1.056
0.876
1.013
0.933
1.004
0.973
1.002
0.980
1.002
0.933
0.973
0.980
0.921
1.004
0.973
0.960
0.980
0.931
1.002
0.960
0.973
0.921
1.010
0.980
1.002
1.188
1.058
0.931
1.188
0.989
0.942
1.058
1.188
1.031
0.942
1.192
1.192
1.025
1.072
1.192
1.025
1.072
1.308
1.367
0.875
1.126
1.367
1.146
1.247
1.367
1.093
1.146
1.093
1.335
1.123
1.050
1.272

(OAPI)
41.9
33.3
36.2
30.1
41.9
30.1
36.1
28.8
33.3
38.1
39.1
39.3
41.9
38.0
41.9
36.2
26.1
39.3
31.0
38.6
31.2
28.2
26.1
31.0
31.2
28.4
39.3
31.0
36.5
31.2
28.9
28.2
36.5
31.0
28.4
37.0
31.2
38.6
31.2
22.8
28.9
31.2
27.2
32.1
22.8
31.2
27.9
32.1
37.3
37.3
25.1
27.5
37.3
25.1
27.5
27.1
30.5
31.6
27.4
30.5
23.5
26.0
30.5
27.4
23.5
27.4
25.4
21.8
30.2
26.2

Temperature,
TF
(oF)

185
100
160
85
150
100
100
100
80
100
100
170
115
100
80
100
165
125
180
150
185
150
100
160
160
160
80
130
155
130
160
80
130
100
100
100
100
74
190
185
100
150
160
175
100
100
80
100
165
145
160
155
105
120
130
220
205
170
160
165
185
205
125
160
145
120
155
190
205
160

653

TABLE 3-SURFACE PROPERTIES AND EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED

BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURE AND BUBBLEPOINT OIL FVF (continued)

Number
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160

---

Bubblepoint
Pressure,

Bubblepoint
Oil FVF,

GOR,

Average
Gas
Relative
Density,

Pb

Bob

R.

(psia)

(RB/STB)

(scf/STB)

'Yg

(air=1)

(OAPI)

Temperature,
TF
(oF)

246
240
238
236
236
231
214
214
211
205
186
186
179
174
174
163
161
148
147
130

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
1.039
1.083
1.047
1.032
1.062
1.041

45
61
44
61
80
45
61
44
61
39
61
29
39
29
46
26
29
29
26
26

1.123
1.272
1.050
1.356
1.297
1.123
1.272
1.050
1.356
1.251
1.356
1.185
1.251
1.185
1.105
1.182
1.185
1.185
1.182
1.182

21.8
26.2
30.2
25.4
28.5
21.8
26.2
30.2
25.4
19.4
25.4
23.6
19.4
23.6
38.9
29.2
23.6
23.6
29.2
29.2

160
140
165
190
155
130
100
125
160
160
130
190
120
160
100
200
130
100
160
120

The assumption of normal distribution of errors allows establishment of confidence intervals for the estimated value. If
Xes~=Xexe.Z, ~en the confide~ce limits, z, in percent, are
sx-68.27, 2sx -95.45, and 3sx -99.73.
Co"elotion Coefficient. The correlation coefficient, r, represents
the degree of success in reducing the standard deviation by regression analysis. It is defined as 6

where
nd

X =(l/nd)

(xexpk ............................ (16)

j=i

The correlation coefficient lies between 0 and 1. A value of 1 indicates a perfect correlation, whereas a value of 0 implies no correlation at all among the given independent variables.
Graphic Error Analysis. Graphic means help in visualizing the
accuracy of a correlation. Two graphic analysis techniques were
used.
Crosspiot. In this technique, all the estimated values are plotted
vs. the experimental values, and thus a crossplot is formed. A 45
[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 are to this line, the better the correlation is.
E"or Distribution. The deviations, E j , for a good correlation
are e'fpected to be as close as possible to the "normal distribution."
The equation of a normal-distribution curve to fit any data set can
be derived by use of the mean and standard deviation of that data
set. 7 This technique involves presenting relative frequency of deviations in histograms and then fitting a normal-distribution curve
to it. The accuracy of the correlation is then judged by matching
the error distribution with the normal-distribution curve.

Comparison of Correlations
Statistical Error Analysis. Average percent relative error, average absolute percent relative error, minimum/maximum absolute
percent relative error, standard deviation, and correlation coefficient were computed for each correlation.
654

API
Gravity
at 60F,

'Y API

Table 4 presents the comparison of errors relative to the experimentally determined bubblepoint pressure of 160 data points
estimated from the three correlations. The correlation for bubblepoint pressure of this study achieved the lowest errors and standard deviation, with the highest correlation coefficient accuracy of
0.997, as presented in Table 5. Standing's correlation stood second in accuracy, with a correlation coefficient of 0.979. Glas~' s
correlation showed poor accuracy, with the highest errors and the
lowest correlation coefficient of 0.891.
Estimated bubblepoint oil FVF and the experimentally obtained
bubblepoint oil FVF for the 160 data points are given in Table 6,
along with the relative deviation for each data point. For bubb1epoint
oil FVF correlation, this study again achieved the highest accuracy, followed by Glas~ and Standing, as shown in Table 7.
A total of 1,556 data points used in developing the total FVF
correlation was sorted according to the percent relative error, and
51 data points were selected by taking every other 30 points to reflect
the accuracy. The selected 51 data points for total FVF with reservoir 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 statistical error analyses for the two correlations are presented
in Table 9. This study's correlation for total FVF obtained higher
accuracy than Glas~'s correlation.
Crossplots. The crossplots of estimated vs. experimental values
for bubblepoint pressure correlations are presented in Figs. 1
through 3. Most of the plotted points of this study's correlation fall
very close to the perfect correlation of the 45 [0.79-rad] line. The
correlations of Standing and Glas~ reveal their overestimation. According to Fig. 3, Glas~'s correlation showed much more overestimation than Standing's correlation ..
The crossplots for bubblepoint oil FVF correlations are given
in Figs. 4 through 6. Most ofthe plotted data points of this study's
correlation fall on the 45 [0.79-rad] line, indicating its high degree
of correlation, while the correlations of Glas~ and Standing reveal
their overestimation above a bubblepoint oil FVF of 1.5 RB/STB
[1.5 res m 3 /stock-tank: m 3 ].
The plotted 1,556 data points of this study's correlation for total
FVF fall very close to the perfect correlation of the 45 [0. 79-rad]
line (see Fig. 7). On the other hand, the plotted 1,556 data points
of Glas~' s correlation scattered above or below the 45 [0. 79-rad]
line, as presented in Fig. 8.
Error Distribution. Error distribution histograms with overlaid
normal-distribution curve for the bubblepoint pressure correlations
Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

