SPE 137368

Prediction of Bubblepoint Pressure and Bubblepoint Oil Formation Volume

Factor in the Absence of PVT Analysis
S. Elmabrouk, Al Fateh University; A. Zekri, United Arab Emirates University; and E. Shirif, SPE, University of Regina

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Lima, Peru, 13 December 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Up till now, there has not been one specific correlation published to directly estimate the bubblepoint pressure in the absence of
PVT analysis and, at the moment, there is just one published correlation available to estimate the bubblepoint oil FVF directly in
the absence of PVT analysis. The majority of the published bubblepoint pressure and bubblepoint oil FVF correlations cannot be
applied directly. This is because the correlations require the knowledge of bubblepoint solution GOR and gas specific gravity as
part of the input variables, both of which are rarely measured field parameters. Solution GOR and gas specific gravity can be
obtained either experimentally or estimated from correlations. In this study, multiple regression analysis technique is applied in
order to develop two novel correlations with which to estimate the bubblepoint pressure and the bubblepoint oil FVF. These new
correlations can be applied in a straightforward manner by using direct field data. Additional correlations or experimental analyses
are unnecessary. Separator GOR, separator pressure, stock-tank oil gravity and reservoir temperature are the only key parameters
required to predict bubblepoint pressure and bubblepoint oil FVF using the proposed correlations.
Introduction
Reservoir fluid studies are essentially based on pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) analysis. This analysis consists of a series of
laboratory procedures designed to provide the values of the reservoir fluid properties required in material balance calculations,
well test analysis, reserves estimates, inflow performance calculations, and numerical reservoir simulation. Ideally, reservoir fluid
properties are determined from laboratory studies on live oil samples collected from the bottom of the wellbore or from the
surface. Standard reservoir PVT fluid studies are designed to simulate the simultaneous fluid flow of oil and gas from the reservoir
to the surface. The production path of reservoir fluids from the reservoir to surface is simulated in the laboratory at reservoir
temperature. During this process, the bubblepoint pressure (pb) is measured. Likewise, the oil volumes and the amount of gas
released are measured and used to determine oil FVF (Bo) and solution GOR (Rs) as functions of pressure.
In the absence of such experimental analysis, empirical PVT correlations can be used to estimate reservoir fluid properties. The
reasons for using empirical PVT correlations could be: (1) economic issues, (2) poor sample quality due to non-representative
fluid, human error during sampling or field transfers, (3) insufficient sample volume to obtain a complete analysis or (4) errors in
laboratory analysis.
Literature review
PVT correlations are ultimately required in order to estimate reservoir fluid properties at temperatures other than the reservoir
temperature. This is due to reservoir fluid properties being found in the PVT analysis report at the reservoir temperature only.
Reservoir fluid properties, at various temperatures other than the reservoir temperature, are required to design surface operation
equipment and to study reservoir inflow performance operations. In such cases, even though PVT analysis is available, the needed
reservoir fluid properties must be estimated from correlations.
Several correlations within the oil and gas industry for estimating bubblepoint pressures (pb) and bubblepoint oil FVF (Bob) of
reservoir oils already exist. These correlations are essentially based on the assumption that pb and Bob are strong functions of
bubblepoint solution GOR (Rsb), reservoir temperature (TR), gas specific gravity (g), and stock-tank oil specific gravity (oST).

