Você está na página 1de 13

THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY

PAPER 99-38

Comparison of PVT Properties from


Equation of State Analysis and PVT Correlations
for Reservoir Studies
R. Wu, L. Rosenegger
Teknica Overseas Ltd.

This paper is to be presented at the 1999 CSPG and Petroleum Society Joint Convention, Digging Deeper, Finding a Better Bottom Line, in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, June 14 18, 1999. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if filed in writing with the technical
program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society
journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to correction.

ABSTRACT
Measured fluid properties from four reservoirs are used to
compare property prediction results using an equation of
state (EOS) method and different PVT correlations available
in the literature. These fluid properties include oil bubble
point pressure, oil formation volume factor, solution gas-oil
ratio, gas formation volume factor, and gas and oil
viscosities. It is shown that with properly characterized EOS
analysis, even without the use of regression, one can match
all the measured property values better than by using
correlations. It is noted that one correlation can generally
predict one or more of the parameters better than the other
correlations. However, no one correlation can match all
measured data consistently.
INTRODUCTION
PVT properties such as oil bubble point pressure, oil
formation volume factor, solution gas-oil ratio, gas formation
volume factor, and gas and oil viscosities are required for
reservoir studies. However, they are not always available or
only an incomplete data set may be available. Hence,
engineers have to use either an equation of state (EOS)

method or a set of correlations to complete the data set to


conduct the particular study.
The literature has many comparative studies of equations
of state(1-2) and many papers on correlations for calculating
PVT properties(3-7). In this paper we compare results from
one EOS analysis to a number of available correlations. The
EOS used in this study is the Peng-Robinson EOS (PREOS),
from a commercially available PVT package. The PREOS is
a cubic EOS that is commonly used in the petroleum industry
and is derived from a van der Waal type equation of state.
The PREOS originally contained two parameters that
represent the attractive pressure term and the thermal
repulsive term respectively. To improve the volumetric phase
behavior prediction accuracy, a third parameter is usually
added (PRF shifting factor). The PREOS is a semi-empirical
equation, requiring some PVT property data to determine
these parameters before one can use it for property
predictions.
PVT correlations are typically developed for fluid
properties(3-7) in a geographic region, such as for California,
Alaska, Gulf of Mexico and the Middle East, by fitting
available regional data. The first set of correlations was
derived by Standing(3) in 1942 for California oils and gases.

SUMMARY OF CORRELATIONS

The basic assumption was that the bubble point pressure is


a function of dissolved gas-oil ratio, gravity of dissolved gas,
density of stock-tank oil, and temperature. Later, other
correlations were obtained by regression to very similar
equations but using different data sets since the crudes from
different reservoirs or regions have different properties.
Therefore, these correlations may not be applicable to oils
other than those used in deriving the regression. Furthermore,
no one correlation provides all PVT properties required for a
reservoir study. Hence, one always has to use different
correlations for different properties. For example, in a recent
study of Alaskan crude properties(4), the Glaso(16) correlation
was used for bubble point pressure and the Standing
correlation(3) was used for oil formation volume factor while
the Beggs-Robinson(25) viscosity correlation was used for
dead and live oil viscosity.

The correlation equations used in this study are listed in


Table 1 and the authors names, together with the
corresponding literature citations, are given in the
References. They are grouped into two sets, one for gas
phase(3, 9-14) and one for oil phase(3-7, 15-26) properties. The first
two columns of Table 1, the fluid bubble point pressure (Pb)
and the oil formation volume factor (Bob) at Pb, are routinely
used in reservoir studies. Both Pb and Bob are also the basic
fluid properties and the starting point of calculation for both
EOS and correlation predictions.
1.

Gas Phase Correlations

The data required for gas phase properties in reservoir


studies are gas formation volume factor (Bg) and gas
viscosity (g). These two properties are functions of
composition, temperature and pressure. The gas formation
volume factor relates the volume of gas in the reservoir to
surface volume (generally at standard conditions, Tsc & Psc).
The basic equation for Bg is given in Equation 1 in terms of
the gas deviation or compressibility factor Z:

The purpose of this paper is to compare EOS results with


available PVT correlations using measured laboratory values
as a reference and then to provide some guidelines in
generating PVT properties for reservoir study.
EQUATION OF STATE CHARACTERIZATION

Bg = Psc* Zr * TrR / Tsc* Pr

A reservoir fluid is a complex multi-component mixture,


the properties of which depend significantly upon the
interaction of various components. Because every reservoir
oil has its own unique composition, these interactions vary
from one oil to the next. It is impossible to describe every
component in the equations. Hence, in order to use an EOS,
one typically groups heptane and heavier components into
one or a limited number of pseudo-components(8). The
procedure used to determine the interaction of these grouped
heavy ends to other pure components is called
characterization. The procedure in Reference 8 was used in
this study because it only requires the following three kinds
of measured data:

= C * Zr * TrR/ Pr ............................................................... (1)


The Z-factor(9-13) is a function of the pseudo-critical
temperature (Tpc) and the pseudo-critical pressure (Ppc) of the
gas mixture. If the separator or stock tank gas composition is
available, then Tpc and Ppc can be calculated by a molar
average mixing rule. Otherwise the Tpc and Ppc are correlated
to gas specific gravity (g)(9-10).
Gas viscosity (g) is needed for fluid flow behavior
description. Lee et als(14) gas viscosity correlation is used
widely and hence is considered in this study. The required
input data for determining Bg and g are g, reservoir
temperature and the range of pressure over which the
prediction is to be made.

