MISCELLANEOUS

This section contains two (2) miscellaneous papers, as follows.

"A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of California
Oils and Gases"
By M. B.Standing,
Standard Oil Company of California, La Habre; Calif.
(Presented a t Pacific Coast District, Los Angeles, Calif., May 1947)
I

"Formation and Operation of Unit Projects in Secondary Recovery"

By K. E. Beall,
Phillips Petroleum Company, Bartlesville, Okla
(Presented a t Mid Continent District Meeting, Amarillo, Texas, May
1947)
 A PRESSURE-VOLUME-TEMPERATURE CORRELATION FOR
MIXTURES O F CALIFORNIA OILS AND GASES t

ABSTRACT

The paper presents correlat~o~is of bubble-polut pres-
sures, for~natlonvolumes of bubble-po~nt Iigu~ds,and
forn~atlon volun~es of gas plus liqu~dphases as em-
pir~calf u l ~ c t ~ oof
l ~ sgas-011ratlo, gas gravlty, 011 gravlty,
pressure, and temperature. Although the correlat~o~ls
are on Calrforll~acrude 011s and gases, comparrsons are
made for the varlous crudes reported by Katz. In order
to fac~l~tate
the use of the data, the results of the cor-
relat~o~are
~ sprese~itecl111 the form of calculat~~ig
charts.