SPE 137368

Bubblepoint solution GOR can be obtained as the sum of the stock-tank vent GOR (RST) (seldom field measurement) and the
measured separator GOR (RSP). This is valid only if the RSP and RST are measured while the reservoir pressure is above the
bubblepoint pressure. Sometimes, the sum of the two producing GOR is called flash bubblepoint solution GOR (RsFb) or total
GOR, Equation 1. Some correlations use differential bubblepoint solution GOR (RsDb) rather than RsFb. Examples include the
correlations developed by Borden and Rzasa (1950), Knopp and Ramsey (1960), Vasques and Beggs (1980), Al-Marhoun (1988),
Dokla and Osman (1992), Elsharkawy and Alikhan (1997), Almehaideb (1997), Hanafy et al. (1997), McCain et al. (1998),
Velarde et al. (1999), Boukadi et al. (2002), Gharbi and Elsharkawy (2003) and Mazandarani and Asghari (2007). Others preferred
to use flash bubblepoint solution GOR (RsFb) e.g. Standing (1947), Lasater (1958), Tahrani (1967), Glaso (1980), Macary and
Batanony (1992), Al-Marhoun (1992), Farshad et al. (1966), Petrosky and Farshad (1998) and Ikiensikimama and Oboja (2009).
Rsb = RsFb = RSP + RST

(1)

Moreover, several correlations developed by Labedi (1990), Rollins et al. (1990), Dokla and Osman (1992), Macary and Batanony
(1992), Velarde et al. (1999), Petrosky and Farshad (1998) and McCain et al.(1998) use flash separator gas specific gravity (gSP),
while others use total gas specific gravity, like those of Standing (1947), Borden and Rzasa (1950), Lasater (1958), Elsharkawy
and Alikhan (1997), Glaso (1980), Mazandarani and Asghari (2007). Other correlations use weight average specific gas gravity of
the separator and stock-tank vent gas. Among these are Al-Marhoun (1988), Farshad et al. (1996), Al-Marhoun (1997), Alshammasi (1999), Hemmati and Kharrat (2007) and Ikiensikimama and Oboja (2009). Some methods, first of all, require adjusting
gas gravity to separator pressure at 100 psig before they can be used in the correlations e.g. Vasquez and Beggs (1980). Others
require compositional analysis as input variables e.g. Elsharkawy (2003).
Accordingly, in order to apply the bubblepoint pressure and bubblepoint oil FVF correlations in the absence of PVT analysis, one
must know, in advance, the bubblepoint solution GOR (Rsb), differential bubblepoint GOR (RsDb) or stock-tank vent GOR (RST) in
addition to separator gas specific gravity (gSP), total gas specific gravity (gTotal), or weight average specific gas gravity. All
aforementioned parameters are rarely measured field data. A literature survey has shown that less attention is paid to predicting
reservoir fluid properties in the absence of PVT analysis. Up till now, there has not been one specific correlation published to
directly estimate the bubblepoint pressure in the absence of PVT analysis and, at the moment, there is just one published
correlation available to estimate the bubblepoint oil FVF (Labedi, 1990) directly in the absence of PVT analysis.
Labedi (1990) proposed a bubblepoint pressure correlation (Equation 2) based on: separator GOR (RSP), separator temperature
(TSP), separator gas specific gravity (gSP), stock-tank API gravity and reservoir temperature (TR). Obviously, Labedis bubblepoint
pressure correlation cannot be used directly because of the separator gas gravity. To work around the problem, he proposed
another correlation to estimate separator gas gravity (Equation 3). In the same work, Labedi proposed a new correlation to estimate
bubblepoint oil FVF (Equation 4). Presently, this is the only existing correlation in the literature which can be applied directly to
obtain Bob in the absence of PVT analysis.

pb =

0.6714
(TR / API ) 0.7097 TSP0.0893
6.0 RSP

gSP
10 0.00007995 RSP

gSP = 0.0755 *10

1.1938 / PSP

API

0.0621

TSP

RSP

(2)

0.0659

Bob = 0.9976 + 0.5273 * 10 3 RSP + 0.26636 * 10 7 API * PSP (TR 60)

+ 0.16982 * 10 4 API (TR 60)

(3)

(4)

McCain (1991) provided guidance on the application of the PVT correlations. To estimate bubblepoint pressure and bubblepoint
oil FVF, he suggested Sanding (1977) correlations, Equations 5 and 6 in conjunction with Rollins et al. (1990) stock-tank vent
GOR correlation, Equation 7.