TABLE 4-COMPARISON OF BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURES ESTIMATED

BY CORRELATIONS FROM THIS STUDY, STANDING, AND GLAS(I)

Number
--

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1;3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70

Experimental
Bubblepoint
Pressure
(psia)

3,573
3,571
3,426
3,405
3,354
3,311
3,297
3,279
3,250
3,228
3,223
3,218
3,204
3,201
3,198
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
2,900
2,876
2,871
2,865
2,845
2,836
2,831
2,804
2,789
2,751
2,687
2,652
2,639
2,636
2,617
2,607
2,588
2,559
2,558
2,530
2,521
2,504
2,445
2,413
2,401
2,392
2,365
2,359
2,350
2,344
2,259
2,256
2,249
2,231
2,230
2,177
2,172
2,172
2,148
2,133
2,132

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

Estimated Bubblepoint
Pressure (psia)
This
Glas/)
Study
Standing

3,540
3,446
3,267
3,650
3,398
3,329
3,248
3,090
3,213
3,141
3,085
3,211
3,293
3,340
3,332
3,286
3,177
3,196
2,916
3,112
3,352
2,982
2,974
3,027
2,963
3,143
2,822
3,031
2,887
2,734
3,037
3,817
2,877
2,984
2,701
2,735
2,721
2,658
2,611
2,837
2,709
2,634
2,760
2,465
2,562
2,660
2,741
2,541
2,566
2,364
2,482
2,458
2,389
2,513
2,257
2,399
2,384
2,526
2,486
2,257
2,256
2,173
2,129
2,277
2,345
2,173
2,231
2,157
2,033
2,132

4,236
3,452
3,275
4,141
3,222
3,155
3,143
3,107
3,611
2,964
3,037
3,463
3,018
3,766
3,833
3,012
2,992
3,067
2,947
2,930
3,139
2,888
2,870
2,860
3,182
2,949
2,722
2,822
2,721
2,645
3,425
2,693
2,658
3,460
2,609
3,050
2,654
2,529
2,592
2,679
3,254
2,500
3,180
2,398
2,441
2,516
3,114
2,420
2,408
2,547
2,687
2,363
2,687
2,277
2,439
2,282
2,289
2,913
2,861
2,171
2,171
2,148
2,291
2,046
2,359
2,087
2,714
2,081
2,194
2,058

-4,484
3,940
3,845
4,404
3,658
3,626
3,594
3,735
3,841
3,423
3,512
3,785
3,539
4,264
4,181
3,478
3,427
3,550
3,604
3,396
3,651
3,450
3,289
3,322
3,666
3,430
3,210
3,273
3,273
3,254
4,090
3,309
3,276
3,686
3,139
3,600
3,264
3,119
3,203
3,332
3,959
3,094
3,579
2,966
3,025
3,126
3,858
2,841
2,979
2,883
3,331
2,743
3,334
2,657
2,780
2,691
2,741
3,667
3,415
2,661
2,625
2,579
2,743
2,395
3,107
2,590
3,417
2,555
2,644
2,567

Deviation in Percent
of Estimated Pb
This
Glas/)
Study
Standing

-0.93
-3.51
-4.65
7.20
1.32
0.53
-1.47
-5.76
-1.14
-2.71
-4.29
-0.21
2.77
4.34
4.20
3.35
0.71
1.31
-6.74
0.36
8.49
-2.75
-2.73
-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
4.70
-5.80
-1.72
2.78
7.09
-0.66
1.40
-6.23
-0.89
0.54
-0.98
4.66
-5.65
1.44
1.04
7.48
6.05
-0.09
0.02
-3.36
-4.56
2.10
7.70
0.06
2.72
0.42
-4.70
-0.D1

18.54
-3.32
-4.41
21.61
-3.92
-4.71
-4.68
-5.26
11.11
-8.17
-5.77
7.61
-5.81
17.64
19.87
-5.29
-5.15
-2.79
-5.77
-5.52
1.60
-5.81
-6.12
-6.44
5.03
-1.81
-7.44
-3.52
-6.21
-8.79
18.26
-6.22
-7.21
21.62
-7.99
7.73
-5.36
-9.31
-5.80
-0.29
22.69
-5.27
20.63
-8.38
-6.38
-2.78
21.70
-5.38
-4.82
1.04
7.32
-3.36
11.34
-5.17
1.95
-3.52
-2.98
23.97
22.05
-3.92
-3.77
-4.51
2.70
-8.26
8.34
-3.93
24.95
-3.13
2.84
-3.45

-25.50
10.32
12.23
29.33
9.07
9.50
9.00
13.91
18.18
6.03
8.98
17.62
10.45
33.19
30.73
9.37
8.62
12.53
15.25
9.51
18.14
12.52
7.58
8.67
20.98
14.23
9.16
11.89
12.82
12.21
41.21
15.26
14.35
29.55
10.70
27.15
16.40
11.83
16.43
24.02
49.27
17.24
35.78
13.32
16.03
20.79
50.77
11.05
17.74
14.36
33.03
12.21
38.16
10.65
16.21
13.78
16.21
56.05
45.70
17.81
16.38
14.67
22.96
7.41
42.72
19.22
57.32
18.95
23.94
20.40

655

TABLE 4-COMPARISON OF BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURES ESTIMATED BY

CORRELATIONS FROM THIS STUDY, STANDING, AND GLAS0 (continued)

Number

This
Study

Standing

71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
12a
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140

2,124
2,035
2,016
1,990
1,988
1,981
1,962
1,928
1,912
1,890
1,847
1,834
1,824
1,766
1,641
1,631
1,630
1,603
1,480
1,477
1,472
1,437
1,405
1,405
1,378
1,377
1,367
1,292
1,282
1,265
1,230
1,205
1,193
1,180
1,180
1,159
1,153
1,137
1,095
1,094
1,061
966
874
854
847
804
697
696
642
601
584
545
518
515
508
477
444
421
408
392
370
368
343
331
327
293
290
263
261
255

2,084
2,059
1,860
2,009
1,935
2,030
1,901
1,879
1,962
1,927
1,815
1,745
1,789
1,805
1,646
1,625
1,464
1,582
1,434
1,373
1,436
1,290
1,265
1,374
1,362
1,371
1,422
1,287
1,378
1,276
1,246
1,098
1,304
1,201
1,197
1,167
1,190
1,151
1,038
1,062
1,088
954
952
868
881
852
625
734
616
590
603
564
539
552
534
485
423
437
419
390
379
379
357
347
348
318
311
276
268
233