The solution of reservoir-performance problems re- second stage a t atmospheric pressure This procedure
clulres that the physical properties of the reservoir is considered to approximate the average California
fluids be known These propert~esmay be determined field practices
in the laboratory either from bottom-hole samples or
froin proper recoinb~nationof surface t r a p samples If Bubble-POIII~
Pressure Correlat~o~~s
the results of laboratory tests a r e not available, how-
ever, the physical properties must be estinlated from One of the inp port ant functions of P-V-T data 1s to
field ineasuren~ents The purpose of thls paper is to indicate whether t h e reservoir oil is undersaturated o r
give the results of several correlations between the saturated, o r whether free gas is being produced from
variables normally measured in t h e field and the phys- the sand This requires a knowledge of the g a s solu-
ical properties necessary for the solution of reservoir- bility-bubble-point-pressure relationship of the oil and
perfornlance problems Other correlations of this type gases associated 111 the reservoir
have been reported by Gosline and Dodson,l" and by I n considering the manner 111 which the several
Katz Sage and Olds4 have recently reported a n es- variables affect the bubble-point pressure of a mixture
cellent correlation of formation volumes of condensate of a n 011 and a gas, ~t seems reasonable to postulate a
systeins correlation of the form
The accuracy of t h e following P-V-T correlations is
P, = *(GOR, y, T, A P I ) (1)
restricted by two factors 1 The varied and con]-
plex multi-component hydrocarbon systeins which a r e
dealt with a r e defined by only three siinple parameters P b = bubble-point pressure, 11~1,absolute
gas gravity, oil gravity, and gas-oil ratio, and, 2 These GOR = gas-oil ratio, cu f t per bbl
parameters themselves depend upon the process by 7, = gravity of dissolved gas (air = 1)
which the oil and g a s a r e separated The method used A P I = gravity of tank oil, deg A P I
by Sage and Reamer2 in the Rio Bravo Field studies of T = temperature, deg F.
specifying hesanes and heavier material a s "oil" and all 9 = a function of
pentanes and lighter material a s "gas" \vould overcome
I n developing the specific equation relating the bubble-
these difficulties However, this approach does not lend
point pressure to the variables on the n g h t side of equa-
: Itself to field usage
tion ( I ) , the general relationship between the variables
A further aid to preparing correlations would be
to make use of a standard procedure in separating the was used to suggest graphical methods of determining
oil and gas when gas-oil ratios a r e determined How- specific relat~onships F o r example, the bubble-point
pressure normally increases with a n increase in gas-oil
ever, a s the P-V-T data a r e prepared f o r individual
ratio This suggests t h a t Pa = +, (GOR)' or P,,=
field conditions, it is n o w ~ a l l ynot posslble to use such
a2(.4)"L Likewise the bubble-point pressure increases
a method
with a n increase in temperature, but decreases with a n
The gas-oil ratios, gas gravities, oil gravities, and
Increase in oil gravity (deg API) o r g a s gravlty
formation volumes presented in this paper a r e labora-
(air = 1)
tory values They a r e the result of a 2-stage flash After a number of attempts it was found t h a t a plot.