SPE 137368

R
pb = 18.2 sb

gTotal

0.83

(10)0.00091T
(10)0.0125 API
R

gTotal
Bob=0.9759+12*10-5 Rs
oST

0.5

1 .4

(5)

+ 1.25T

1.2

(6)

LogRST = 0.38185.506 logoST + 2.902 log gSP +1.327 logPSP 0.7355 logTSP

(7)

In short, McCain recommended the following steps to estimate bubblepoint pressure and bubblepoint oil FVF with the limitation
of the separator temperature not exceeding 140 oF and the reservoir temperature not exceeding 325 oF: (1) estimate stock-tank
GOR (RST) from Equation 7, (2) add the estimated RST to field separator GOR (Equation 1) to obtain a bubblepoint solution GOR
(Rsb), and (3) estimate the pb and Bob from Standing correlations (Equations 5 and 6, respectively), that is, by using the Rsb obtained
from step 2, and by using the gSP instead of total gas specific gravity (gTotal). Nevertheless, this approach is impractical because
the gSP is a rarely measured field data and is usually based on a gas composition analysis.
In 2003, Valko and McCain revisited reservoir oil bubblepoint pressure. They derived new correlations to estimate bubblepoint
pressure (Equation 8) and stock-tank vent GOR (Equation 9). The bubblepoint correlation is a function of Rsb, API, gSP and TR.
The stock-tank vent GOR correlation is a function of PSP, TSP and API.
lnpb = 7.475 + 0.713z + 0.0075z2
where z =

(8)

z
n =1

and

zn=C0n + C1nVARn + C2n VAR 2n + C3n VAR 3n

n
1
2
3
4

VAR
lnRsb
API

gSP
TR

C0
-5.48
1.27
4.51
-0.7835

C1
-0.0378
-0.0449
-10.84
6.23*10-3

C2
0.281
4.36*10-4
8.39
-1.22*10-5

ln RST = 3.955 + 0.83z 0.024 z 2 + 0.075 z 3

C3
-0.0206
-4.76*10-6
-2.34
1.03*10-8
(9)

where

z = zn

and

n =1

z n = C 0 n + C1n VAR n + C 2 n VAR 2n

n
1
2
3

VAR
lnPSP
lnTSP
API

C0
-8.005
1.224
-1.587

C1
2.7
-0.5
0.0441

C2
-0.161
0
-2.29*10-5

Just as with the McCain (1991) approach, the work of Valko and McCain (2003) has a practical limitation in the absence of PVT
analysis because of gSP.
Newly developed correlations
The main objective of this paper is to overcome the limitations faced by previous correlations by building regression models using
directly measured field parameters as input variables in order to estimate pb and Bob. Two correlations are proposed as functions of

SPE 137368

four readily available field parameters (RSP, PSP, oST and TR). By using the four parameters, engineers can estimate the bubblepoint
pressure and the bubblepoint oil FVF for crude oil straightforwardly in the absence of PVT analysis.
The PVT data used in this study were obtained from two-stage and single-stage flash separation tests. A total of 118 reservoir fluid
studies (476 data points) were collected from various Libyan oil fields in the Sirt Basin. The majority of the data points are taken
from two-stage flash separation tests (355 data points). In the single-stage separation test, the separator pressure is atmospheric
pressure and the stock-tank vent GOR value is equal to zero.
In order to study the validity of the proposed correlations, the 476 data points were divided into two groups randomly. Group A
includes a total of 413 data points. Group B data (62 data points) was used to test the validity of the newly developed correlations.
The range of values of Group A are presented in Table1.

Bubblepoint pressure correlation

Numerous models were tried as regression equations. Equation 10 was found to be very accurate. The natural logarithm of
bubblepoint pressure was regressed against the natural logarithms of separator GOR, separator pressure, stock-tank oil gravity and
reservoir temperature.
pb = RSP0.683 PSP0.18 oST4.98 TR0.658

(10)

Since the representativeness of a PVT study greatly depends upon sampling conditions, the first and most important operation,
before running a complete reservoir fluid study, is to check the validity of the samples. The bottom-hole sample, used for PVT
study, is selected according to the results obtained during the verification of samples. It is worth mentioning that the proposed
bubblepoint pressure correlation can be used to select the most representative sample with which to run a PVT analysis.

