Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209 – 221

www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Evaluation of empirically derived PVT properties for

Middle East crude oils
Muhammad Ali Al-Marhoun
Department of Petroleum Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

Abstract

This study evaluates the most frequently used pressure – volume – temperature (PVT) empirical correlations to determine
reservoir – fluid properties for Middle East crudes. The best available correlations were selected and their predictions compared
with a large database of reservoir – fluid studies of samples representing all active areas of the Middle East. The comparison is
based on statistical error analysis. This paper gives the best correlations for estimating: bubblepoint pressure, solution gas – oil
ratio, oil formation volume factor at bubblepoint pressure, total formation volume factor, undersaturated oil compressibility, and
undersaturated, saturated, and dead oil viscosities.
Values of reservoir liquid and gas properties are often needed when detailed laboratory PVT data is not available. The
published correlations that are not based on Middle East data perform poorly, but, when they are calibrated with this data, the
performance improves.
D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fluid properties; Oil compressibility; Oil viscosity; PVT data; PVT correlations

1. Introduction of a correlation, the geological condition is consid-

Knowledge of the pressure – volume– temperature
(PVT) parameters is a requirement for all types of
petroleum calculations such as determination of hy-
drocarbon flowing properties, design of fluid handling
equipment, and reservoir volumetric estimates. The
PVT properties can be obtained from a laboratory
experiment using representative samples of the crude
oils. However, the values of reservoir liquid and gas
properties must be computed when detailed laboratory
PVT data is not available.
The PVT properties depend on pressure, tempera-
ture, and chemical composition. For the development
E-mail address: marhounm@kfupm.edu.sa (M.A. Al-Marhoun).
ered important because the chemical composition of
crude oil differs from region to region. It is difficult
to obtain the same accurate results through empirical
correlations for different oil samples having different
physical and chemical characteristics. Therefore, to
account for regional characteristics, PVT correlations
need to be modified prior to their application. Be-
cause of the availability of a wide range of correla-
tions, it is also beneficial to analyze them for a given
set of PVT data belonging to a certain geological
region.
This study examines existing PVT correlations
with their original coefficients and the modified
coefficients based on PVT data collected from dif-
ferent locations in the Middle East. Popular PVT

0920-4105/$ - see front matter D 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2003.12.012
210 M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209–221

correlations reported in the petroleum literature are Table 1

included in the study. The validity and statistical Ranges of API gravity used in published correlations
accuracy are determined for these correlations and Author Year jAPI min jAPI max
finally the best-suited correlations are recommended Beal 1946 10.0 52.5
for their application to Middle East crude oils. In Standing 1947 16.5 63.8
Chew and Connally 1959 N/A N/A
addition, this study can be used as an effective guide-
Beggs and Robinson 1975 16.0 58.0
line for the application of correlations to different Vasquez and Beggs 1980 15.3 59.5
crudes. Glaso 1980 20.1 48.1
Al-Marhoun 1988 19.4 44.6
Al-Marhoun 1992 10.4 49.2
Labedi 1992 32.2 48.0
2. PVT correlations
Petrosky and Farshad 1993 16.3 45.0
Al-Marhoun 2003 17.5 44.6
The frequently used empirical correlations for the
prediction of bubblepoint pressure, solution gas – oil
ratio, oil formation volume factor (FVF) at bubble- Beggs (1980). In this study, the coefficients for
point, total FVF, undersaturated oil compressibility, the solution gas –oil ratio correlation developed by
viscosity above and at bubblepoint pressure, and Standing (1947), Vasquez and Beggs (1980), and
dead oil viscosity are reviewed in the following Al-Marhoun (1988) were regressed to improve the
sections. estimation.