separation a t 100 deg F-the first stage norinally being
within the pressure range of 250 psi to 450 psi and of log(?) vs log Paresulted in a series of straight
lines with a n average slope of 0 83 Mathematically,
* Stanc1,ird Or1 Co of Cnlrfor~ira,Ln t1.1lrri1, C n l ~ f , r e ~ n o r e d ,
1'34; t o Cn11fornr.r Research Cabrli. La H a b m . C a l ~ f this gave the relationship
t Presented a t tlie sprrng meetlug of tlre Pacrtic Coast D ~ s t r l c t ,
Dl\ l s ~ o nof Proi111ctron. Los Augeles, C a l l , B1a.r 15, 1947 pre- [Pbl GOR
a F ~ g n r e srefer to REFERENCES on 1, 279
.
srdlng, E V Watts. General Petroleurn Corp Los Bugeles. 'Calrf
T Al.1
Predrctlon of Bubble-Polnt Pressure from Gas-011 Ratlo, Solution-Gas Gravity, Tank-011 Grau~ty,and Temperature.
FIG. 1
 A second plot of log VS T S O re-
points d~fferedfroln the correlatlon by less than 100 psi,
and that only 12 per cent were further than 200 psi
from the correlatlon The lower curve gives the fre-
quency distribution of the errors resulting from esti-
sulted in straight llnes of almost constant slope, or,
expressed mathemat~cally matmg the bubble-polnt pressure froln the correlation
More than half of the experimental points were wlthln
5 per cent of the correlatlon The arithmetic average
error was 4 8 per cent and 106 psl
The data on 53 crudes reported by Katz3 do not,
Flnally, a third correlatlon was made to determine when plotted a s lndlcated in Flg 1, give a s good a
the effect of 011 g r a v ~ t y ,and the following specific correlation a s the data reported In thls paper A llne
relationship was obtalned drawn approximately 150 psi hlgher than that shown
in Flg 1 gave the best correlatlon of the Katz data.
However, in terms of the present correlation, 52 per
cent of the Katz data fell withln 200 psl of the correla-
To obtaln the relationships expressed In equatlon tlon a s compared to 88 per cent of the California data
(4) it was necessary to have tests on numerous mix- The better correlation obtalned In the case of the
tures of oil and gas a t a variety of temperatures California crudes is posslbly explained by the fact that
Flg 1 shows the results of plottlng 105 experllnentally the crudes reported by Katz were from a larger varlety
determined bubble-polnt pressures on 22 different crude- of sources Differences in laboratory methods, however,
oil-natural-gas mlxtures The range of the data was a s lnlght account for part of the dlsagreement
follows
Bubble-polnt pressures 130 to' 7,000 psi, absolute Formation Volumes of Bubble-Point Lquids
Temperature 100 to 258 deg F
20 to 1,425 cu f t per bbl A second factor requlred in reservoir calculations IS
Gas-011 ratlos
Tank-011 gravities 16 5 to 63 8 deg API the formation volume of the saturated llquid phase
This factor is used to compute the shrinkage of the
Gas gravities 0 59 to 0 95 (air = 1)
reservoir oil when ~t IS processed to the stock tanks.
The agreement to be expected from the foregoing The fornlatlon volumes of the 105 bubble-point llquids
correlatlon can be estimated from the curves shown In used In the prevlous section were correlated In terms
Fig 2 The upper curve shows that 58 per cent of the of the gas-011 ratio, gas gravlty, tank-oil gravity (spe-
I00 cific gravlty), and temperature The correlatlng equa-
tion finally selected was
80