2,015
1,994
2,262
1,952
1,870
1,946
2,061
1,871
1,911
1,745
1,973
2,020
1,736
2,354
1,612
1,992
1,624
1,836
1,621
1,539
1,636
1,534
1,414
1,554
1,551
1,460
1,668
1,457
1,476
1,455
1,319
1,321
1,400
1,367
1,284
1,335
1,365
1,309
1,451
1,337
1,160
1,332
1,054
850
1,115
1,197
703
723
757
725
649
629
664
595
596
682
605
334
469
554
432
478
508
357
395
326
421
284
235
272

---

656

Estimated Bubblepoint
Pressure (psia)

Experimental
Bubblepoint
Pressure
(psia)

Deviation in Percent
of Estimated Pb

GlasG

This
Study

Standing

2,364
2,473
2,683
2,452
2,276
2,437
2,555
2,358
2,376
2,163
2,460
2,386
2,168
2,921
2,027
2,469
1,979
2,256
1,874
1,829
1,879
1,856
1,799
1,832
1,828
1,738
2,078
1,761
1,732
1,756
1,550
1,644
1,674
1,674
1,586
1,621
1,669
1,595
1,639
1,638
1,411
1,565
1,218
898
1,450
1,443
791
794
789
766
698
656
713
654
630
660
566
270
447
538
410
434
503
311
386
289
401
240
157
217

-1.87
1.17
-7.74
0.94
-2.64
2.50
-3.13
-2.56
2.61
1.96
-1.75
-4.84
-1.89
2.19
0.33
-0.38
-10.20
-1.33
-3.14
-7.04
-2.45
-10.21
-9.95
-2.18
-1.13
-0.46
4.04
-0.40
7.48
0.84
1.27
-8.92
9.31
1.75
1.48
0.67
3.24
1.21
-5.18
-2.90
2.57
-1.21
8.96
1.60
3.97
5.96
-10.40
5.51
-4.10
-1.88
3.34
3.46
3.96
7.26
5.04
1.64
-4.62
3.86
2.66
-0.51
2.53
3.10
4.15
4.91
6.56
8.47
7.26
4.80
2.76
-8.64

-5.14
-2.00
12.22
-1.91
-5.91
-1.75
5.04
-2.96
-0.03
-7.69
6.82
10.14
-4.80
33.30
-1.78
22.14
-0.35
14.53
9.54
4.19
11.12
6.76
0.66
10.58
12.55
6.01
22.05
12.80
15.17
15.01
7.25
9.65
17.34
15.85
8.84
15.18
18.36
15.09
32.49
22.23
9.36
37.90
20.54
-0.48
31.63
48.89
0.90
3.82
17.87
20.57
11.19
15.49
28.24
15.55
17.32
42.95
36.27
-20.68
15.06
41.41
16.82
29.91
48.02
7.85
20.92
11.34
45.29
8.04
-10.00
6.62

--

GlasG

11.31
21.54
33.10
23.21
14.49
23.02
30.21
22.31
24.28
14.45
33.20
30.09
18.85
65.41
23.50
51.40
21.38
40.76
26.63
23.86
27.64
29.18
28.04
30.42
32.63
26.24
52.03
36.29
35.12
38.83
26.01
36.44
40.33
41.82
34.40
39.85
44.75
40.29
49.69
49.74
32.99
61.97
39.38
5.20
71.22
79.52
13.50
14.11
22.87
27.52
19.51
20.31
37.58
26.91
23.96
38.43
27.40
-35.78
9.63
37.12
10.76
18.04
46.74
-6.16
18.05
-1.47
38.25
-8.71
-39.78
-14.71

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

TABLE 4-COMPARISON OF BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURES ESTIMATED BY

CORRELATIONS FROM THIS STUDY, STANDING, AND GLAS0 (continued)

Number

Experimental
Bubblepoint
Pressure
(psia)

141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
.158
159
160

246
240
238
236
236
231
214
214
211
205
186
186
179
174
174
163
161
148
147
130

---

259
223
247
224
258
242
204
226
210
201
197
175
184
165
170
149
154
144
137
125

265
260
214
282
314
248
237
195
263
227
245
170
207
158
136
130
147
136
117
106

This Study

Standing

0.03
3.66

6.60
12.08

0.01

0.03

0.28

10.40

48.89

79.52

16.020
0.979

29.983
0.891

4.536
0.997

GlasQl

-17.76
25.22

of this study, Standing, and Glasfl} are presented in Figs. 9 through

11. The error ranges of 15, 40, and 80% are used for this
study's, Standing's, and Glasfl}'s correlations, respectively. This
study's correlation has a mean almost equal to zero, while the peak
height of the normal-distribution curve for the Standing and Glasfl}
correlations are at about 7 and 18 % error, indicating overestimation by positively skewed error distribution.
Error distribution for this study's correlation for bubblepoint oil
FVF is a normal distribution with a mean almost equal to zero (see
Fig. 12). Normal-distribution curves for Standing and Glasfl} are
given in Figs. 13 and 14. The mean distribution of Glasfl}'s correlation is fairly close to that of the correlation of this study, but Standing's correlation indicated its overestimation by a positively skewed
normal-distribution curve with a mean of about 2 %.
The range of error distribution for total FVF correlation for this
study is 15% (see Fig. 15), while the error of Glasfl}'s correlation ranges from -20 to +50%, as shown in Fig. 16. This study's
correlation distributed the error evenly across the entire range with
a mean of almost 0.0%. On the other hand, the normal-distribution
curve for Glasfl}'s correlation shows a positively skewed error distribution with a mean of about 8 %.

Nomographs
On the basis of the mathematically developed PVT correlations,
correlation charts have been developed for bubblepoint pressure,
bubblepoint oil FVF, and two-phase (oil/gas) total FVF. Those
charts are presented in Figs. 17 through 19. The standard procedures were followed in constructing nomographs. 9, 10
A nomograph 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

230
210
148
220
260
217
192
137
210
200
199
112
185
107
84
69
101
94
65
59

This
Study

Standing

5.23
-7.06
3.78
-5.28
9.22
4.92
-4.89
5.72
-0.50
-2.19
5.68
-5.68
2.53
-5.31
-2.40
-8.71
-4.18
-2.74
-6.83
-3.57

7.83
8.20
-10.10
19.40
33.01
7.17
10.63
-9.01
24.68
10.96
31.98
-8.73
15.72
-9.27
-21.67
-20.34
-8.88
-7.97
-20.17
-18.56