2.1. Bubblepoint pressure correlations 2.3. Oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure correlations

Standing (1947) presented a correlation for predict-
ing bubblepoint pressure by correlating reservoir
temperature, solution gas –oil ratio, gas relative den-
sity, and oil API gravity. The 105 data points used for
this study were sampled from Californian oil fields.
Vasquez and Beggs (1980) reported their work for
bubblepoint pressure prediction of a gas –saturated
crude. They subdivided the 6004 data points into two
groups because of the variation in the volatility of
crude samples. These groups are oil samples with
cAPI V 30 and cAPI>30. Al-Marhoun (1988) published
his correlation for determining bubblepoint pressure
based on 160 data points from Middle East oil
samples. The API ranges for the data used in devel-
oping the correlations presented in this study are
shown in Table 1.
2.2. Solution gas – oil ratio correlations
A precedent has been established in the petro-
leum literature whereby regression analysis is not
attempted on the solution gas – oil ratio. The corre-
lation for the solution gas – oil ratio is usually
derived from bubblepoint pressure correlation. An
exception to this precedent is the correlation of the
solution gas – oil ratio reported by Vasquez and
Standing (1947) developed the very first corre-
lation by utilizing the same data used for his
bubblepoint pressure prediction. Vasquez and Beggs
(1980) reported their research recommending a
bifurcation in the data with two ranges of oil
API gravities. Al-Marhoun (1992) updated his ear-
lier 1988 correlation by acquiring a large data set
of 4012 data points collected from all over the
world.
2.4. Total FVF correlations
Standing (1947) reported the first graphical corre-
lation for predicting total FVF by correlating the
solution gas – oil ratio, temperature, gas relative den-
sity, oil gravity, and pressure. Applying the same PVT
parameters used by Standing, Glaso (1980) published
his correlation. Al-Marhoun (1992) updated his earlier
1988 correlation using a data set of 4005 points from
all over the world.
2.5. Undersaturated oil compressibility correlations
Calhoun (1947) conducted the earliest research
when he presented a graphical correlation for deter-
mining the isothermal compressibility of an under-
 M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209–221
saturated crude oil. This correlation relates a value of
average compressibility to the oil relative density at
bubble point pressure. There is a single value of oil
compressibility for all pressures above the bubble
point. Trube (1957), for his graphical correlation,
used pseudoreduced pressure and temperature to
determine undersaturated oil compressibility. Vas-
quez and Beggs (1980) presented the first empirical
correlation in an equation form to predict undersat-
urated oil compressibility using available reservoir
parameters. A total of 4486 data points were used in
the development of the correlation. Petrosky and
Farshad (1993) developed another correlation for
oil compressibility using the same parameters used
by Vasquez and Beggs but in a different arrange-
ment. Al-Marhoun (2003) presented a new correla-
tion using 3412 data points from 186 Middle East
PVT reports.
2.6. Undersaturated oil viscosity correlations
Beal (1946) published his graphical correlations
for determining the undersaturated oil viscosity of
crude oil by using a data set representing U.S. oil
samples only. He used gas –saturated oil viscosity,
bubblepoint pressure, and pressure above bubble-
point as the correlating parameters. Vasquez and
Beggs (1980), by using 3593 data points, also
published their correlation for undersaturated oil
viscosity. The most recent correlation reported by
Labedi (1992) for light crude oils is based upon
Libyan crude oil data. As a part of this study, a new
correlation has been developed introducing oil rela-
tive density at bubblepoint pressure as a new param-
eter in the undersaturated oil viscosity correlation. A
total of 2216 data points from Middle East oil
samples were utilized in the development of the
correlation.
2.7. Gas – saturated oil viscosity correlations
Chew and Connally (1959) presented their work
for predicting oil viscosity at the bubblepoint as a
function of the solution gas –oil ratio. Their data set of
457 data points covered samples from South America,
Canada, and the U.S. Beggs and Robinson (1975)
acquired a large data set to obtain a correlation for
predicting gas – saturated oil viscosity. For light crude
211
oils, Labedi (1992) presented his correlation using
Libyan crude oil samples.
2.8. Dead oil viscosity correlations
Beal (1946) reported a correlation using 753 data
points for his analysis. He correlated oil gravity and
temperature covering a range of 100 –220 jF. Beggs
and Robinson (1975) presented their correlation using
460 dead oil observations. Glaso (1980) also devel-
oped a correlation using a temperature range of 50 –
300 jF for 26 crude oil samples. Ng and Egbogah
(1983) presented their viscosity correlation by recal-
culating the Beggs and Robinson correlation con-
stants. Labedi (1992) published a correlation for dead
oil viscosity for light crude oil samples from Libyan
reservoirs.
All of the correlations selected for this study are
given in Appendix A.
3. PVT data acquisition for Middle East crude oil
PVT reports of 186 bottomhole fluid samples
were acquired from different locations in the Middle
East for the evaluation purpose of this study. A
typical Middle East crude oil is Arabian mixture
and its analysis is as follows: crude oil gravity of
34.5j API, sulfur content of 1.7 wt.%, viscosity of
44 Saybolt Universal Second (SUS) at 100 jF, pour
point of
15 jF and salt content of 3 lb/1000 bbl.
The PVT reports contain the results of standard
flash liberation, differential liberation, separator tests,
viscosity measurements, and gas analysis conducted
on bottomhole fluid samples collected directly from
oil fields. The differential liberation data were not
used in this study.
The oil FVF and the calculated isothermal oil
compressibility are checked for the physical trend as
follows:
 The undersaturated oil FVF decreases with in-
creasing pressure
 Isothermal oil compressibility decreases with
increasing pressure
 The slope of Co (dCo/dp) is negative
 The slope is decreases with increasing pressure in
absolute value
212 M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209–221