(a) Reservoir fluid bubble point pressure (Pb) at the


reservoir temperature,

2.

(b) Three or four density and viscosity measurements above


Pb, and

Oil Phase Correlations

Oil phase properties such as oil formation volume factor


(Bo), solution gas-oil ratio (Rs), and oil viscosity (o) are
needed in reservoir studies. The oil bubble point pressure
(Pb) and Bob are usually used to calculate these oil phase
properties. In the literature, most correlations provide the Pb,
Bob, Bo and Rs parameters as a group and the oil viscosity is
treated separately.

(c) Reservoir fluid composition.


The purpose of item (b) is to improve the EOS density and
viscosity calculation for regressing (adjusting) the shifting
factors and the five coefficients used in the Lohrenz, Bray,
and Clark(21) (LBC) viscosity correlation respectively. For
fairness in comparison, item (b) was not used in this study
since correlations do not use these data. Hence, no shifting
factor regression or LBC coefficient regression was used in
this study during EOS characterization. Only the default
values in the commercial PVT package were used.

The basic form of different correlations for oil phase


properties are derived from Standings(3) initial equation as
follows:
Pb = f(Rs, g, o, TR)............................................................(2)

Therefore, the required data for input to all correlations


are Rs, g, o, and TR and a specified range of pressure. The
first three parameters, Rs, g, and o, are referred to either
separator or stock tank conditions for all correlations.

Figures 5 to 8 present the gas viscosity (g) results from


the EOS and Lees correlation, but no measured values are
included since g was not provided in the PVT reports. The
results show that the difference in calculated viscosity
between EOS and Lees correlation, for all reservoir fluids
except reservoir 4, is small for pressures below Pb.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION BASED ON


EXAMPLES FROM FOUR RESERVOIR FLUIDS

Based on the above results, one can conclude that (1) EOS
calculation can match measured Z-factors better than
correlations, and (2) EOS and correlations can both be used
to generate gas viscosity for reservoir studies.

The correlations used in this study were programmed in a


Microsoft Excel spread sheet using Visual Basic. The
required input is stated in Equation 2. The four reservoir
fluids from Reference 27 were used to compare the EOS and
the correlation results with the laboratory values. The
procedures for doing the EOS analysis are detailed in
Reference 27 and these are not repeated here. Table 2 lists
input data needed for the correlations from two wells of each
reservoir.

2.

To assess the accuracy of EOS and different correlations,


the calculated error is defined as

2.1 Bubble Point Pressures (Pb) and Oil Formation


Volume Factor at Pb (Bob)

Error (%) = (A - B) / B * 100.............................................(3)


Where; A = the quantity to be assessed, and B = the
reference (measured value in this case).

As shown in Table 2, the range of Pb used in this study is


from 377 to 5105 psia. This is a wide saturation pressure
range and covers most black oil case applications.

If the calculated error is less than 10%, then the result is


considered acceptable. Those correlations which yield
predictions within the acceptable range are listed at the
bottom of each calculated error table.
1.

Oil Phase PVT Property Results

Obtaining accurate oil phase properties is a very difficult


task and even the measurements can go wrong(27). It is
therefore important to understand the physical process before
one can use a set of results in a reservoir study. The
following is a discussion of the different results for the
various parameters, starting with Pb and Bob.

Tables 3 and 4 compare the EOS and correlation


calculated Pb and Bob with the measured values respectively.
The EOS is adjusted to match the measured Pb and hence it
was not included in Table 3. However, Table 4 includes the
EOS predicted Bob.

Gas Phase PVT Property Results

Gas evolves from the reservoir fluid when the pressure is


below the bubble point pressure (Pb). Hence there are no
measured values nor EOS calculated values for gas phase
(solution gas) PVT properties above Pb, but the correlations
can calculate properties over the whole range of pressures. In
this study, the assessment of the gas phase PVT properties is
limited to pressures below Pb only.

Tables 5 and 6 tabulate the calculated percent error in Pb


and Bob respectively. A row at the bottom of each table lists,
by number, the correlations within the 10% acceptable range.
The last row indicates the correlation number which best
matched the data.
Based on the correlation calculated errors for Pb, presented
in Table 5, the following comments can be made:

The results of Z-factor predictions are presented in Figures


1 to 4. In these figures, EOS and three correlation results,
Standing, Wichert-Aziz, and Dranchuk, are compared with
the available measured data. In all figures, Pb values are
posted as a reference to show where the measured data
stopped. Both EOS and correlation results match the
measured values within the acceptable range with one
exception; the correlation for well #1 of Reservoir 4. The
results also show that the EOS calculations match the
measured values better than do these three correlations. This
is because the EOS calculations and the measured values are
both based on the gas compositions from differential
liberation. Hence they agree well with each other. On the
other hand, correlations only use one gas composition,
generally at stock tank or separator conditions. Figures 1 to 4
also show that the three correlation results are very similar.