GlasQl

-6.69
-12.53
-37.78
-6.70
10.03
-5.92
-10.31
-35.90
-0.28
-2.42
7.05
-39.63
3.48
-38.53
-51.48
-57.61
-37.39
-36.82
-56.01
-54.35

forward in determining Pb. Bob. and Bt . 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 relative
error, %
Standard deviation, %
Correlation coefficient

Deviation in Percent
of Estimated Pb

Estimated Bubblepoint
Pressure (psia)
This
Study Standing
GlasQl

Conclusions
1. PVT correlations for Middle East oil and gas mixtures have
been developed. Eqs. 2, 5, and 8 form the basis for calculating
the bubblepoint pressure, oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure, and total FVF below bubblepoint pressure. Moreover, the nomographs
constructed in this study are an alternative solution without reducing the accuracy achievable by using Eqs. 2, 5, and 8 in a much
easier manner.
2. Eqs. 2, 5, and 8 were developed specifically for Middle East
oil and gas mixtures but can be used for estimating the same PVT
parameters for all types of oil and gas mixtures with properties falling within the range of data used in this study.
3. Deviations from experimentally determined data, indicated as
average percent relative errors, average absolute percent relative
errors, and the standard deviations, were lower for this study than
for estimations based on the correlations of Standing and Glasfl}.
4. The correlation coefficients of the correlations of this study
that were based on the Middle East oil samples are closer to 1 than
those of Standing and Glasfl}.
5. The PVT correlations can be placed in the following order
with respect to their accuracy: (1) for bubblepoint pressure, this
study, Standing, and Glasfl}; (2) for bubblepoint oil FVF, this study,
Glasfl}, and Standing; and (3) for total FVF, this study and Glasfl}.

Nomenclature

a=
a=

(n + 1) vector

least-squares solution to the system Xa= y

Bob = oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure, RBISTB

[res m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
B~b = intermediate value for Bob
Bt = total oil FVF below bubblepoint pressure, RBISTB

Bf =

E
Ea
Ej
Er

=
=
=
=
f =
F =

[res m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
intermediate value for B t
error
average absolute relative error, Eq. 11, %
percent relative error, Eq. 10
average relative error, Eq. 9, %
function
correlation parameter, Eq. 5

657

TABLE 6-COMPARISON OF BUBBLEPOINT OIL FVF's ESTIMATED

BY CORRELATIONS FROM THIS STUDY, STANDING, AND GLAS0

Number

Experimental
Bubblepoint
Oil FVF
(RB/STB)

This
Study

Standing

GlasG

Deviation in Percent
of Estimated Bob
This
Study
GlasG
Standing

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70

1.875
1.471
1.451
1.997
1.431
1.425
1.458
1.430
1.747
1.413
1.387
1.686
1.372
1.920
1.986
1.392
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
1.368
1.327
1.682
1.403
1.642
1.384
1.352
1.333
1.304
1.718
1.323
1.647
1.371
1.315
1.284
1.786
1.323
1.349
1.440
1.548
1.329
1.576
1.318
1.479
1.279
1.274
1.789
1.599
1.257
1.300
1.272
1.398
1.316
1.213
1.273
1.734
1.286
1.432
1.240

1.857
1.457
1.436
1.920
1.436
1.427
1.458
1.414
1.716
1.408
1.393
1.663
1.370
1.881
1.954
1.380
1.377
1.422
1.392
1.368
1.350
1.423
1.444
1.360
1.629
1.349
1.422
1.368
1.338
1.361
1.843
1.363
1.318
1.689
1.405
1.647
1.389
1.343
1.328
1.285
1.749
1.303
1.655
1.371
1.295
1.284
1.804
1.330
1.303
1.443
1.560
1.333
1.595
1.320
1.485
1.283
1.280
1.842
1.611
1.259
1.299
1.263
1.400
1.337
1.211
1.269
1.793
1.282
1.442
1.237

2.016
1.514
1.496
2.073
1.476
1.468
1.503
1.477
1.811
1.442
1.430
1.748
1.403
2.037
2.109
1.409
1.403
1.464
1.459
1.396
1.378
1.474
1.480
1.386
1.717
1.374
1.462
1.394
1.372
1.413
2.000
1.414
1.361
1.780
1.448
1.749
1.445
1.389
1.377
1.326
1.916
1.344
1.749
1.419
1.334
1.322
1.964
1.348
1.341
1.478
1.656
1.348
1.703
1.330
1.524
1.293
1.295.
2.003
1.711
1.278
1.320
1.274
1.442
1.344
1.228
1.299
1.950
1.307
1.487
1.261

1.944
1.480
1.466
1.992
1.440
1.435
1.469
1.452
1.756
1.409
1.397
1.700
1.372
1.968
2.025
1.376
1.369
1.431
1.438
1.363
1.345
1.447
1.446
1.353
1.678
1.341
1.432
1.361
1.344
1.392
1.943
1.393
1.339
1.728
1.421
1.712
1.424
1.368
1.355
1.304
1.875
1.322
1.706
1.399
1.312
1.300
1.918
1.315
1.320
1.442
1.633
1.314
1.678
1.296
1.488
1.259
1.264
1.954
1.678
1.251
1.293
1.242
1.414
1.311
1.199
1.278
1.908
1.282
1.460
1.237

-0.98
-0.94
-1.06
-3.84
0.34
0.16
-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
-2.69
-1.04
-0.26
-0.51
-0.40
-0.67
0.43
0.16
0.30
0.33
-0,67
":0,39
-1.42
1.79
-1.48
0.46
-0.02
-1.53
0.01
1.00
0.49
-3.38
0.23
0.77
0.33
1.22
0.14
0.41
0.33
0.48
2.94
0.78
0.12
-0.09
-0.72
0.16
1.58
-0.14
-0.30
3.30
-0.35
0.69
-0.24

---

658

Estimated Bubblepoint
Oil FVF (RB/STB)

7.53
2.92
3.08
3.82
3.11
3.04
3.10
3.32
3.69
2.06
3.08
3.68
2.26
6.07
6.19
1.24
1.41
2.57
3.43
1.48
1.36
3.81
2.45
LOS

4.96
2.56
2.90
-0.87
1.46
3.55
8.00
3.39
2.55
5.85
3.20
6.52
4.42
2.71
3.27
1.71
11.51
1.57
6.22
3.51
1.41
2.98
9.97
1.86
-0.57
2.63
6.98
1.43
8.05
0.89
3.04
1.07
1.64
11.98
6.99
1.67
1.57
0.15
3.13
2.12
1.24
2.08
12.43
1.61
3.86
1.71