60
Vb = forlnatlon volume of bubble-po~nt hquld, bbl
per bbl of tank oil
40 GOR = gas-011 ratio, cu f t per bbl
-ys = gravity of dissolved gas (air = 1 )
20
yo = speclfic gravlty of tank 011 a t 60 deg F
T = temperature, deg F
.f. = a functlon of
0
0 100 COO 300 Fig 3 shows the results of plotting the experlinental
PRESSURE DISAGREEMENT - P S I
format~onvolumes agalnst the function shown in equa-
tlon (5) To glve an idea of the nlagnitude of the
errors Involved in the correlatlon, llnes of 5 per cent
d~sagreementare shown
The frequency dlstributlon of the errors is shown in
Flg 4 I t wlll be noted that 45 per cent of the points
fit the correlatlon with errors less than 0.5 per cent,
and that no errors were greater than 7 per cent The
arithnletlc average of the errors IS 117 per cent
The shrinkage data presented by Katz, when con-
verted to formation volumes, showed an arithmetic
average error of 1 2 0 per cent when correlated by equa-
-14-12-10 - 8 -6 - 4 - 2 0 2 4 6 8 M 12 14 16
DISAGREEMENT - P E R CENT t ~ o n(3) These close agreements indicate that the cor-
relation of bubble-golnt formation volume IS more
Frequency D~str~but~on
of Bubble-Po~nt Pressure general than the bubble-polnt pressure, and that the
Correlat~on. correlations can safely be used for estlinates on a wider
FIG. 2 variety of crude 011s and gases.
Predletion of Formation Volulne of Bubble-Po~ntLiquld from Gas-011 Ratlo, Solut~on-GasGravrty, Tank-Oil Gravity,
and Temperature.
FIG. 3
 The raising of the oil gravity to a power which In
11 CORRELATING EQUATION 1 I itself is a function of gas-011 ratlo IS a necessary feature
of thls correlatlon Thls causes the tank-oil gravity to
become relatively unimportant a t ratlos ~n excess of
2,000 cu f t per bbl, w h ~ c hIS 111 accordance with actual
behavlor of hydrocarbon systems
Fig 6 shows the agreement between esperimentally
determined formatlon volumes and t h e values obtained
from the correlation
A t the tlme the correlations were prepared, the data
of Sage and OldsL on hlgh gas-oil-ratio mixtures were
not available and, therefore, could not be used ~n pre-
paring the correlations A recent check with the
Sage and Olds data showed that, above 160 deg F,
the correlations reproduced 58 experimental observa-
t ~ o n sw ~ t ha maximum error of 5 4 per cent and a n
arithmetic average error of 1 5 7 per cent A t 100 deg F
the errors amounted t o a s much a s 11 per cent, the
greatest error being noted In t h e case of the 5,000 psi,
absolute, volun~es