(1) The range of error is from 0.04 to 46 %, that is, the


correlation results are very scattered. Hence it is
important to know the measured Pb because Pb is the
basic parameter and the starting point for most reservoir
studies.
(2) The worst match is for Reservoir 4. This is related to
measurement problems as indicated in Reference 27.
(3) The Al-Marhoun correlation provides the best match
overall and the range of error for this correlation is from
0.15 to 7.6 % for Reservoirs 1 to 3.
(4) No one correlation best predicts Pb for two wells in the
same reservoir (i.e., for the same or very similar
reservoir fluids).

Using the results of Table 6, the EOS and correlation


calculated error for Bob, the following observations are made:

of Rs values and (2) EOS can predict Rs better than


correlations with proper adjustment of the shifting factors.

(1) EOS matches the measured values within the acceptable


range except for well #14 of Reservoir 4. As mentioned
previously, this is due to measurement error while
conducting the differential liberation experiments.

2.3 Oil Formation Volume Factor (Bo)


Figures 13 to 16 compare Bo values calculated by EOS
and by seven correlations with the measured Bo values for
four reservoirs. In this case, we did not calculate the errors
for individual values. Instead we looked at the trends both
above and below the bubble point. Based on this the
following observations are made.

(2) All correlations predict with an accuracy similar to the


EOS except for one or two correlations in a few wells.
From Tables 5 and 6 we conclude that; (1) the Pb must be
known to start with (e.g., lab measurements), and (2) both
EOS and correlations can predict Bob within an acceptable
accuracy range.

Bo Values Above Pb
All correlations and EOS calculated Bo values above Pb
match the measured values within the acceptable range
except for Reservoir 4. Since the equations used to calculate
Bo values above Pb are nearly linear, the accuracy of Bo
values above Pb is tied to the accuracy of Bob as shown in
Table 6.
Bo Values Below Pb

2.2 Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs)


Figures 9 to 12 compare the EOS and six correlation
derived Rs results with the measured values for the same four
reservoirs. The results show that Rs values at or above Pb
dominate the trend below Pb. That is, if one can match Rs
values at or above Pb then one can match the Rs values below
Pb. Hence only the Rs values at or above Pb are summarized
in Table 7 and then the calculated percent errors are tabulated
in Table 8. From Table 8, the following observations are
made:

The results of Bo values below Pb are more complicated, as


shown in Figures 13 to 16. In this case, Bob is not the
dominant factor as in the Rs case. The results of Figures 13 to
16 show the following features:
(1) The EOS consistently predicts the trend and values very
well compared to the measured values for all reservoirs.

(1) The error ranges from 0.17 to 40%. The worst match is
for Reservoirs 3 and 4. Reservoir 3 is a low GOR fluid;
the measured values ranged from 86 to 108 scf/stb.
Reservoir 4 had the measurement problem and thus
comparison is not valid.

(2) The Glaso correlation calculated Bo values below Pb are


very scattered and inconsistent. That is, the trend varies
from one reservoir to another.
(3) For Reservoir 1, the results from three correlations, AlMarhoun, Glaso, and Labedi, show that the Bo values
increase as pressure decreases below Pb. A similar trend
was observed for some wells of Reservoirs 2 and 3 using
the Glaso and Al-Marhoun correlations.

(2) The EOS is not within acceptable range for two wells,
well #2 of Reservoir 3 and well #14 of Reservoir 4.
(3) Labedis correlation predicts the Rs values within
acceptable range for all reservoir fluids, (i.e. the error
ranged from 0.17 to 6.52%). But, because Labedis
correlation uses separator properties, the Rs values must
be interpolated between separator and stock tank
conditions(28) (i.e., Rs=0 at stock tank conditions).

(4) Labedis correlation matches the measured values very


well for Reservoir 3 but Labedis correlation was not
included in the Reservoir 4 because the reservoir Rs
values exceed its correlation limitation (>2000 scf/stb).

(4) Standings correlation also predicts Rs very well. It only


failed for the last three wells and two of these were from
reservoir 4. The other four correlations do not show
consistent matching.

(5) It is noted that three correlations, Standing, Vazquez and


Beggs, and Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt, predict the trend
of Bo below Pb well for all reservoir fluids.
From the above observations, one can conclude that EOS
analysis can predict the Bo values more accurate than any
correlations for the entire range of pressures, both above and
below Pb.

It must be remembered that one can improve EOS results


to match Rs by adjusting the shifting factors in the PVT
package. In this study, this adjustment was not performed.
Overall, EOS can more accurately predict Rs values than
correlations even when no adjustment in shifting factors is
applied.

2.4 Live Oil Viscosity (


o)
Live oil viscosity (o) is generally calculated in four steps:
(1) dead oil viscosity (od); (2) viscosity at Pb (ob); (3)
viscosity at pressures above Pb; and (4) viscosity for
pressures below Pb. There are many different correlations for

From these observations, one can conclude that; (1) Rs at


Pb is an important value in determination of the whole range

each step(20 to 26), but there are only two correlations which
provide all four viscosity calculation steps (Labedi and
Kartoatmodjo-Schmidt).

PVT properties, one may have to use different


correlations for different properties. Some measured data
is needed to test the accuracy of the particular
correlations.