3.69
0.63
1.05
-0.23
0.66
0.70
0.75
1.56
0.54
-0.28
0.71
0.84
-0.01
2.49
1.98
-1.16
-1.11
0.30
1.94
-0.94
-1.12
1.88
0.06
-1.34
2.55
0.07
0.78
-3.23
-0.60
2.01
4.92
1.85
0.91
2.74
1.28
4.24
2.92
1.15
1.69
0.01
9.15
-0.06
3.57
2.02
-0.24
1.26
7.41
-0.58
-2.18
0.16
5.47
-1.10
6.47
-1.64
0.63
-1.55
-0.81
9.24
4.92
-0.52
-0.56
-2.36
1.18
-0.38
-1.19
0.37
10.01
-0.31
1.98
-0.21

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

TABLE 6-COMPARISON OF BUBBLEPOINT OIL FVF's ESTIMATED

BY CORRELATIONS FROM THIS STUDY, STANDING, AND GLAS(/) (continued)

Number
71

72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
.89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140

Estimated Bubblepoint
Oil FVF (RB/STB)

Experimental
Bubblepoint
Oil FVF
(RB/STB)

This
Study

Standing

Glase

1.406
1.272
1.452
1.222
1.375
1.226
1.354
1.228
1.257
1.259
1.387
1.425
1.344
1.533
1.313
1.397
1.203
1.387
1.280
1.327
1.267
1.226
1.165
1.259
1.250
1.210
1.347
1.238
1.291
1.229
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
1.141
1.132
1.215
1.102
1.097
1.220
1.191
1.114
1.125
1.163
1.096
1.110
1.169
1.173
1.045
1.098
1.148
1.099
1.124
1.125
1.078
1.080
1.059
1.108
1.079
1.093
1.086

1.419
1.264
1.453
1.215
1.388
1.219
1.357
1.207
1.247
1.272
1.399
1.448
1.358
1.558
1.328
1.402
1.216
1.410
1.269
1.333
1.277
1.230
1.160
1.252
1.255
1.207
1.371
1.226
1.284
1.229
1.195
1.170
1.262
1.200
1.155
1.263
1.203
1.267
1.306
1.199
1.144
1.271
1.164
1.163
1.126
1.228
1.077
1.098
1.209
1.191
1.113
1.119
1.157
1.079
1.097
1.191
1.188
1.087
1.105
1.154
1.111
1.143
1.119
1.087
1.076
1.053
1.103
1.094
1.108
1.082

1.435
1.293
1.511
1.245
1.410
1.242
1.406
1.231
1.280
1.292
1.451
1.490
1.385
1.671
1.360
1.467
1.221
1.457
1.274
1.352
1.282
1.243
1.179
1.261
1.265
1.210
1.425
1.241
1.293
1.245
1.195
1.197
1.276
1.221
1.171
1.288
1.225
1.300
1.320
1.198
1.157
1.292
1.162
1.151
1.145
1.259
1.093
1.106
1.202
1.189
1.108
1.115
1.164
1.085
1.100
1.173
1.173
1.080
1.100
1.148
1.101
1.127
1.123
1.083
1.078
1.060
1.101
1.086
1.094
1.079

1.402
1.271
1.483
1.224
1.382
1.220
1.387
1.208
1.261
1.271
1.433
1.460
1.363
1.650
1.344
1.450
1.190
1.435
1.241
1.325
1.248
1.214
1.157
1.231
1.235
1.179
1.410
1.215
1.264
1.219
1.165
1.179
1.251
1.200
1.149
1.269
1.204
1.284
1.287
1.164
1.136
1.266
1.132
1.120
1.124
1.239
1.078
1.086
1.172
1.162
1.082
1.088
1.143
1.065
1.078
1.135
1.138
1.055
1.074
1.119
1.072
1.093
1.101
1.059
1.056
1.044
1.076
1.058
1.063
1.056

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

Deviation in Percent
of Estimated Bob
This
Study

0.90
-0.61
0.10
-0.54
0.97
-0.61
0.22
-1.73
-0.79

1.04
0.85
1.64
1.06
1.65
1.14
0.33
1.06
1.63
-0.86
0.45
0.76
0.32
-0.46
-0.57
0.40
-0.24
1.76
-0.98
-0.56
0.01
0.63
-0.64
1.30
-1.32
-0.06
0.10
-0.39
-0.13
2.96
1.64
-0.72
2.09
1.08
1.93
-0.53
1.06
-2.23
0.12
-0.93
0.03
-0.08
-0.53
-0.53
-1.59
-1.13
1.86
1.29
4.00
0.63
0.49
1.07
1.71
-0.52
0.86
-0.34
-0.59
-0.44
1.40
1.38
-0.41

Standing

2.03
1.66
4.06
1.85
2.52
1.34
3.84
0.22
1.79
2.65
4.62
4.54
3.04
9.01
3.60
5.03
1.51
5.06
-0.43
1.88
1.16
1.37
1.22
0.16
1.19
-0.04
5.78
0.25
0.14
1.29
0.62
1.71
2.40
0.44
1.30
2.10
1.42
2.42
4.07
1.55
0.46
3.80
0.85
0.90
1.11
3.60
-0.78
0.79
-1.46
-0.14
-0.51
-0.92
0.08
-1.02
-0.92
0.33
0.00
3.34
0.15
-0.01
0.18
0.27
-0.15
0.49
-0.22
0.14
-0.66
0.62
0.07
-0.65

-Glase
--0.31
-0.05
2.14
0.19
0.53
-0.50
2.42
-1.61
0.30
0.94
3.28
2.49
1.41
7.63
2.35
3.76
-1.11
3.49
-3.02
..,0.13
-1.50
-0.97
-0.65
-2.23
-1.21
-2.58
4.71
-1.83
-2.09
-0.79
-1.95
0.13
0.38
-1.32
-0.58
0.53
-0.34
1.20
1.49
-1.32
-1.41
1.65
-1.73
-1.85
-0.73
1.99
-2.20
-0.96
-3.93
-2.42
-2.91
-3.28
-1.73
-2.81
-2.92
-2.89
-3.02
0.97
-2.20
-2.54
-2.46
-2.73
-2.15
-1.74
-2.21
-1.38
-2.93
-1.96
-2.73
-2.79

659

TABLE 6-COMPARISON OF BUBBLEPOINT OIL FVF's ESTIMATED

BY CORRELATIONS FROM THIS STUDY, STANDING, AND GLAS0 (continued)

Number
-141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160

Ft
n
nd
P

=
=
=
=
Pb =
r =
Rs =
Sx =
T =
TF =
x =
x=
X =
XT =
y =
y=
Z =
'YAPI =

Experimental
Bubblepoint
Oil FVF
(RB/STB)
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
1.039
1.083
1.047
1.032
1.062
1.041