Table 2
Data ranges of the Middle East crude oils
Parameter Minimum Maximum Average
Bob 1.02 1.89 1.23
Bo above Bob 1.002 1.88 1.22
Bt below Bob 1.057 339.123 4.296
Pb 106 3331 1209.46
P>Pb 175 5015 2541.19
P < Pb 20 3200 669.512
Rs 24 1453 400.27
cg 0.753 1.819 1.037
cAPI 17.5 44.6 31.339
co 0.804 0.950 0.870
Co  10+ 6 3.45 31.11 8.66
T 71 240 139.955
lob 0.159 56 5.173
lo above lob 0.160 81.8 6.229
Fig. 1. Statistical accuracy of bubblepoint pressure grouped by oil
lod 0.94 278.4 12.059
API gravity.
CO2 (mol%) 0.07 24 5.286
N2 (mol%) 0 18 0.779
H2O (mol%) 0 26 4.215
temperature, oil API gravity, and gas relative density
values.

If these conditions are not met, then the data set is put
aside and considered not valid because it does not
follow the physical trend.
Table 2 gives basic characteristics of the Middle
East crude oils considered here. The number of data
points used for bubblepoint pressure, solution gas – oil
ratio, oil formation volume factor at bubblepoint, total
formation volume factor, undersaturated isothermal
oil compressibility, viscosity above bubblepoint pres-
sure, viscosity at bubblepoint pressure, and dead oil
viscosity are 530, 530, 530, 5338, 3412, 2216, 296,
and 296, respectively.
In general, this data set covers a wide range of
bubblepoint pressure, oil FVF, solution gas – oil ratio,
4. Evaluation procedure
Statistical and graphical error analyses are the
criteria adopted for the evaluation in this study.
Existing PVT correlations are applied to the Middle
East data set and a comprehensive error analysis is
performed based on a comparison of the predicted
value with the original experimental value. For an in-
depth analysis of the accuracy of the correlations
tested, an error analysis based on different ranges of
oil API gravity is also carried out graphically. An error
analysis based on oil API gravity ranges is considered
an effective tool for determining the suitability of the

Table 3 Table 4
Statistical accuracy of bubblepoint pressure Statistical accuracy of solution gas – oil ratio
Er Ea Emax s r Er Ea Emax s r
Correlation Correlation
Standing (1947)
11.52 14.06 80.86 15.55 Standing (1947) 10.07 14.03 104.57 15.84
Vasquez and Beggs (1980)
17.24 19.15 103.90 16.41 Vasquez and Beggs (1980) 14.66 17.67 94.35 15.46
Al-Marhoun (1988) 1.85 7.81 59.03 11.04 Al-Marhoun (1988)
2.37 12.29 237.68 24.64

Modified correlation Modified correlation

Standing (1947)
0.81 8.89 53.87 12.59 0.9837 Standing (1947)
1.11 9.96 123.01 16.5 0.9845
Vasquez and Beggs (1980)
0.85 9.09 56.25 12.85 0.9777 Vasquez and Beggs (1980)
1.153 10.11 91.94 16.10 0.9721
Al-Marhoun (1988)
0.60 7.12 56.39 10.37 0.9887 Al-Marhoun (1988)
1.08 9.20 151.22 17.2 0.9857
 M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209–221 213

Fig. 2. Statistical accuracy of solution gas – oil ratio grouped by oil Fig. 3. Statistical accuracy of oil FVF at bubblepoint grouped by oil
API gravity. API gravity.