We first calculated od using all the available


correlations(22, 24 to 26). Then we selected a od value to
calculate ob and then selected the one od value which gave
the best match between calculated and measured ob. This ob
value was then used for o calculation over the appropriate
range of pressure for a particular correlation. The measured
ob values are given in Table 2. As mentioned previously,
EOS uses the default LBC coefficients to calculate o.

(5) The EOS calculated viscosity, using default coefficients,


can consistently match the measured values within the
acceptable range while no correlation can achieve a
similar result.
In generating PVT properties for reservoir studies, two
guidelines are recommended.
(1) When Pb and reservoir fluid composition data are
available, one should use EOS to generate the PVT
properties for reservoir studies.

Figures 17 to 20 compare EOS and correlation calculated


o with all available measured o from the four reservoirs
(except well #1, Reservoir 2). From these figures, we make
the following observations.

(2) One must know reservoir fluid Pb and a value of Rs and


ob or od to use correlations. This is so that one can test
the correlation prediction accuracy against the known
data.

(1) The EOS results match the measured values and are well
within acceptable range except in the region below the
separator conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

(2) The results from different correlations for pressures


above Pb match the measured values within acceptable
range except in well #2 from Reservoir 3.

The authors thank Teknica Overseas Ltd. for kindly granting


permission to present the results.

(3) For a given correlation, the match of o below Pb is


inconsistent from one reservoir to another. For example,
the Labedi correlation can match Reservoir 3 results
within the acceptable range but not the other reservoirs.

NOMENCLATURES
B
C
T
P
g
o

yi
xi
zi
Vf
Z

(4) The best correlation in this study is the Kartoatmodjo


and Schmidt correlation. It matches most wells within
acceptable range except for well #2 of Reservoir 3.
From the above observations, we conclude that the default
LBC coefficients in EOS can predict o within the acceptable
range. On the other hand, for a known ob, one can predict o
within an acceptable range for pressure above Pb but not for
pressure below Pb, depending on the correlation used.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

formation volume factor


constant equal to 0.0238 in field units and
temperature
pressure
gas specific gravity (air = 1)
oil gravity (water = 1)
density
viscosity
gas composition of component i
oil composition of component i
reservoir fluid composition of component i
gas vapor mole fraction
gas deviation factor

Subscripts

The following conclusions are made:

b
c
d
g
i
o
r
R
pc
pr
p
sc
sep

(1) Correlations or EOS can be used to obtain accurate gas


phase PVT properties, Bg and g.
(2) Different correlations yield a wide range of predicted Pb
values. Therefore, it is very important to know the Pb
value before using correlations or EOS to generate PVT
properties.
(3) Overall, EOS analysis requires only minimum input data
(Pb and reservoir fluid composition) to more accurately
predict oil phase PVT properties than all available
correlations.
(4) No one correlation can be used consistently for oil phase
PVT property calculation. In order to complete a set of

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

bubble point
critical properties
dead oil
gas phase
composition of component
oil phase
reservoir conditions
absolute temperature
pseudo-critical
pseudo-reduced
separator conditions
standard conditions
separator conditions

REFERENCES
1.

Fluids, J of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 4,


1990.

Perschke, D.R., Chang, Y., Pope, G.A. and Sepehrnoori,


K., Comparison of Phase Behavior Algorithms for an
Equation of State Compositional Simulator, SPE
19443, 1989.

2.

Ahmed, T.H., Comparative Study of Eight Equations of


State for Predicting Hydrocarbon Volumetric Phase
Behavior, SPE Reservoir Engineering Feb. 1988.

3.

Standing, M.B. A Pressure-Volume-Temperature


Correlation for Mixtures of California Oils and Gases,
API, 1942.

4.

Ostermann, R.D., Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and


Owolabi, O.O., Correlations for the Reservoir Fluid
Properties of Alaskan Crudes, SPE 11703, 1983.

5.

Sutton, R.P. and Farshad, F., Evaluation of Empirically


Derived PVT Properties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils,
SPE Reservoir engineering, Feb. 1990.

6.

Labedi, R. Use of Production Data to Estimate the


Saturation Pressure, Solution GOR, and Chemical
Composition of Reservoir Fluids, SPE 21164, 1990

7.

Al-Marhoun, M.A., PVT Correlations for Middle East


Crude Oils, JPT, May 1988.

8.

Wu, R.S. and Fish, R.M. C7+ Characteization for Fluid


Properties Predictions, The Journal of Canadian
Petroleum Technology, July-august, 1988.

9.

Standing, K.B. and Katz, D.L. Density of Natural Gas,


Trans. AIME (1942), 140.