This
Study
1.068
1.064
1.074
1.108
1.090
1.042
1.030
1.039
1.082
1.065
1.056
1.085
1.030
1.059
1.022
1.092
1.033
1.007
1.058
1.023

Standing
1.068
1.068
1.071
1.097
1.087
1.052
1.045
1.048
1.080
1.066
1.063
1.078
1.044
1.061
1.037
1.082
1.044
1.028
1.060
1.038

correlation parameter, Eq. 8

number of independent variables
number of data points
absolute pressure, psia [kPa]
bubblepoint pressure, psia [kPa]
correlation coefficient, Eq. 15
solution GOR, scf/STB [std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
standard deviation, Eq. 14
temperature, oR [K]
temperature, of [K]
independent variable, Eq. A-I
average value of x exp ' Eq. 16
ndx(n+l) matrix, Eq. A-3
transpose of matrix X
dependent variable, Eq. A-I
(n+l)vector
IXest-xexpl
(l41.51'Yo)-131.5=stock-tank oil gravity, API
[g/cm 3 ]

'Y g = average gas relative density (air = I)

'Yo = oil stock-tank relative density (water=l)

Subscripts
est
exp
max
min

=
=
=
=

estimated from correlation

experimental
maximum
minimum

Acknowledgment
I express my appreciation to Shamsuddin H. Shenawi for his contribution in the computer work and construction of nomographs.

References
1. Standing, M.B.: "A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of California Oils and Gases," Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1947)
275.
2. Standing, M.B.: "Oil-System Correlations," Petroleum Production
Handbook, T.C. Frick (ed.), SPE, Richardson, TX (1962) 2, Chap. 19.
3. Standing, M.B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems, SPE, Richardson, TX (1981) 124.
4. Glasc,!l, (J): "Generalized Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations, "
JPT (May 1980) 785-95.
5. Sutton, R.P. and Farshad, F.F.: "Evaluation of Empirically Derived
PVT Properties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils," paper SPE 13172
660

Glas()

Deviation in Percent
of Estimated Bob
This
Glas()
Standing
Study

1.047
1.048
1.048
1.068
1.064
1.036
1.034
1.034
1.057
1.045
1.045
1.051
1.032
1.041
1.028
1.054
1.031
1.022
1.040
1.027

0.30
-0.16
0.14
1.67
-0.05
-0.82
-1.65
-1.23
0.68
0.38
-0.24
0.89
-1.39
-0.22
-1.63
0.85
-1.35
-2.43
-0.41
-1.72

Estimated Bubblepoint
Oil FVF (RB/STB)

--

0.32
0.14
-0.13
0.68
-0.34
0.06
-0.16
-0.36
0.46
0.50
0.36
0.28
-0.08
-0.01
-0.21
-0.06
-0.25
-0.35
-0.22
-0.32

---1.72
-1.67
-2.24
-1.99
-2.52
-1.40
-1.21
-1.70
-1.71
-1.50
-1.28
-2.19
-1.29
-1.92
-1.07
-2.68
-1.56
-1.00
-2.11
-1.38

TABLE 7-STATISTICAL ACCURACY OF

BUBBLEPOINT OIL FVF CORRELATIONS

Average relative error, %

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

6.

7.
8.
9.
10.

This Study
-0.01
0.88

Standing

Glas()

2~ 17
2.32

0.05
1.88

0.01

0.00

0.01

4.00

12.43

10.01

1.180
0.997

3.386
0.965

2.559
0.982

presented at the 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Sept. 16-19.
Walpole, R.E. and Myers, R.H.: Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, McMillan Publishing Co. Inc., New York City
(1985) 373.
Dixon, W.J. and Massey, F.J. Jr.: Introduction to Statistical Analyses, Kogakusha Co. Ltd., Tokyo (1969) 66.
Leon, S.J.: Linear Algebra with Applications, MacMillan Publishing
Co. Inc., New York City (1980) 152.
Johnson, L.H.: Nomography and Empirical Equations, fourth edition,
John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York City (1966) 18-67.
Davis, D.S.: Nomography and Empirical Equations, second edition,
Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York City (1962) 137-210.

Appendix-Linear and Nonlinear

Multiple Regression
Linear. The basic concept of multiple regression is to produce a
linear combination of independent variables that will correlate as
closely as possible with the dependent variable.
A sample is of size nd on which the properties y, xl' Xz . 'Xn
are measured. The x's are the independent variables and the y is
the dependent variable. The linear regression equation of y on x's
can be written as
.
y=aO+alxl +azxz+ +anXn' ................... (A-I)

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

A-I can be written for any observation point i as

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

TABLE 8-COMPARISON OF TOTAL FVF's ESTIMATED BY CORRELATIONS FROM THIS STUDY

AND GLAS(I) (SELECTED DATA POINTS)
Average
Gas
Relative
Density,

Stock-Tank
Oil
Relative
Density,

Number

(scf/STB)

(air = 1)

(water = 1)

'Yo

Temperature
(OR)

Pressure
(psia)

Experimental
Total
FVF
(RB/STB)

1
31
61
91
121
151
181
211
241
271
301
331
361
391
421
451
481
511
541
571
601
631
661
691
721
751
781
811
841
871
901
931
961
991
1,021
1,051
1,081
1,111
1,141
1,171
1,201
1,231
1,261
1,291
1,321
1,351
1,381
1,411
1,441
1,471
1,501
1,531
1,556

90
93
530
1,037
472
749
41
178
240
392
742
352
1,037
628
392
55
730
814
55
508
1,037
1,037
676
352
24
1,091
729
1,091
730
1,044
1,091
814
27
1,453
41
735
729
575
814
735
152
310
1,432
35
1,432
662
373
1,044
635
1,367
742
1,453
685

1.247
1.335
0.815
0.951
0.801
0.779
1.123
0.942
1.058
1.188
0.789
1.002
0.951
0.876
1.188
1.356
0.929
0.802
1.356
1.002
0.951
0.951
0.907
1.002
1.182
0.925
1.013
0.925
0.929
0.894
0.925
0.802
1.185
0.960
1.123
0.812
1.013
1.010
0.802
0.812
1.367
0.937
0.930
1.251
0.930
0.757
0.973
0.894
0.774
0.951
0.789
0.960
1.004

0.898
0.902
0.859
0.828
0.876
0.854
0.923
0.865
0.917
0.870
0.854
0.886
0.828
0.816
0.870
0.902
0.829
0.862
0.902
0.832
0.828
0.828
0.844
0.886
0.881
0.824
0.844
0.824
0.829
0.826
0.824
0.862
0.912
0.804
0.923
0.842
0.844
0.854
0.862
0.842
0.873
0.896
0.812
0.938
0.812
0.860
0.871
0.826
0.864
0.828
0.854
0.804
0.828