Bubblepoint oil FVF correlation

Usually, the oil FVF obtained from a differential vaporization test should be adjusted using flash separation oil FVF to properly
approximate a combination liberation system. However, at bubblepoint pressure, oil FVF (Bob) is equal to flash separation oil FVF
(BoFb). Accordingly, by using a multiple regression analysis technique, the Bob was correlated as a function of PSP, RSP, oST and TR.
After trying many models, the following model was found to be a very good prediction equation of bubblepoint oil FVF.
Bob=1.6624 + 0.000512RSP + 0.00015pSP 0.802oST + 0.000501TR

(11)

Correlation verification and validation

Verification and validation of the correlation are the most important step in the development process. Both quantitative and
graphical analyses of the residuals are used to verify the accuracy of the proposed correlations. Quantitative error analysis is
determined in terms of correlation coefficient (R2), standard deviation (SD), average percent relative error (ARE) and absolute
average percent relative error (AARE). Table 2 summarizes the quantitative statistical error analysis for the proposed correlations.
The analysis shows a small error and a small standard deviation with appreciably high correlation coefficient for both correlations.
Following the estimation of a regression model, the graphical error analysis was carried out by analyzing the residuals. The
residual distributions for the bubblepoint pressure and the bubblepoint oil FVF correlations are presented in Figures 1 and 2,
respectively. Both figures show that the error is normally distributed, and it can be concluded that both correlations satisfy the
normality assumption. Figures 3 and 4 show the computed values from the regression models versus the experimental values. It is
evident from both figures that the points are scattered around the y = x line.
Comparison with other correlations
As mentioned above, so far, not one specific correlation has been published to directly estimate the bubblepoint pressure in the
absence of PVT analysis. Earlier correlations first need estimates of Rsb and gSP (obtained from secondary correlations or from
experiments) before they can be implemented. As a result, none of the published bubblepoint correlations could be compared with
the proposed bubblepoint correlation in this study. However, the proposed Bob correlation was subjected to evaluation and
validation. Its accuracy was tested solely against Labedis correlation because Labedis bubblepoint oil FVF is presently the only
published correlation available in the literature to estimate bubblepoint oil FVF directly in the absence of PVT analysis. Group B
data set (62 data points), as described in Table 3, were used in this test. However, these data points were not switched in the model
derivation process. AE, ARE, AARE, SD and a 45 degree line crossplot were used as comparative criteria. Figure 5 compares the