19. Dokla, M.E. and Osman, M.E. Correlation of PVT


Properties for UAE Crudes, SPE Formation Evaluation,
March 1992
20. Kartoatmodjo, R.S. and Schmidt, Z. New Correlations
for Crude Oil Physical Properties, SPE 23556, 1990.
21. Lohrenz, J., Bray, B.G. and Clark, C.R.: Calculating
Viscosity of Reservoir Fluids from their composition,
JPT 1964 1171, Trans., AIME, 231.
22. Beal, C. A Viscosity-Temperature Correlation at
Atmospheric Pressure for Gas-Free Oils, Industrial Eng.
Chem Process Des. Dev. 1982, 21.
23. Standing, M.B. Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil
Field Hydrocarbon Systems, SPE 1977.
24. Chew, J. and Connally, C.A. A Viscosity Correlation
for Gas-Saturated Crude Oils, AIME 216, 1959.
25. Beggs, H.D. and Robinson, J.R. Estimating the
Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems, JPT Sept. 1975.
26. Labedi, R. Improved Correlation for Predicting the
Viscosity of Light Crudes, J. of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 8, 1992.
27. Wu, R.S. and Rosenegger, L.W.: EOS Oil
Characterization Aids Integrated Reservoir Studies,
CIM paper 97-05, presented at 48th Annual Technical
Meeting of the Petroleum Society in Calgary, 1997.
28. Private discussion with Dr. R. Lebedi, March, 1999.

10. Sutton, R.P. Compressibility Factors for High


Molecular Weight Reservoir Gas, SPE 14265, 1985.
11. Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, J.H., Calculation of
Z Factors for Natural Gases Using Equations of State, J.
of Cdn. Petr. Tech., July-Sept. 1975.
12. Wichert, E. and Aziz, K. Compressibility Factor of
Sour Natural Gas, Cdn. J. Chem. Eng. April 1971.
13. Wichert, E. and Aziz, K. Calculate Zs for Sour Gases,
Hydrocarbon Processing, March 1977.
14. Lee, A.L., Gonzales, M.H., and Eakin, B.E. The
Viscosity of Natural Gases, JPT Aug. 1966.
15. Laster, J.A.: Bubble Point Pressure Correlation, Trans.
AIME 213, 1958.
16. Glaso, O. Generalized A Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Correlations, JPT May 1980.
17. Vazquez, M.E. and Beggs, H.D. Correlations for Fluid
Physical Property Predictions, JPT June 1980.
18. Labedi, R. Use of Production Data to Estimate Volume
Factor, Density and Compressibility of Reservoir

Table 1 Available Correlations in PVT Properties Used in this study


Basic
No
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Correlation Name
Standing
Wichart & Aziz
Dranchuk & Abou-Kassem
Lee et al
Al-Marhoun
Glaso
Dokla & Osman
Labedi
Lasater
Vasquez & Beggs
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
Majeed & Salman
Beal
Beggs & Robinson
Chew & Connally

Gas Phase Properties

Pb

Bob

Bg

X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

Oil Phase Properties


od

ob

X
X

Rs

Bo

X
X

X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

13
14
15
An "X" means that the correlation is for the corresponding PVT property.

X
X

X
X
X

Table 2 Data Input for correlations


Reservoir
Well No.
Measured GOR (scf/stb)
Gas specific gravity
Oil API
Reservoir Temperature (F)
Separator Temperature (F)
Separator Pressure (Psig)
Additional Information
Bubble point pressure (Psia)
Oil FVF at Pb (rb/stb)
Oil Viscosity at Pb (cp)

N1
392
0.865
39
156
87
95

88
346
0.906
38.2
161
100
100

1
1658
0.841
40
271.4
120
295

8
1205
0.832
38.9
271.4
158
441

2
108
1.124
33.8
124
78
60

14
86
0.851
32.1
146
100
60

1
2250
1.185
47.9
295
220
655

14
2461
0.998
53.4
309
150
615

1387
1.247
0.881

1152
1.211
1.02

5105
1.9573
0.32

4244
1.6301
0.37

377
1.093
3.04

520
1.088
3.69

4000
2.542
0.104

4156
2.903
0.101

8
1205
4244
4264
4383
4363
3139
4220
4246
4682
4972

2
108
377
353
369
327
502
432
349
433
398

14
86
520
548
427
389
545
610
402
499
440

1
2250
4000
3003
4383
4419
3286
3488
3490
4709
5306

8
1.630
1.711
1.781
1.732
1.825
1.869
1.771
1.754
1.524
1.767

2
1.093
1.080
1.079
1.062
1.029
1.115
1.092
1.086
1.083
1.079

14
1.088
1.079
1.074
1.055
1.044
1.094
1.094
1.085
1.077
1.071

1
2.542
2.508
2.816
2.588
2.930
2.550
2.904
2.572
2.317
2.532

Table 3 Comparison of Bubble point pressure (Pb)


Reservoir
Well No.
Measured GOR (scf/stb)
Measured Pb Value
1. Al-Marhoun correlation
2. Standing correlation
3. Glaso correlation
4. Dokla & Osman correlation
5. Labedi correlation
6. Lasater correlation
7. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
8. Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt correlation

1
N1
392
1372
1396
1274
1477
1554
1283
1267
1416
1344

2
88
346
1152
1214
1155
1313
1364
1319
1132
1288
1229

1
1658
5105
5113
5453
5274
3927
4560
4683
5859
6336

4
14
2461
4156
4363
5120
5152
4329
3981
4180
5564
6054

Table 4 Comparison of Oil Formation Volume Factors at Pb


Reservoir
Well No.
Measured Bob Value
1. Al-Marhoun correlation
2. Standing correlation
3. Glaso correlation
4. Dokla & Osman correlation
5. Labedi correlation
6. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
7. Kartoatmodj &Schmidt correlation
8. Majeed & Salman correlation
9. EOS