664
614
579
699
619
634
559
634
559
684
629
669
609
644
684
649
609
634
619
533
609
559
609
539
539
559
559
619
659
639
699
584
649
559
589
619
679
694
634
599
664
619
694
684
604
634
639
639
599
684
629
689
539

295
200
200
1,200
1,200
1,615
100
690
400
950
1,000
600
1,400
1,400
1,050
160
1,400
1,600
180
820
1,700
1,500
1,200
700
80
1,200
1,200
1,600
1,900
1,800
2,000
1,600
100
1,215
20
2,000
1,600
1,800
2,200
2,000
160
1,000
2,400
140
1,000
2,665
1,400
2,600
2,400
2,715
2,800
915
300

1.166
1.276
6.842
2.733
1.598
1.823
1.329
1.192
1.522
1.391
2.616
2.124
1.866
1.643
1.316
1.259
1.557
1.959
1.091
1.341
1.650
1.540
1.746
1.300
1.053
1.937
1.411
1.919
1.498
1.898
2.084
1.732
1.380
2.232
6.137
1.524
1.698
1.437
1.646
1.460
2.579
1.383
2.188
1.411
3.350
1.399
1.267
1.571
1.331
1.938
1.408
4.993
4.238

GOR,

Rs

---

'Yg

The nd equations for the nd experimental measurements can be

expressed in matrix form as

1 xllx12'

. ,xln

1 x21x22 ..

. x2n

1.286
1.389
7.400
2.942
1.711
1.943
1.409
1.259
1.602
1.460
2.740
2.218
1.944
1.708
1.365
1.303
1.605
2.014
1.119
1.371
1.685
1.569
1.775
1.318
1.065
1.954
1.419
1.925
1.499
1.894
2.072
1.715
1.364
2.198
6.029
1.494
1.657
1.398
1.594
1.409
2.476
1.323
2.083
1.338
3.162
1.312
1.181
1.456
1.225
1.774
1.279
4.504
3.744

--

1.548
1.852
6.466
2.998
1.652
1.839
1.686
1.298
1.963
1.744
2.524
2.304
2.279
1.698
1.637
1.661
1.781
1.967
1.475
1.595
1.991
1.915
1.916
1.559
1.259
2.324
1.752
2.201
1.594
2.053
2.140
1.779
1.552
2.822
6.631
1.515
1.831
1.510
1.601
1.462
3.122
1.448
2.272
1.581
3.784
1.276
1.309
1.614
1.253
2.008
1.298
4.875
4.308

Deviation in
Percent of
Estimated B t
This
Study
Glas~

Y2

--

10.28
8.85
8.15
7.66
7.06
6.58
6.00
5.63
5.28
5.00
4.76
4.41
4.16
3.95
3.75
3.49
3.06
2.83
2.52
2.25
2.12
1.89
1.64
1.38
1.07
0.84
0.55
0.29
0.05
-0.19
-0.58
-0.94
-1.17
-1.50
-1.76
-2.01
-2.40
-2.74
-3.12
-3.50
-4.00
-4.36
-4.80
-5.18
-5.62
-6.20
-6.78
-7.33
-7.91
-8.44
-9.16
-9.80
-11.65

32.74
45.12
-5.50
9.72
3.33
0.84
26.88
8.87
28.99
25.44
-3.49
8.50
22.12
3.31
24.44
31.97
14.37
0.41
35.14
18.92
20.66
24.35
9.73
19.89
19.55
19.94
24.21
14.70
6.38
8.16
2.69
2.74
12.44
26.43
8.05
-0.59
7.85
5.03
-2.71
0.17
21.03
4.71
3.85
12.06
12.96
-8.73
3.31
2.72
-5.83
3.59
-7.81
-2.36
1.66

TABLE 9-STATISTICAL ACCURACY OF

TOTAL FVF CORRELATIONS
This Study

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

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

Estimated
Total FVF
(RB/STB)
This
Study Glas~

Average relative error, %

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

0.14
4.11

Glas~

-8.32
10.52

0.00

0.00

11.65

50.45

4.940
0.994

14.260
0.971

661

o
.,-------------------------------------------~

o
.,---------------------------------~~------~

..

II
Do

Do

o
o
o

o
o
o

..

...

.."
.....
:>

"

..
Do

...

..."...'" .
.." ..
.
....

Do
Z

Do

.....

:>

:>

.... ..
...

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

o
o

0.10

1.10

2.70

3.10

4.50

1.80

EXPERIMENTAL IU.ILE POINT PRESSURE (1000 PSI)

Fig. 1-Crossplot for bubblepolnt pressure (this study's correlation).

o
o

...
":>
...

..
"Do

.
.....

...
...> ..

...
o

..J

..
o
N

n.

III
Ill.

l&J
..J

:l ..

III

0
l&J

.... ..
.....

....

..
s ..

....

VI
l&J

1.10

2.70

3.10

4.50

EXPERIMENTAL IU LE POINT PRESSURE (1000 PSI)

Fig. 2-Croaaplot for bubblepolnt pre88ure (Standing correlation).

662

..

0"

Do

....

z
o

:>

4.50

..

.-r----------------------------------------------~

3.10

Fig. 3-Cro88plot for bubblepolnt pre88ure (Gla.. correlation).

II
Do

2.70

EXPERIMENTAL IUtllE POINT PRESSURE (1000 PSI)

1.00

1.24

1.48

, .72

1.

I'

EXPERIWENTAL BUBBLE POINT OIL

2.20

FVF

Fig. 4-Cro88plot for bubblepolnt 011 FVF (this study's correlation).

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

...
0

o.-__________________________________________
o

IL

>

IL

.
D

...J

.
o

...
Z

IL ..

>

IL

...
0-

...J

n.
IU
...J

m
m
::l

...<

IU

<
~

...en

,0

...

...

o
w
...

< ..

...

::

0"

:!; ..,

...en

.....

IU
0
0

o
1.00

, .24

1.4.

EXPERIMENTAL

, . e
POINT OIL

1 .72

BUBBLE

o
2.20

FVF

1.00

2.40

l.80

5.20

EXPERIMENTAL

Fig. 5-Crossplot for bubblepolnt 011 FVF (Standing correlation).

TOTAL

6.60

8.00

FVF

Fig. 7-Crossplot for total FVF (this study's correlation).

o-.--____________________________________________
o

0
N

..

IL

>

IL

...J

...

..
o

IL

...z
0

...

...J

...<
...

0-

n.

::l

<

.;

....

...

< ..
:!; ..,

...w

. :' .:.:~ ....