SPE 137368

behaviour of the proposed Bob regression model to Labedi (1990). The figure shows that the produced model provides further
reliable results. The majority of the points estimated using the proposed correlation fall very close to the 45 degree line with less
AE, less ARE and less AARE. Table 4 demonstrates the statistical analysis of this comparison.
Summary and conclusions
A review of literature shows that less attention has been paid to the prediction of reservoir fluid properties in the absence
of PVT analysis. Up till now, there has not been one specific correlation published to directly estimate the bubblepoint pressure in
the absence of PVT analysis and, presently, there is just one published correlation (Labedi 1990) for estimating bubblepoint oil
FVF directly in the absence of PVT analysis.
The majority of the available PVT correlations are used to estimate the reservoir oil properties at various temperatures
rather than reservoir temperature in order to design surface operation equipment and to study reservoir inflow performance.
However, because these correlations require the knowledge of parameters like solution GOR and specific gas gravity, it is difficult
to apply them in the absence of PVT analysis. Since these parameters are rarely measured in the field, the proposed correlations in
this study can be applied straightforwardly in the absence of PVT analysis. There is no need for any additional correlations. The
only required input parameters are separator GOR, separator pressure, stock-tank oil gravity and reservoir temperature.
The proposed correlations were developed based on a multiple regression analysis and 118 reservoir fluid studies (476
separator tests) collected from various Libyan oil fields in the Sirt Basin.
Both quantitative and graphical analyses of the residuals were investigated in order to verify the accuracy of the proposed
correlations. The newly proposed bubblepoint pressure correlation provides prediction values with an average percent relative
error of 2.83%, an average percent relative error of 16.757% and a correlation coefficient of 95.67%. The proposed bubblepoint oil
FVF correlation provides prediction values, with an average percent relative error of 0.038%, an absolute average percent relative
error of 1.6874% and a correlation coefficient of 96.3%. The residuals of both correlations are normally distributed, indicating that
both models describe the data well.
None of the already published bubblepoint correlations were compared to the proposed bubblepoint correlation in this
study. This is because former require the knowledge of some data that are rarely measured in the field (bubblepoint solution GOR
and gas specific gravity).
Of the 476 data points used in the development of these new correlations, 62 were used to validate and evaluate the
accuracy of the proposed bubblepoint oil FVF correlation. Its accuracy was tested against Labedis correlation. The newly
proposed oil FVF correlation provides better predictions and higher accuracy than Labedis correlation.
Since the representativeness of a PVT study greatly depends upon sampling conditions, the first and most important
operation, before running a complete reservoir fluid study, is to check the validity of the samples. The bottom-hole sample, used
for PVT study, is selected according to the results obtained during the verification of sample validity. It is worth mentioning, the
proposed bubblepoint pressure correlation can be used to select the most representative sample with which to run a PVT analysis.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the management of the following oil companies for providing the data and permission to
publish this work: AGOCO, Sirte Oil, Waha Oil, Millita Oil and Gas, Repsol Oil, and Harouge Oil.
Nomenclature
AE
average error
ARE
average relative error, %
AARE
absolute average relative error, %
SD
standard division
bubblepoint pressure, psia
pb
reservoir temperature, F
TR
Bo
oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
Bob
bubblepoint oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
flash bubblepoint oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
BoFb
BoDb
differential bubblepoint oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
Rs
solution Gas Oil Ratio, Scf/STB
bubblepoint solution gas oil ratio, Scf/STB
Rsb
RsFb
flash bubblepoint solution gas oil ratio, Scf/STB
RsDb
differential bubblepoint solution gas oil ratio, Scf/STB
separator gas oil ratio, scf/STB
RSP
RST
stock-tank vent gas oil ratio, scf/STB

PSP
TSP
API

oST
gSP
gTotal

SPE 137368

separator pressure, pasia

separator temperature, F
API stock tank oil gravity
stock-tank oil specific gravity, water=1
gas specific gravity, air=1
total gas specific gravity, air=1