1
N1
1.247
1.242
1.229
1.206
1.212
1.331
1.256
1.236
1.199
1.295

2
88
1.211
1.229
1.215
1.191
1.202
1.256
1.236
1.223
1.183
1.185

1
1.957
1.932
2.079
1.999
2.106
2.079
2.309
1.988
1.922
1.957

4
14
2.903
2.746
3.033
2.735
3.210
2.822
3.400
2.866
2.587
3.550

Table 5 Calculated Error for Bubble point pressure (Pb)


Reservoir
Well No.
Measured GOR (scf/stb)
Measured Value
1. Al-Marhoun correlation
2. Standing Correlation
3. Glaso Correlation
4. Dokla & Osman correlation
5. Labedi correlation
6. Lasater correlation
7. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
8. Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt correlation

Acceptable (within 10%)


Best match

1
N1
392
1372
1.76
-7.17
7.67
13.23
-6.51
-7.66
3.18
-2.07
All but 4
1

2
88
346
1152
5.36
0.27
14.01
18.44
14.46
-1.75
11.77
6.64
1,2,6,8
2

1
1658
5105
0.15
6.81
3.31
-23.07
-10.68
-8.26
14.77
24.12
1, 2, 3, 6
1

3
8
1205
4244
0.46
3.28
2.81
-26.03
-0.56
0.04
10.31
17.15
1,2,3,5,6
6

2
108
377
-6.50
-2.12
-13.36
33.21
14.58
-7.50
14.92
5.51
1, 2,6,8
2

4
14
86
520
5.38
-17.91
-25.24
4.84
17.39
-22.75
-4.03
-15.34
1,4,7
7

1
2250
4000
-24.92
9.57
10.48
-17.85
-12.80
-12.75
17.72
32.64
2
2

14
2461
4156
4.97
23.19
23.97
4.17
-4.22
0.57
33.88
45.66
1, 4,5,6
6

Table 6 Calculated Error for Oil Formation Volume Factors at Pb


Reservoir
Well No.
Measured Value
1. Al-Marhoun correlation
2. Standing Correlation
3. Glaso Correlation
4. Dokla & Osman correlation
5. Labedi correlation
6. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
7. Kartoatmodj &Schmidt correlation
8. Majeed & Salman correlation
9. EOS

Acceptable (within 10%)


Best match

1
N1
1.247
-0.41
-1.43
-3.27
-2.78
6.72
0.75
-0.86
-3.85
3.85
all
1

2
88
1.211
1.49
0.34
-1.61
-0.72
3.70
2.03
0.99
-2.31
-2.15
all
2

1
1.957
-1.30
6.23
2.11
7.62
6.19
17.98
1.58
-1.82
-0.02
all but 6
9

3
8
1.630
4.96
9.28
6.27
11.94
14.67
8.64
7.60
-6.52
8.40
all but 4,5
1

2
1.093
-1.18
-1.28
-2.81
-5.88
2.02
-0.08
-0.68
-0.95
-1.28
all
6

8
1205
1292
1159
1160
1073
1208
1013
1128

2
108
72
111
122
92
110
102
83

8
7.19
-3.80
-3.74
-11.00
0.24
-15.89
-6.39
1,2,3,5,7
2

2
-33.56
2.44
12.91
-15.21
2.29
-5.70
-23.15
2, 5, 6
2

14
1.088
-0.79
-1.27
-3.03
-4.09
0.57
0.52
-0.25
-1.03
-1.56
all
7

4
1
14
2.542
2.903
-1.33
-5.39
10.78
4.48
1.82
-5.77
15.25
10.57
0.31
-2.80
14.22
17.12
1.18
-1.26
-8.84
-10.90
-0.39
22.29
all but 2,4,6 1,2,3,5,7
5
7

Table 7 Comparison of Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs) at Pb


Reservoir
Well No.
Measured GOR (scf/stb)
1. Lasater correlation
2. Standing Correlation
3. Glaso Correlation
4. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
5. Labedi correlation
6. Kartoatmodj &Schmidt correlation
7. EOS

1
N1
392
337
420
356
371
388
394
378

2
88
346
278
345
303
303
349
322
322

1
1658
2001
1535
1584
1410
1661
1628
1540

4
14
86
70
108
111
90
88
103
78

1
2250
2965
1980
1927
1820
2213
1622
2352

14
-19.14
25.29
28.92
5.00
2.51
19.98
-9.30
4,5,7
5

1
31.78
-12.01
-14.34
-19.11
-1.66
-27.91
4.53
5,7
5

14
2461
2585
2039
1931
1852
2622
1735
2141

Table 8 Calculated Error for Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs) at Pb


Reservoir
Well No.
1. Lasater correlation
2. Standing Correlation
3. Glaso Correlation
4. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
5. Labedi correlation
6. Kartoatmodj &Schmidt correlation
7. EOS

Acceptable (within 10%)


Best match

1
N1
-14.09
7.23
-9.08
-5.37
-1.14
0.49
-3.57
All but 1
6

2
88
-19.74
-0.33
-12.49
-12.37
0.74
-6.79
-6.94
2,5,6,7
2

1
20.67
-7.44
-4.46
-14.93
0.17
-1.81
-7.12
2,3,5,6,7
5

4
14
5.05
-17.15
-21.52
-24.76
6.52
-29.50
-13.00
5
5

Figure 1 Z-Factors for Reservoir 1

Figure 3 Z-Factors for Reservoir 3

1.2
1.0
0.9
0.8
Pb =1387 Psia

0.7

Wichart & Aziz


Dranchuk
Meas.