.. ,' ' .

::

0"

w
...J

m
m

..

>

IL

f-

en

:C.

..

.:.

'

:!; N

...en -

. ."

..:....

.~~

..:.~

o
o

0
0

1.00

1 .24

1.48

EXPERIMENTAL

1 .72

BUBBLE

1 . g6

POINT OIL

2.20

FVF

Fig. 6-Crossplot for bubblepolnt 011 FVF (Gla" correlation).

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

1 .00

2.40

l.BO

EXPERIMENTAL

5.20

TOTAL

6. 60

8.00

FVF

Fig. 8-Crossplot for total FVF (Glas. correlation).

663

..

~.

>

-I .... -II."

-....

-I."

-J."

'.1'

I.a.

....

I."

11."

-J."

IS."

-2 .1

-1."

-1.20

RElATIVE ERROR (I)

-....

'.It

I."

1.20

1. ..

2.41

J.OI

RElATIVE ERROR (I)

Fig. 9-Error distribution for bubblepolnt pressure (this

study's correlation).

Fig. 12-Error distribution for bubblepolnt 011 FVF (this study's

correlation).

.-

,.

... .

~-

~>

>
u

z
w

,.
o

o
w.

w.

~.

-41."

-II."

-14."

-II."

-....

....

..01

II.It

24.10

n.1O

-10.0'

4t,to

-1.10

.,...

-4."

-!,IO

'.It

1.11

4.'1

'.01

'.DI

1O.1t

RElATIVE ERROR (I)

RElATIVE ERROR (I)

Fig. 10-Error distribution for bubblepolnt pressure (StandIng correlation).

Fig. 13-Error distribution for bubblepolnt 011 FVF (Standing

correlation) .

..
~.

..

>

>

~.

,.
o
.. .

,.
o
w.
.. .

w~
~

-II." -..... -fl." -n."

-11."

....

11."

12."

4....

..... .....

RElATIVE ERROR (I)

Fig. 11-Error distribution for bubblepolnt pressure (Glas.

correlation).
664

-10." -I."

....

-4.10

-I."

'.0'

2.01

4.'1

'.00

1.00

1....

RElATIVE ERROR (I)

Fig. 14-Error distribution for bubblepoint 011 FVF (Glas. correlation).

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

0 0

~o

,.
u

H
0 0
Wo

..
o

-n."

-11."

-I."

-....

-I."

'.0'

J.DI

'.11

1.11

12."

11."

RELATIVE ERROR (I)

-II."

Fig. 15-Error distribution for total FVF (this study's correlation).

Rs

Al

-'I,"

-.....

-20."

-II."

'.01
11."
RELATIVE ERROR (I)

II."

n.'1

.....

II."

Fig. 16-Error distribution for total FVF (Glas. correlation).

1\2

3000
3000
2000

2000
Yg

0.5
1000
800

boe
400
300
200

1000
800
0.6

\ ~:..'~-I!:
0.9

60
40

600

6000
4000

400

--2000 - - -

300
---}_..

1000
600
400

100
80

Pb
10000

200
1.0

50

0.9

--------

<00

,,

SOD)
Y

~~-l!:~--~-

600

700

---

0.8

0.8

2.0

0.7

80
60

0.6

40

0.5

1.1
1.2

30

30

1.3

20

1.4

Example
20

1.5
Example
10

t. ........
\
Yg
,1.5
,
1.0

100
0.7

A4

\',,~

1~2

0.8

100

,Estimate bubble point pressure at 2400 F of a reservoir

'fluid with GDR 1203 SCF/STB. average gas relative density
of 0.925 and stock tank oil relative density of 0.824.
Determined Pb is 3300 pSia.

Estimate formation volume factor at 2400 F of a bubble point

liquid with GaR 1203 SCF/STB. average gas relative density
of 0.925 and stock tank oil relative density of 0.824.
Determi ned Bob is 1. 77 .

10

Fig. 18-Correlatlon chart for bubblepolnt 011 FVF.

Fig. 17-Correlatlon chart for bubblepolnt pressure.

Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988

665

RS

A6

it = (XTX) -I XT y.

A7

............................... (A-5)

3000
2000

AS
20
Yg

30
40

0.5
400

0.6

300

~0.7_

'
200

........

0.8 ....

0.9
1.0
100
80

1.2

Yo

-'l roo
._-

"',!l.S

2"::

0.8

80
100

B
t

10
8

600

200

"'"

300
400

'

0.7

Eq. A-6 can be reduced to linear form by logarithmic transformation:

log Bt = log aO+al log Rs+az log 'Yg+a3 log 'Yo

500 "',

~"''''', ....-.,
4

1.5
40
30

........ ...

600
800
1000

+a4 log T+a5logp ....................... (A-7)

or

2000
3000

20

4000
Example
Estimate two phase (oil-gas) total formation volume factor
at 1850 F anci at the pressure of 1800 psia of a reservoir
fluid with GOR 628 SCF/STB. average gas relative density
of 0.B76 and stock tank oil relative density of 0.816.
Oetermined Bt is 1.67.

Fig. 19-Correlatlon chart for two-phase (oli/gas) total FVF.

where
y =
XI =
x3 =
x5 =

ao,

log Bt , ao=log
log R s ' x2 = log 'Y g'
log 'Yo. x4 = log T,
logp.

Eq. A-8 can be solved by the method of linear multiple regression, as mentioned earlier.

51 Metric Conversion Factors

or shortly as
Xa=y,

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

where Xis an ndx(n+l) matrix, ais an (n+l) vector, and yis

an nd vector.
Given an ndx(n+l) system of equations with nd>(n+l) as
shown in Eq. A-4, a vector for which X equals y cannot be
found. Instead, a search for a vector a for which Xais as close
as possible to yis the maximum that can be achieved. Such a vector is the least-squares solution. The unique least-squares solution
to the system Xa= y is 8

666

Bt=abRffl 'Y$2'Y:;3 T a4p a s . ....................... (A-6)

60

60

10

Nonlinear. Nonlinear multiple regression is achieved by reducing

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

API 141.5/(131.5+ o API)

E-Ol
bbl x 1.589873
OF (OF+459.67)/1.8
psi x 6.894757
E+OO
OR R/1.8
scf/bbl x 1.801 175
E-Ol

g/cm 3

m3
K
kPa
K
std m 3 /m 3

'Conversion factor is exact.

Original SPE manuscript received for review March 6,1985. Paper accepted for publication June 22, t 987. Revised manuscript received Oct. 1, 1987. Paper (SPE 13718) first
presented at the 1985 SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Bahrain, March 11-14.

Journal of Petroleum Technology. May 1988