Frequency Distribution of Bubble-Po~ntFormation- Use of the Correlat~ons

Volun~eCorrelation. The evaluation of bubble-polnt piessure, bubble-point
FIG. 4 formatlon volume, and.2-phase formatlon volun~esfrom
the correlations presented In F l g 1, 3, and 5 IS
Two-Phase Forn~at~on
Volumes somewhat laborious To facilitate the use of the
col-relations, t h e calculating charts shown la Fig 7, 8,
The formation-volume data of the g a s plus liquid and 9 were constiucted Esanlples of the use of each
phases cover a much wider range of gas-011 ratlos than of the charts a r e ,~ndicatedon the charts From these
do the bubble-polnt pressure o r bubble-point formation- charts i t IS possible qulckly t o obtain engineering
volume correlations T h 1 s . l ~because bubble-point llqulirs e s t ~ m a t e s of t h e physical properties of multi-com-
rarely have gas-oil ratios in excess of 2,000 cu f t per ponent hydrocarbon 'systems under pressure a n d tem-
bbl, whereas 2-phase format~on-volumedata a r e often perature conditions encoul~tered in 011- and gas-pro-
required f o r mlxtures havlng ratios a s hlgh a s 100,000 ducing reservoirs
cu f t per bbl
A correlatlon based on the equatlon ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author IS grateful to the nlanagelnent of the
Standard 011 Company of Cahfornia f o r permission
to publlsh this paper
where
VF = formatlon volume of g a s plus llquld phases, bbl REFERENCES
per bbl of tank 011
P = pressure, psi, absolute
'J E Gosllne a n d (L' R Dodson, " S o l n l > ~ l ~ Relations ts and
Volrl~nrtrlcB r h n r l o r of T l ~ r r p(.;r:rrltles of C r n d ~ as n d Assoc~:lted
GOR = gas-011 ratio, cu f t per bbl C:ases." Llrrllrrrg n1t17 Proclrrrtro~i P r ~ t c t l c c .43.1 (1938)
T = temperature, deg F a n d Gas from t h e Rln B m \ o Field." Trolls dill. Illst ~ l f l ~ l r l r o
-1fct E ~ r g r s 142, 179 (1941)
ys = g a s gravity ( a ~ r= 1) 3n I. 4
- K n t s . " P r e ~ l ~ c t of
~ ~ the_Shr~r!li;l~ge
n of Crude O ~ l s , "
yo = speclfic gravity of tank oil a t 60 deg F ~ r r c r ~ o ~r t~dPrc)drrctron Prnctrcr 1'37 (1942)
4 R .-
A S:IBP a n d R H ~ l d s , '" V o l ~ ~ r n e t r Rehnrlor
~c of 011
+ = a function of and- as from Several San J o a q l ~ l nValley Fields," Tmlrs Awl
I n s t M I I ~ I INet
L ~ Elrgrs 17n .
.., 1 .5.G.. ,119-1SL
A A ... ,
of H s ~ l r o c a r b o n Gases a n d TTapors,"
Predict~onof formatlon volume of g a s plus llquid
phases is shown In F l g 5 Thls correlation contams
387 experimental polnts, 92 per cent of which a r e within DISCUSSION
5 per cent of the correlation The ranges of the data
a r e a s follows B H Sage (California Institute of Technology, Pasa-
dena, Calif) The author has presented a n ~ n t e r e s t r n g
Pressure 400 to 5,000 psl, absolute correlatlon of t h e volumetric and phase behavlor of
Gas-oil ratio 75 to 37,000 cu f t per bbl naturally occurring lnlstures of 011 and g a s of low
Temperature 100 to 258 deg. F. and ~ n t e r m e d ~ a tgas-oil
e ratlo The analytical expres-
Gas gravlty 0 59 to 0 95 ( a i r = 1 ) slons proposed f o r the relationship of bubble-polnt pres-
Tank-011 gravlty 1 6 5 to 63 8 deg A P I sures and formatlon volumes to gas-oil ratios a r e some-
Prediction of Formation Volume of Gas Plus Liquid Phases from Gas-Oil Ratlo, Total Gas Gravity, Tank-Oil Gravity,
Temperature, and Pressure.
FIG. 5
 PRODUC TlON TECHhOLOGY L ABORA TORY
Copyrrght I94 7

Char1 for Calculnt~ngBubble-Point Pressure or S o l u b ~ l ~ t ? .

( Rrprn,lur, d hv perrnrss,,,,, nj m p v r r p h t nuirrrr)
FIG 7
 PROPER TIES OF NATURAL If YDRO CARBON MIXTURES OF GAS AND LIQUID

FORMATION VOLUME o f BUBBLE POIN T LIQUIDS

EXAMPLE

REQUIRED
Formafton vo/ume a t ZOO'F o f a
b u b b l e pornt /lqurd hovmq a pas-otl
r a h o of 350 CFB, a qas qrovrfy o f 0 75,
and a fonk or/ q r o v r f y o f JO 'API