Well #2
1.0
0.8

Z-Factor

Z-Factor

1.2

Wichart & Aziz


Standing
Dranchuk
EOS
Meas.

Well #14

1.1

0.6

Standing
EOS

Pb = 377 Psia

0.4

0.6
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

0.2

5000

Pressure (Psia)

200

400

600

800

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Pressure (Psia)

1.2

Wichart & Aziz


Standing
Dranchuk
EOS
Pb = 1152 Psia

Well #88

Wichart & Aziz


Standing
Dranchuk
EOS
Meas.

Well #14

1.1
1.0

Z-Factor

Z-Factor

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

0.9
0.8

Pb =520 Psia

0.7
0.6
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

500

1000
Pressure (Psia)

1500

2000

Pressure (Psia)

1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

Figure 4 Z-Factors for Reservoir 4


1.2

Wichart & Aziz


Standing
Dranchuk
EOS

Well #1

Wichart & Aziz


Dranchuk
Meas.

1.1
1.0
Z-Factor

Z-Factor

Figure 2 Z-Factors for Reservoir 2

Pb = 5105 Psia

Standing
EOS

0.9
Pb = 4000 Psia

0.8
0.7
0.6 Well #1

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Pressure (Psia)

1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

1.6

Wichart & Aziz


Standing
Dranchuk
EOS

Well #8

Wichart & Aziz


Standing
Dranchuk
EOS
Meas.

Well #14
1.4
1.2
Z-Factor

Z-Factor

Pressure (Psia)

Pb = 4244 Psia

1.0
Pb = 4156 Psia

0.8
0.6

1000

2000

3000

Pressure (Psia)

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000

Pressure (Psia)

4000

5000

6000

Figure 7 Gas Viscosity for Reservoir 3

Figure 5 Gas Viscosity for Reservoir 1


0.050

0.050

2-Lee, Pb = 377 Psia

N1-EOS

0.040

Gas Viscosity (cp)

Gas Viscosity (cp)

N1-Lee, Pb = 1387 Psia

88-Lee, Pb = 1152 Psia

0.030

88-EOS

0.020

0.040

2-EOS
14-Lee, Pb = 520 Psia

0.030

14-EOS

0.020
0.010

0.010

0.000

0.000
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

500

1500

2000

Pressure (Psia)

Pressure (Psia)

Figure 8 Gas Viscosity for Reservoir 4

Figure 6 Gas Viscosity for Reservoir 2


0.050

0.05

1-Lee, Pb = 4000 Psia


Gas Viscosity (cp)

1-Lee, Pb = 5105 Psia


1-EOS
8-Lee, Pb = 4244 Psia
8-EOS

0.04
Gas Viscosity (cp)

1000

0.03

0.02

1-EOS

0.040

14-Lee, Pb = 4156 Psia


14-EOS

0.030

0.020

0.010

0.01

0.000

0.00
0

1000

2000
3000
Pressure (Psia)

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000

4000

Pressure (Psia)

5000

6000

Figure 9 Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs) for Reservoir 1

Figure 11 Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs) for Reservoir 3

400

300

Well #1

Rs (Scf/bbl)

Rs (Scf/bbl)

200
100

250

Rs-EOS
Rs-Meas
Lasater
Standing
Glaso
Vazquez & Beggs
Labedi
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

300

200

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Rs-Meas

Lasater

Standing

Glaso

Vazquez & Beggs

Labedi

Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

150
100
50

0
0

Rs-EOS

Well #2

6000

500

1000

Pressure (Psia)

2000

300

400

250

Well #88

300

Rs (Scf/bbl)

Rs (Scf/bbl)

1500

Pressure (Psia)

Rs-EOS
Rs-Meas
Lasater
Standing
Glaso
Vazquez & Beggs
Labedi
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

200
100
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

200
150

Rs-EOS

Rs-Meas

Lasater

Standing

Glaso

Vazquez & Beggs

Labedi

Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

100
50
0
0

3000

500

Well #3
1500

1000

2000

Pressure (Psia)
Pressure (Psia)

Figure 10 Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs) for Reservoir 2


Rs-EOS
Rs-Meas
Lasater
Standing
Glaso
Vazquez & Beggs
Labedi
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

2000
1500
1000

3500
Well #1
Rs (Scf/bbl)

Rs (Scf/bbl)

2500

Figure 12 Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs) for Reservoir 4

500

Rs-EOS
Rs-Meas
Lasater
Standing
Glaso
Vazquez & Beggs
Labedi
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500

Well #1

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1000

Pressure (Psia)

2000

Well #8

4000

500

2000
1500

1000

2000

3000

6000

1000
Well #14

500
0
0

5000

Rs-EOS
Rs-Meas
Lasater
Standing
Glaso
Vazquez & Beggs
Labedi
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

2500
Rs (Scf/bbl)

Rs (Scf/bbl)

1000

3000

Pressure (Psia)

3000

Rs-EOS
Rs-Meas
Lasater
Standing
Glaso
Vazquez & Beggs
Labedi
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