References:
Al-Marhoun, M., 1988. PVT correlations for Middle East Crude Oils. JPT, 650666.
Al-Marhoun, M.A., 1992. New correlations for formation volume factors of oil and gas mixtures. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 31 3, pp. 2226.
Al-Shammasi, A.A., 1999. Bubble point pressure and oil formation volume factor correlations. Paper SPE 53185 Presented at the SPE Middle
East Oil Show, Bahrain, Feb. 2023.
Borden, G. and Rzasa, M.J., 1950. Correlation of Bottom Hole Sample Data. Trans. AIME (Am. Inst. Min. Metall. Eng.), 189; 345-348.
Boukadi, F. H., Bemani, A. S., Hashmi, A., 2002. PVT Emperical Models for Saturated Omani Crude Oils. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Technology, 20(1&2), 89100.
Dokla, M.E. and Osman, m.E., 1992. Correlation of PVT Properties for UAE Crudes. SPE Formation Evaluation March 7 pp 41-46.
Elsharkawy, Adel M. 2003. An empirical model for estimating the saturation pressures of crude oils. Journal of Petroleum Engineering and
Science, 38 PP-57-77.
Elsherkawy, A.M. and Alikhan, A.A., 1997. Correlation for Predicting Solution Gas/Oil Ratio, Formation Volume Factore, and Undersaturated
Oil Compressibility. J.Petroleum Science and Engineering; 17 pp. 291-302.
Fashad, F., LeBlanc, J.L., Gruber, J.D., Osorio, J.G., 1966. Empirical PVT correlations for Colombian crude oils. Paper SPE 36105 Presented at
the Fourth Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port-of-Spain, 23 26Apr.
Gharbi, R. and Elsharkawy, A.A., 2003. Predicting the Bubble-Point Pressure and Formation-Volume-Factor of Worldwide Crude Oil Systems.
Petroleum Science and Technology. Vol. 21, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 5379.
Glaso, O., 1980. Generalized pressurevolume temperature correlations. JPT May, 785.
Hanafy, H.H., Macary, S.M., ElNady, Y.M., Bayomi, A.A. and El Batanony, M.H., 1997. Empirical PVT correlations applied to Egyptian crude
oils exemplify significance of using regional correlations. SPE 37295 presented at the 1997 SPE international symposium on oilfield
chemistry held in Houston, Texas, 18-20 February.
Hemmati, M.N. and Kharrat, R., 2007. A correlation approach for prediction of crude-oil PVT properties. SPE 104543 presented at the 15th SPE
Middle East show and conference hold in Bahrain 11-14 March.
Ikiensikimama,S.S. and Ogboja, O., 2009. New Bubblepoint Pressure Empirical PVT Correlation. SPE 128893-MS presented at Nigeria Annual
International Conference and Exhibition, 3-5 August, Abuja, Nigeria.
Knopp, C.R. and Ramsey, L.A., 1960. Correlation for Oil Formation Volume Factor and Solution Gas-Oil Ratio. JPT (Aug.), pp. 27-29.
Labedi, R.M., 1990. Use of Production Data to Estimate the Saturation Pressure, Solution GOR, and Chemical Composition of Reservoir Fluids.
SPE 21164 presented at the SPE Latin American Petroleum Conference held in Rio de Janeiro, October 14-19.
Lasater, J.A., 1958. Bubblepoint Pressure Correlation. Trans. AIME 231, pp 379-381.
Macary, S.M., El-Batanoney, M.H., 1992. Derivation of PVT correlations for the Gulf of Suez crude oils. EGPC 11th Pet. Exp. and Prod.
Conference.
McCain, W.D., Jr. 1991. Reservoir Fluid Properties Correlations-State of the Art. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 266-270
Mazandarani, M.T. and Asghari, S.M., 2007. Correlations for predicting solution gas-oil ratio, bubblepoint pressure and oil formation volume
factor at bubblepoint of Iran crude oils. European Congress of Chemical Engineering (ECCE-6) Copenhagen, (Sep.) 16-20
Petrosky, G.E., Farshad, F.F., 1998. Pressurevolumetemperature correlations for Gulf of Mexico crude oils. SPEREE (Oct.), 416 420.
Rollins, J.B., McCain Jr., W.D., Creager, J.T., 1990. Estimation of the solution GOR of black oils. JPT (Jan.), 92 94.
Standing, M.B., 1947. A pressure-volume-temperature correlation for mixtures of California oils and gases. Drilling and Production Practice,
API, pp. 275-287
Standing, M.B., 1 977. Volumetric and phase behaviour of oil field hydrocarbon systems. SPE, Richardson, TX 124.
Tehrani, H.D., 1968. Bubblepoint pressure correlation for reservoir fluids of Southwest Iran. Second AIME reginal technical symposium, Saudi
Arabia, 27-29 March.
Valko, P.P, McCain, W.D., 2003 Reservoir Oil Bubble point Pressures Revisited; Solution Gas-Oil Ratios and Surface Gas Specific Gravities,
Journal of Petroleum Engineering and Science, 37 PP-153-169.
Vasquez, M. and Biggs, H.D., 1980. Correlation for Fluid Physical Property Prediction. JPT June 32, pp 968-970.
Velarde, J., Blasingame, T.A., McCain Jr., W.D., 1999. Correlation of black oil properties at pressures below bubble point pressurea new
approach. J. Can. Pet. Technol., Spec. Ed. 38(13), 6268.