PROCEDURE
s f a r t r n g af Me / e f t s~deo f the chart,
proceed horrzontaI/y along fhe 350 CFB
/me to a gas q r a v t f y o f 0 75 From this
pornf d r o p verficaI/y to the 3 0 2 P I hne
Proceed horrzonfaIIy from Me tank a/
gravrfy scale to the 2OO.f hne The
required Ibrmahon volume IS 6 u n d to be
I 22 b a r r e l per b a r r e l o f tank OII

Copyr~qhtI94 7
Chart for C a l c ~ ~ l a t ~Flo~rgn i a t ~ oVoluliie
~~ L~qu~ds..
of Bubble-POIII~
( R e p r o d u r r d b v permnsszorl o f ropvrlehr o a ~ n r r )
FIG 8
 .IFORNIA
ORATORY

Chart for Calculati~l~

Forn~ationVolume of Gas Plus L ~ q u ~Phases.
d
(Reprodnccd b y perrnzssaon o f copyrcght o w n e r )
FIG. 9
what complex In order to perin~tinore direct ut111z.a-
tion of the data, the last three figures of t h s paper
present graphical solut~onsfor the equat~ons From
these it is a relatively s~lnplematter to estimate the
pressure and fornlation volume a t bubble-point and the
formation volume in the heterogeneous reglon froin
knowledge of the pressure, temperature, gas-oil raho,
and the gravities of the oil and gas
The correlat~onsapparently are empirical and, there-
fore, it is improbable that they can be applied with
known accuracy to condit~onswidely &berent from
those covered by the primary data upon which the
correlations were based It IS belleved that the ~ n f o r -
mation subni~ttedin Fig. 7, 8, and 9 affords a useful
means of estiniating the pressure and formahon volume
a t bubble point a s well a s the 2-phase formation volume
for a wide variety of m~xturesof 011 and gas from
Cal~forniafields
In Table 1 (Sage) of this discussion is presented a
comparison of predicted and exper~mentalbubble-point
pressures for 3 fields w h ~ c hwere not involved in the
paper under d~scussion. The calculated values were
froin 8 per cent below to 2 1 per cent above the observed
bubble-point pressures This large variation shows the
uncertainty that may be realized in using the correla-
tion for materials involv~ngail oil of relatively h ~ g h
gravity Table 2 (Sage) indicates the agreement be-
tween the observed and calculated values of the forma-
tion volume a t bubble point In this instance calcu-
lated values were from 7 6 per cent below to 2 3 per

TABLE 1 (SAGE)
Bubble-Po~ntPressure
F ~ e l d"A" Field "B" Field "C"
Deg F
u.
Temperature 100 190 250 100 190 250 100 190 250
Observed value
Calculated value
Difference
Pressure. pountls per square Inch
D~R'erence expressed a s per cent

TABLE 2 (SAGE)
Fornlat~on Volun~e at Bubble Polnt
F ~ e l d"A" F ~ e l d"B" Field "C"
Deg F
Temperature 100 190 250 100 190 250 100 190 250
Observed value
Calculated value
Difference
= Ditference expressed us per cent