1500

2000

4000

5000

6000

0
0

1000

2000

3000

Pressure (Psia)
Pressure (Psia)

4000

5000

6000

Figure 13 OIl Formation Volume Factor (Bo) for Reservoir 1

Figure 15 OIl Formation Volume Factor (Bo) for Reservoir 3


1.40

1.5
Well #1

Well #2

1.30

Bo (RB/Stb)

Bo (RB/Stb)

1.20
1.0
Bo-EOS

Bo-Meas

Al-Marhoun

Standing

Glaso

Vazquez & Beggs

Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

Labedi

0.5

1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70

1000

2000
3000
Pressure (Psia)

4000

5000

1.6

Standing

Glaso

Vazquez & Beggs

500

2000

Well #14

1.3
Bo (RB/Stb)

1.2
1.0
0.8

Bo-EOS

Bo-Meas

Al-Marhoun

Standing

0.6

Glaso

Vazquez & Beggs

Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

Labedi

1000

2000

3000

1.1
1.0
0.9

Bo-EOS
Al-Marhoun
Glaso
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

0.8
0.7
0

5000

500

3.0

Well #1

Bo-EOS
Bo-Meas
Standing
Glaso
Vazquez & Beggs
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

2.5

Bo-EOS
Al-Marhoun
Glaso
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

Bo (RB/Stb)

1.5

0.5

1500

2000

Figure 16 OIl Formation Volume Factor (Bo) for Reservoir 4

2.0

1.0

1000
Pressure (Psia)

Figure 14 OIl Formation Volume Factor (Bo) for Reservoir 2


2.5

Bo-Meas
Standing
Vazquez & Beggs
Labedi

0.6

4000

Pressure (Psia)

Bo (RB/Stb)

1500

1.2

0.4

Bo-Meas
Standing
Vazquez & Beggs

0.0

Well #1

2.0
1.5
1.0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

Pressure (Psia)

4.0

3.0

3.5
Bo (RB/Stb)

2.0
1.5
1.0

3000
4000
Pressure (Psia)

EOS
Meas
Standing
Glaso
Vazquez & Beggs
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

Well #8

Bo-EOS
Bo-Meas
Al-Marhoun
Standing
Glaso
Vazquez & Beggs
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

2.5
Bo (RB/Stb)

Labedi

1000
Pressure (Psia)

1.4

Well #59
1.4
Bo (RB/Stb)

Bo-Meas

Al-Marhoun

Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

0.60
0

Bo-EOS

3.0

5000

6000

Well #14

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0

0.5
0

1000

2000

3000

Pressure (Psia)

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000
Pressure (Psia)

4000

5000

6000

Figure 17 Oil Viscosity for Reservoir 1

Figure 19 Oil Viscosity for Reservoir 3


7.0

EOS
Meas.
Labedi
Beal
Vazquez & Beggs
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
Chew & Connally

Well #N1
1.5

6.0
Oil Viscosity (cp)

Oil Viscosity (cp)

2.0

1.0
0.5
Pb = 1387 psia
0.0

EOS
Labedi
Vazquez & Beggs
Chew & Connally

Well #2

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0

Pb = 377 psia

1.0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

500

1000

1.0

Pb = 1152 psia
Well #88

0.5

7.0

Oil Viscosity (cp)

Oil Viscosity (cp)

EOS
Meas.
Labedi
Beal
Vazquez & Beggs
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

1.5

EOS

Meas.

6.0

Labedi

Beal

5.0

Vazquez & Beggs

Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

Chew & Connally

Beggs & Robinson

3.0
2.0

Well #14

Pb = 520 psia

1.0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

500

1000

Pressure (Psia)

EOS

Labedi

Beal

Vazquez & Beggs

Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

Chew & Connally

Beggs & Robinson

1.0
Pb = 5105 psia
0.5

EOS
Meas.
Labedi
Beal
Vazquez & Beggs
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
Chew & Connally

0.6
Oil Viscosity (cp)

1.5

2000

Figure 20 Oil Viscosity for Reservoir 4


0.7

2.0

1500

Pressure (Psia)

Figure 18 Oil Viscosity for Reservoir 2

Oil Viscosity (cp)

2000

4.0

0.0

Well #1

0.5
0.4
0.3

Well #1

Pb = 4000 psia

0.2
0.1
0.0

0.0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

Pressure (Psia)

2.0
Well #8
1.5

3000

4000

5000

6000

Pressure (Psia)

0.7

EOS

Meas.

Labedi

Beal

Vazquez & Beggs


Chew & Connally

Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt


Beggs & Robinson

1.0
Pb = 4244 psia
0.5

Oil Viscosity (cp)

Oil Viscosity (cp)

1500

Pressure (Psia)

Pressure (Psia)

2.0

Meas.
Beal
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
Beggs & Robinson

0.6
Well #14
0.5
0.4

EOS

Meas

Labedi

Beal

Vazquez & Beggs

Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

Chew & Connally

Beggs & Robinson

0.3
Pb = 4156 psia

0.2
0.1
0.0

0.0
0

1000

2000

3000

Pressure (Psia)

4000

5000

6000

1000

2000

3000

Pressure (Psia)

4000

5000

6000

Você também pode gostar