SPE 137368

Table 1 Range of data in Group A

Variable
Bubblepoint pressure, pb
Oil FVF, Bo
Separator Pressure, PSP
Separator GOR, RSP
Stock-tank Oil Gravity, oST
Reservoir Temperature, TR

Units
psia
bbl/STB
psia
scf/STB
water=1
F

Mean
1734.4
1.3513
119.58
352.2
0.84052
201.66

SD
1111.9
0.2035
126.8
249.4
0.02506
48.22

Min.
121
1.064
14.7
10
0.7999
100

Max.
4244
1.795
735
1256
0.921
277

Table 2 Quantitative statistical error analysis

Statistical Criterion

pb Model
95.67
435.6
17.72
-2112.8
1172.8
2.83
-54.37
120.82
16.757
0.05
120.816

R,%
SD
AE
Min. AE
Max. AE
ARE, %
Min ARE, %
Max ARE, %
AARE, %
Min AARE, %
Max AARE, %

Bob Model
96.3
0.0291
0.0
-0.06411
0.11087
0.038
-8.399
5.255
1.6874
0.0122
8.3989

Table 3 Data Range of Group B

Variable
Bubblepoint Pressure, pb
Oil FVF, BoFb
Separator GOR, RSP
Separator Pressure, PSP
Stock-tank Oil Gravity, oST
Reservoir Temperature, Tr

Units
psia
bbl/STB
scf/STB
psia
water=1
F

Mean
1695
1.3202
425
72.17
0.83286
202.44

SD
1196
0.1806
320.2
57.63
0.01835
45.28

Min.
189
1.0640
21
14.7
0.7999
100

Table 4 Comparison of proposed bubblepoint oil FVF correlation

Statistical Criterion
Error SD, bb/STB
AE, bbl/STB
Max. AE, bbl/STB
Min. AE, bb/STB
ARE, %
Max. ARE, %
Min. ARE, %
A ARE, %
Max. AARE, %
Min. AARE, %

This Study
Equation 11
0.02322
0.00412
0.05286
-0.05351
0.335
3.635
-3.548
1.412
3.635
0.028

Labedi 1990
Equation 4
0.02793
0.00418
0.07064
-0.0589
0.241
4.757
-4.4165
1.617
4.757
0.036

Max.
4244
1.674
1009.8
228
0.8927
275

SPE 137368

Histogram of the Residual

Bubblepoint Pressure Correlation
180
Mean
StDev

160

17.72
435.6

140
Frequency

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

-1200

-800

-400

0
Residual

400

800

1200

Fig 1 Error distribution for bubblepoint pressure correlation

Histogram Plot of the Residuals

Bubblepoint Oil FVF Correlation
90
Mean
StDev

80

-2.67741E-15
0.02909

70
Frequency

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-0.09

-0.06

-0.03

0.00
Residual

0.03

0.06

0.09

Fig 2 Error distribution for stock-tank GOR correlation

A 45 Straight line crossplot

Bubblepoint Pressure Correlation

Estimated Bubblepoint, psia

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

1000

2000
3000
Actual Bubblepoint Pressure, psia

4000

5000

Fig 3 A 45 straight line crossplot for bubblepoint pressure correlation

SPE 137368

A 45 Straight Line Crossplot

Bubblepoint Oil FVF Correlation
1.9
1.8
Experimental Values

1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4
1.5
Fitted Values

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

Figure 4 A 45o straight line crossplot for bubblepoint oil FVF correlation

Evaluation and Validation of Bubblepoint Oil FVF Correlation

Estimated Bubblepoint Oil FVF, bbl/STB

1.0

This Study

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.1

1.0
1.0

1.2

1.4

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Labedi Bob

1.0
1.6
1.8
Actual bubblepoint oil FVF, bbl/STB

Figure 5 Evaluation and validation of bubblepoint oil FVF correlation