TABLE 3 (SAGE)
Format1011 Volun~ein the Two-Phase Reg~on
F ~ e l d"A" Field "B" Field "C"
Deg F
Temperature . . 100 190 250 100 190 250 100 190 250
Pressure, pounds per square inch,
absolute 1,000 1,000 1,000 800 800 1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000
Observed value 178 2 11 2 33 272 335 316 239 313 199
Calculated value " 188 2 30 2 55 2 96 3 60 3 30 2 58 3 28 2 30
Difference 56' 90 94 88 75 44 79 48 156
Calculated value 176 204 223 282 342 331
Difference -11' -33 -43 37 21 47
a = Calculated fro111 Stunding's correlation
= Calculated from equation ( 1 ) of this d~scussion
= Difference expressed a s per cent
cent above the observed fonnatlon voluine a t bubble
point Agaln, the largest discrepancy was found f o r
mistures involving a n oil of a relatively high gravity
This is not unexpected, lilasinuch a s the author indi-
cated t h a t only a llinlted amount of data lncludlng such
materials was available
The formation voluine in the heterogeneous r e g o n
f o r a pressure of 1,000 psl has been conlputed f o r 2
mlstures of oil and g a s on the basis of t h e correlation
shown in the paper under dlscusslon A comparison
of the observed and calculated values 1s presented In
Table 3 (Sage) I11 this Instance the calculated forma-
tlon volumes a r e from 4 4 to 15 6 per cent larger than
the observed values As a11 alternative procedure, the
formation voluine in the two-phase region was computed
uslng the following espressionz
TZ
V = Vb+O 005062 F;- (r-rb) (1)
1
I n applylng equation (1) the experimentally observed
formation volunle and gas-011 ratlo a t bubble point
were employed f o r states corresponding to t h e pres-
sure and temperature of interest The compressibility
factor also was obtained from e ~ p e ~ l i n e n tdata
al How-
ever, these data could have been estimated from avail-
able correlations based upon the pseudo-reduced state
and t h e lnforlnatlon submmtted In t h e Standmg paper
The results of t h e application of equat~on (1) a r e in-
cluded in Table 3 (Sage)
R H Smith (Signal Oil and Gas Company, Los
Angeles, Calif ) The charts prepared by M r Stand-
ing will reduce a cumbersome laboratory or calculating
process to a slide-rule type of operation I think it
may be stated t h a t thls information incorporates the
best broad definition of P-V-T behavior of California
crude 011s yet a v a ~ l a b l ei n published form Because
it does represent definite progress in the calculation
method, the question of choice between laboratory de-
termnation or derivation by reference to systeinatlzed
esperlence data is again raised Without attempting to
revlew all the factors involved in making the choice, I
would rather confine my comment to one factor, v i z ,
t h e iinportance of which IS frequently overlooked
The accuracy and usefulness of all P-V-T data a r e
dependent upon a properly carried out sampllng opera-
tlon, a s well a s upon the precision with which the
laboratory can work Under many circumstances en-
countered 111 the field, a sample representative of sub-
surface composltlon is difficult to obtaln As naturally
disposed in a con~plesreservolr, o r a reservoir of large
closure, hydrocarbon fluids frequently display a marked
degree of compositional variation which must be 111-
vestigated to Insure correct treatment in working out
the subsurface inechaiucs The best guarantee t h a t
sampllng methods have been adequate would be t h e
adoption of a program of multiple sampling designed
t o nlinlmize or explore the uncertainties.
The employment of correlated experience data, on
the other hand, 1s a practlce which neatly avoids the
v~cissltudes of sampling, i e , it replaces the element
of sampling with a n equivalent operation over w h ~ c h
a greater degree of control can be eserclsed I n t h e
assembly of P-V-T data a s background material, only
those variables subject to definltlon in the laboratory
a r e dealt mlth No assumptions regarding t h e fidelity
achieved In reprocluclng reseilroir fluid con~positioila r e
made a t thls p o ~ n t I t then remains to qualify a n d
adapt the einplrical P-V-T composit~onrelation t o meet
speclfic need A general survey of the mass of surface
and subsurface information which h a s been accumu-
lated 111 the field through the pertinent ranges of time,
zone, o r location will afford t h e perspective necessary
to accomplish the adaptation The sacrifice in assured
accuracy inherent in obtalnlng pressure and volun~e
factors from general correlations is frequently offset
by the inore hscreet treatment which may be given t h e
varlous portions of the pool This approach h a s merit
when lack of ~nforination o r the conlplesity of t h e
reservolr problem dictates a recourse to trial-and-error
methods
The d a t a the autllor h a s presented may be used t o
advantage m coinbinatlon with specific laboratory de-
terminations The charts have use in calculatlng t h e
effect of snlall changes In a n y of the variables (pres-
sure, temperature, deilslty of the 011 or gas, and t h e
gas-oil ratio) oil preclse laboratory measurements
when the investigation was not c a r r ~ e dinto the range
of lmnlediate interest
As Mr Standlnrr - has nointed out, the accuracv attaln-
able 111 applylng this type of correlation 1s limited by
the degree to whlch co~npositioilof natuially occurring
systems can be specified by the statement of gas-011
ratio, g a s gravity, and oil gravity If any method, such
a s t h a t of Sage and Reamer defin~ngthe g a s a s all
the pentanes and lighter fraction of the composite, can
be employed with improvement 111 general apphcability,
then lt 1s to be hoped t h a t t h e fund of baslc d a t a which
was drawn upon f o r the correlations herein presented
ultimately will be restated In the inore precise form
Hydrocarbon analyses a r e perfonned wlth facility and
could be made available In inany instances when added
precision is desired
M r Standing M r Sinit11 h a s a good p o ~ n t One
difficulty t h a t I have stressed is the effect of the inethod
of separabon of the oil and g a s a t the surface on t h e
resulting gas-oil ratio As no doubt many of you will
recall, In Sage and Lacey's Rio Bravo report a n a t -
tempt was made to get around thls difficulty by speclfy-
1ng pentanes and heavier material a s oil, and butanes
and hghter materlal a s gas This method is a step in the
right direction However, it is confusing to t h e field man
and, a s yet, ~thas not caught on to the extent I should
like to see ~ t do .
IV Teinpelaar Lietz (Shell Oil Company, Inc , Los
Angeles, Cahf ) Mr Standing 1s to be congratulated
on a very constructive and interesting paper Obvi-
ously, a trenlendous amount of work was required t o
obtain and correlate the data One outstanding use f o r
the calculatlng charts will be to give us some idea of