correlation for heavy, medium, or light oils. The

ison will reveal that the correlation with the least error
statistical means used to determine the accuracy of
offers a better explanation of the PVT parameters.
the correlations are shown in Appendix B.
After applying the existing correlations to the
acquired data set, results in the form of average
5. Results and comparison percent relative error, average absolute percent rela-
tive error, maximum absolute percent relative error,
standard deviation, and correlation coefficient are
Generally, the use of correlations results in large
summarized in Tables 3 –10.
errors except when they are applied to crudes for which
Another effective comparison of correlations can
they were developed. While correlations are expected
be performed through graphical representation of
to perform well when tested with data similar to the
errors as a function of oil API gravity ranges. Average
data used in their development, the real test of the
correlations is comparing them with new data for absolute relative error is an important indicator of the
different crudes after modifying correlations’ coeffi- accuracy of an empirical correlation. It is used here as
cients using the new data. In general, the statistical a comparative criterion for testing the accuracy of
tested correlations and modified ones (correlations
analysis shows a major improvement in errors for all
with new constants using Middle East data). Figs.
correlations with the new coefficients. Such a compar-
1– 8 represent errors in correlations and their modifi-
cations for six oil API gravity ranges.
Table 5
Statistical accuracy of bubblepoint oil formation volume factor
Er Ea Emax s r Table 6
Statistical accuracy of total formation volume factor
Correlation
Standing (1947)
0.68 1.39 11.79 2.02 Er Ea Emax s r
Vasquez and Beggs (1980) 1.00 1.60 16.80 2.03 Correlation
Al-Marhoun (1992)
0.18 0.72 16.82 1.28 Glaso (1980) 12.45 18.98 128.97 20.01
Al-Marhoun (1992) 1.92 3.68 87.49 6.69
Modified correlation
Standing (1947)
0.02 0.96 9.11 1.31 0.9928 Modified correlation
Vasquez and Beggs (1980) 0.082 1.10 10.13 1.49 0.9801 Glaso (1980)
1.06 8.70 195.90 17.06 0.9657
Al-Marhoun (1992) 0.06 0.72 14.33 1.21 0.9912 Al-Marhoun (1992)
0.21 3.13 84.82 6.44 0.8707
214 M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209–221

Fig. 5. Statistical accuracy of oil compressibility grouped by oil API

gravity.
Fig. 4. Statistical accuracy of total FVF grouped by oil API gravity.

coefficients are recalculated based on Middle East

data. The least error of all the tested correlations is
5.1. Bubblepoint pressure
obtained for light oil as shown in Fig. 2.
Table 3 shows that Al-Marhoun (1988) correlation
5.3. Oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure
has the least errors for the data used. The statistical
analysis shows a major improvement in errors for
The correlations for oil FVF at bubblepoint pres-
Standing, and Vasquez and Beggs correlations with
sure are very accurate, and no significant improve-
modified coefficients. In spite of this improvement,
ment is obtained by calculating new constants for the
Al-Marhoun correlation outperforms them. The least
correlations, as shown in Table 5. Fig. 3 shows that
error of all the tested correlations is obtained for light
Al-Marhoun (1992) correlation exhibited the least
oil as depicted by Fig. 1.
error for all oil API gravity ranges. The least errors
of all the tested correlations are obtained for heavy oil.
5.2. Solution gas – oil ratio
5.4. Total FVF
The statistical accuracy of the solution gas – oil
ratio is provided in Table 4. In this instance, Al-
Glaso (1980) correlation underestimates the pre-
Marhoun (1988) correlation has the least errors for
dicted value compared to the experimental one.
the data used. The statistical analysis shows a major
improvement in errors for all correlations used when
Table 8
Statistical accuracy of undersaturated oil viscosity
Table 7 Er Ea Emax s r
Statistical accuracy of undersaturated isothermal oil compressibility
Correlation
Er Ea Emax s r Beal (1946) 2.53 3.54 41.81 4.81
Correlation Vasquez and Beggs (1980)
10.19 10.73 182.49 19.27
Vasquez and Beggs (1980) 11.56 43.42 429.76 57.96 Labedi (1992)
3.59 4.36 76.78 6.03
Petrosky and Farshad (1993) 6.13 25.45 138.08 31.74
Modified correlation
Modified correlation Beal (1946)
1.48 2.49 25.13 3.18 0.9981
Vasquez and Beggs (1980) 17.84 34.53 244.77 40.33 0.3506 Vasquez and Beggs (1980)
2.45 4.28 54.94 7.67 0.9894
Petrosky and Farshad (1993)
0.73 9.47 73.18 12.12 0.9222 Labedi (1992)
0.02 2.61 48.89 4.40 0.9970
Al-Marhoun (2003)
0.25 5.46 26.87 7.06 0.9829 This study 0.36 1.75 27.21 2.87 0.9979
 M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209–221 215

Fig. 6. Statistical accuracy of undersaturated oil viscosity grouped Fig. 7. Statistical accuracy of gas saturated oil viscosity grouped by
by oil API gravity. oil API gravity.