orlginal leservoir c o n d ~ t ~ o nIns the older fields 011 whlch
no P-V-T data a r e available However, we should hke to
polnt out that, on comparing the calculated bubble-point
pressures with 21 experimental detern~lnations, devia-
tions of from 700 p s ~ ,gage, to -415 psi, gage, a r e
found, wlth a n average of 120 psi, gage
One of the lnajor uses of P-V-T data is i n carrying
out material-balance calculat~ons,especially ~n the early
life of the field, in order to choose the most desirable
development schelne However, a t such a n early date,
pressure drops a r e small, and, ~f a n error such as
700 psl, gage, o r -415 p s ~ ,gage, were introduced, a n y
conclus~onsdrawn from the balance calculation would
not be valld On the other hand, on colnparing the
calculated forlnat~on voluines of bubble-polnt liqulds
wlth actual determlnations, it appears t h a t 18 out of
t h e 24 determlnatlons check very closely, t h e reinalnlng
6 havlng a d e v ~ a t ~ oofn froin 4 to -9 per cent
E C Babson (Peerless Pacific Company, Portland,
Ore ) * Mr Standlng h a s glven u s a set of correla-
tlons from whlch ~t IS possible to estimate the bubble
polnts and the formation-volume factors f o r nllxtures
of Californ~aoils and gases under a wide range of
pressures, temperatures, and 011 gravities If all Call-
forma 011s and gases behave in the same manner a s
the samples studled In thls ~nvestigation,one could feel
fairly confident t h a t bubble polnts estimated by thls
method would be within 10 per cent and formation-
volume factors w l t h ~ n4 per cent of t h e t r u e values
Although ~t 1s obv~oust h a t any correlations w h ~ c h
would permit such accuracy a r e of g r e a t value, a dis-
cusslon of methods of u s ~ n gt h e d a t a niay throw some
hght on the possiblllty of u s ~ n gthese correlations In-
stead of making laboratory P-V-T ~ n v e s t i g a t ~ o n s
P-V-T data a r e used prl~lclpallyIn material-balance
calculat~onswhich range from sllnple estlmates of the
or1 orlg~rlallyIn place to deta~ledstudles of reservolr
perforniance The results of such calculatlons can be
used f o r a varlety of purposes such a s
1 Estimation of reserves
2 E s t ~ m a t i o nof s ~ z eof reservoir
3 Evaluation of strength of water drlve
4 P r e d ~ c t ~ oofn f u t u r e performance of a pool
5 Evaluation of a proposed production program
Sometlines a rough e s t ~ m a t e1s all t h a t 1s justified
by the circun~stances,and it IS obvlous t h a t t h e corre-
l a t ~ o n sin thls paper ~ 1 1 1be h ~ g h l ysatisfactory f o r
such work The real question regarding thew a p p l ~ c a -
tion arises when the h ~ g h e s t precision attainable is
really needed, and thls s ~ t u a t i o noften arlses in material-
balance work
Inasmuch a s it IS unwise to requlre greater accu-
racy In t h e P-V-T d a t a than In t h e other factors enter-
l n g into the calculat~ons,~t seems pertlneiit to examine
sonle of these other factors from this standpoint
I n most material-balance calculations ~t is necessary
to know t h e volume ava~lablef o r 011 and gas In t h e
reservolr I n order to arrlve a t thls figure, it IS neces-
s a r y to estimate.
* Presented by Jan Lam, consultant, Los Angeles, Culff
[PERATURE CORRELATION 287
1 The hulk sand volume
2 The average poiosity
3 The lnterstihlal-water saturation
Considering the uncertainties enterlng into each of
these estlmates, ~t seeins unlikely t h a t the uncertainty
111 estimating the reservoir volume will be less than 5
to 10 per cent except under most favorable concll-
tions I n many cases, of course, the uncertainty wlll
be even greater than t h ~ s
A second factor t h a t enters into all material-balance
calculatlons is the composition of the reservoir hydro-
carbons, usually expressed a s a n ~n-placegas-011 ratlo
Unfortunately, careful investigation seems to ~ n d l c a t e
t h a t thls factor often v a n e s materially fro111 point to
point with111 a reservoir I t IS not uncommon f o r the
h ~ g h e s tgas-oil ratio In a new field to be double t h e
lowest gas-011 ratlo, wlthout any evldence of f r e e g a s
In the reservolr Under these conditions it would be
necessary to conduct a long and e q e n s l v e laboratory
investlgat~onto develop representative P-V-T data
The thlrd factor t h a t is necessary III all material-
balance calculat~ons is the reservoir pressuie Sub-
surface pressures In wells can be measured to almost
any desired degree of accuracy if enough tests a r e
lnacle wlth sufficient s k ~ l l Unfortunately, the pressure
measured in the wells may not be representatlve of
the pressure In the reservolr Unless the permeability
of the sand is h ~ g henough to permit pressure equahza-
tioil In a reasonable period of t ~ m e ,~t1s very difficult
to obtaln representatlve reservoir pressures Further-
Inore, ~f pressures vary ~naterlallyfrom urell to well,
it IS clifficult to con~putea represeiltat~veaverage
Also, in many matenal-balance calculat~ons, the
critlcal factor 1s the relation between-the-fonnat~on-
volume factor and pressure, rather than the absolute
value of the format~on-volumefactor a t a n y given pres-
sure If t h e slope of the f ~ ~ m a t i o n - v o l u mfactor
e vs
pressure curve IS representat~veof the conditions In
the reservolr, satisfactory material-balance calculat~ons
can be made even though there nlay be some discrepancy
In t h e absolute values
With these factors 111 mind, it seems to me t h a t Mr
Standlng's ~ o ~ r e l a t ~could
o n well be used In place of
laboratory P-V-T lnvestigatlons In engineering work
011 pools h a v ~ n g
1 F e w wells
2 Irregular sands
3 Low permeahihties
4 Llttle o r no water drive
On the other hand, it seeins to me t h a t laboratory
P-V-T lnvestlgations w11 be advisable 111 fields of
large slze havlng consistent sands of relatively h ~ g h
permeability and soine reasonable expectation of a
strong water drlve Laboratory data would be particu-
larly needed a t pressures above the bubble polnt, a s
Mr Standlng's correlations do not cover the compres-
slbllity of undersaturated liquld
It IS obvious fro111 the last two paragraphs t h a t I
would cons~derthese 'correlations to be entirely ade-
quate f o r the majorlty of the oil fields In C a l ~ f o r ~ u a