However, the statistical analysis shows a major im-
provement in error for Glaso correlation with new
constants. But Al-Marhoun correlation outperforms
Glaso as shown in Table 6. Fig. 4 shows the same
trend of errors for Glaso and Al-Marhoun (1992)
correlations for all oil API gravity ranges.
5.5. Undersaturated isothermal oil compressibility
Table 7 shows that Al-Marhoun (2003) correlation
depicts the least errors for the Middle East data. Fig. 5
shows that all correlations exhibited better perfor-
mance for high oil API gravity ranges. The statistical
analysis shows an improvement in errors for Vasquez
and Beggs correlation with new constants. However,
there is a major improvement in errors for Petrosky
and Farshad correlation. In spite of this improvement,
Al-Marhoun correlation outperforms them. Petrosky
and Farshad and Al-Marhoun correlations exhibited a
significantly uniform error distribution for all oil API
gravity ranges as shown in Fig. 5.
5.6. Undersaturated oil viscosity
Beal (1946) showed better results than the other
correlations tested. Table 8 shows the least standard
deviation value for this correlation. A prediction by
Labedi (1992) is also reasonable for a high oil API
gravity range. Vasquez and Beggs correlation shows
poor performance as depicted by Fig. 6. The
statistical analysis shows an improvement in errors

Table 9
Statistical accuracy of gas saturated oil viscosity
Er Ea Emax s r
Correlation
Chew and Connally (1959)
25.76 26.27 333.97 25.92
Beggs and Robinson (1975) 9.78 16.50 248.25 21.37
Labedi (1992)
46.77 47.90 420.39 41.70

Modified correlation
Chew and Connally (1959)
Beggs and Robinson (1975)
Labedi (1992)
4.49 15.71 236.55 22.85 0.9809

8.83 14.04 240.13 21.15 0.9804
Fig. 8. Statistical accuracy of dead oil viscosity grouped by oil API

1.77 14.57 182.45 20.90 0.9666
gravity.
216 M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209–221
Table 10
Statistical accuracy of dead oil viscosity
Er Ea Emax s r
Correlation
Beggs and Robinson (1975)
23.02 45.87 444.80 64.86
Glaso (1980) 23.24 24.75 86.44 17.59
Labedi (1992)
8.87 32.47 222.83 45.04
Modified correlation
Beggs and Robinson (1975)
1.48 16.14 83.63 22.25 0.7411
Glaso (1980)
2.64 16.06 92.62 22.32 0.7623
Labedi (1992)
4.18 20.68 128.70 28.67 0.7125
for all correlations with modified coefficients. A
new correlation has been developed as part of this
study using the Middle East data. The new one-
constant simple correlation outperforms all correla-
tions tested.
5.7. Gas – saturated oil viscosity
Beggs and Robinson is the best correlation and
Labedi (1992) correlation shows very poor perfor-
mance for the Middle East data as shown in Table
9. The statistical analysis shows an improvement in
errors for all correlations with modified coeffi-
cients, but errors are still high. However, Labedi
(1992) shows the maximum improvement. All
correlations, with the exception of Labedi’s,
exhibited a significantly uniform error for all oil
API ranges gravity as shown in Fig. 7.
5.8. Dead oil viscosity
The Glaso (1980) correlation is found to be
relatively better for higher API gravity as shown in
Fig. 8. All correlations obtained high errors as shown
in Table 10. The Glaso (1980) correlation with
modified coefficients is found to be the best and
Beggs and Robinson stood second in terms of
accuracy.
6. Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from this
evaluation study for the Middle East data.
(1) Al-Marhoun (1988) correlation is the best for the
prediction of bubblepoint pressure and solution
gas – oil ratio. Standing correlation with new
constants stood second in accuracy.
(2) For oil FVF correlations at bubblepoint pressure,
all of the selected correlations showed very good
accuracy for the data used. Due to its least error
and least standard deviation, Al-Marhoun (1992)
correlation is recommended.
(3) Al-Marhoun (1992) correlation is recommended
for the prediction of the total FVF due to its least
error and least standard deviation. Glaso (1980)
stood second in accuracy.
(4) All the undersaturated oil compressibility corre-
lations are good for high oil API gravity ranges
and showed large errors towards heavy oils.
Petrosky and Farshad, and Al-Marhoun correla-
tions exhibited a significantly uniform error
distribution for all oil API gravity ranges. The
evaluation process shows that Al-Marhoun (2003)
correlation outperforms other correlations.
(5) All correlations tested for oil viscosity above
bubblepoint pressure, with the exception of
Vasquez and Beggs correlation, exhibited good
accuracy. The evaluation process shows that the
new one-constant simple correlation developed in
this study outperforms all tested correlations for
Middle East data.
(6) Beggs and Robinson (1975) correlation is
recommended as the best correlation to predict
bubblepoint oil viscosity as it gives the least error
for most of the oil API ranges.
(7) Based on statistical error analysis, Glaso (1980) is
recommended for the prediction of dead oil
viscosity for the Middle East data.
(8) Bubblepoint oil viscosity and dead oil viscosity
correlations exhibited high errors. Therefore,
more research is needed in this area.
Notation
Bob oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure, bbl/STB
(m3/m3)
Bt total FVF below bubblepoint pressure, bbl/
STB (m3/m3)
Co undersaturated oil compressibility, psi
1
(kPa
1)
Ea average absolute percent relative error
 M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209–221 217

EI percent relative error A.1 . Bubblepoint pressure

Er average percent relative error
nd number of data points A.1.1 . Standing (1947)
P pressure, psi (kPa)
Pb bubblepoint pressure, psi (kPa)
Pb ¼ a1 ðRs =cg Þa2 ea3 Tþa4 cAPI ðA
1Þ
Rs solution gas/oil ratio, scf/STB (m3/m3)
s standard deviation
T temperature, jF (K) Coefficient Original Modified for
X variable representing a PVT parameter Middle East data
cAPI stock tank oil gravity, jAPI a1 18 12.5914
cg gas relative density (air = 1) a2 0.83 0.877118
co oil relative density (water = 1) a3 2.09535  10
3 2.52564  10
3
cob bubblepoint oil relative density (water = 1) a4
28.78231  10
3
30.87410  10
3
lod dead oil viscosity, cp
lob gas – saturated oil viscosity, cp
lo undersaturated oil viscosity, cp
A.1.2 . Vasquez and Beggs (1980)

Subscripts
est estimated from the correlation
exp experimental value Pb ¼ a1 ðRs =cg Þa2 ea3 cAPI =ðTþ460Þ ðA
2Þ

SI metric conversion factors

Coefficient Original Modified for
3 Middle East data
jAPI 141.5/(131.5+jAPI)=g/cm
bbl0.1589837=m3 For gAPI V 30
ft30.02831685=m3 a1 20.7880 18.9819
cp1=mPa s a2 0.9143 0.8716
(jF+40)/1.8
40=jC a3
23.5202
19.3268
(jC+40)1.8
40=jF
psi6.894757=kPa For gAPI >30
jR/1.8=K a1 29.7818 21.6112
scf/bbl0.1801175=std. m3/m3 a2 0.8425 0.8996
a3
20.1609
24.0126

Acknowledgements A.1.3 . Al-Marhoun (1988)

The author is grateful to the Department of

Petroleum Engineering at King Fahd University of Pb ¼ a1 Ras 2 cag3 cao4 ðT þ 460Þa5 ðA
3Þ
Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia for
the facilities utilized to perform the present work
and for its support. Coefficient Original Modified for
Middle East data
a1 5.38088  10
3 0.66328  10
3
Appendix A . PVT correlations a2 0.715082 0.790062
a3
1.87784
1.45846
The PVT correlations evaluated in this study are a4 3.14370 3.93908
given below. a5 1.32657 1.60862
218 M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209–221

A.2 . Solution gas –oil ratio A.3 . Oil formation volume factor at bubblepoint
pressure
A.2.1 . Standing (1947)
A.3.1. Standing (1947)

Rs ¼ a1 cg Pba2 ea3 T þa4 cAPI ðA
4Þ Bob ¼ a1 þ a2 ½Rs ðcg =co Þa3 þ a4 T a5 ðA
7Þ

Coefficient Original Modified for

Coefficient Original Modified for
Middle East data
Middle East data
a1 0.9759 1.00229
a1 30.7343  10
3 64.7779  10
3
a2 0.00012 42.9135  10
6
a2 1.2048 1.09342
a3 0.5 0.0752226
a3
2.5245  10
3
2.78704  10
3
a4 1.25 1.60277
a4 34.677  10
3 40.1592  10
3
a5 1.2 1.32423

A.2.2 . Vasquez and Beggs (1980)

A.3.2. Vasquez and Beggs (1980)

Rs ¼ a1 cg Pba2 ea3 cAPI =ðT þ460Þ ðA
5Þ Bob ¼ 1 þ a1 Rs þ a2 ðT
60ÞðcAPI =cg Þ

þ a3 Rs ðT
60ÞðcAPI =cg Þ ðA
8Þ
Coefficient Original Modified for
Middle East data
Coefficient Original Modified for
For cAPI V 30 Middle East data
a1 0.0362 0.0466129
a2 1.0937 1.08361 For cAPI V 30
a3 25.7240 24.0154 a1 0.4677  10
3 0.442455  10
3
a2 17.51  10
6 26.3615  10
6
For cAPI >30 a3
18.11  10
9
20.9187  10
9
a1 0.0178 0.0412624
a2 1.1870 1.07813 For cAPI > 30
a3 23.9310 26.9859 a1 0.467  10
3 0.439283  10
3
a2 11.00  10
6 12.1761  10
6
a3 1.337  10
9 14.3775  10
9
A.2.3 . Al-Marhoun (1988)
A.3.3. Al-Marhoun (1992)

Rs ¼ a1 cag2 Pba3 cao4 ðT þ 460Þa5 ðA
6Þ

Bob ¼ 1 þ a1 Rs þ a2 Rs ðcg =co Þ þ a3 Rs ðT
60Þ
 ð1
co Þ þ a4 ðT
60Þ
ðA
9Þ

Coefficient Original Modified for

Middle East data Coefficient Original Modified for
a1 1.4903  10+ 3 5.53414  10+ 3 Middle East data
a2 2.6260 1.46538 a1 0.177342  10
3 0.364846  10
3
a3 1.3984 1.16600 a2 0.220163  10
3 0.637617  10
4
a4
4.3963
6.04470 a3 4.292580  10
6 3.873300  10
6
a5
1.8600
1.85099 a4 0.528707  10
3 0.465791  10
3
 M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209–221 219

A.4 . Total formation volume factor below bubblepoint A.5.2 . Petrosky and Farshad (1993)
pressure
co ¼ a1 Ras 2 cag3 caAPI
4
T a5 P a6 ðA
13Þ
A.4.1 . Glaso (1980)
Coefficient Original Modified for
lnBt ¼ a1 þ a2 lnG þ a3 ðlnGÞ2 ðA
10Þ Middle East data
a1 0.1705  10
6 0.097856  10
6
where G = RsTa4gga5pa6goC; C = 2.9  10-0.00027Rs. a2 0.69357 0.1998314
a3 0.1885
0.1936419
a4 0.3272 0.5778032
Coefficient Original Modified for
a5 0.6729 0.5293904
Middle East data
a6
0.5906
0.1633186
a1 0.184518
0.470089
a2 0.47257 0.413104
a3 75.354436  10
3 94.5333  10
3 A.5.3 . Al-Marhoun (2003)
a4 0.5 0.514482
a5
0.3
0.453157
a6
1.1089
0.928676 lnco ¼ a1 þ a2 =cob þ a3 ðP
Pb Þ=c3ob þ a4 =ðT þ 460Þ
ðA
14Þ
A.4.2 . Al-Marhoun (1992)
Coefficient Correlation constants for
Bt ¼ Bob ðp=pb Þd ðA
11Þ Middle East data
a1
14.1042
where d = a1(T + 460) + a2 ln cg + a3co + a4 ln co + a5 a2 2.7314
( p/pb) + a6 ln ( p/pb). a3
56.0605  10
6
a4
580.8778

Coefficient Original Modified for

Middle East data
a1
0.352796  10
3
0.231010  10
3 A.6 . Undersaturated oil viscosity
a2
0.35328914
0.446996
a3
0.24964270
0.320019 A.6.1 . Beal (1946)
a4 1.64925964 2.000510
a5 0.36432305 0.378191
a6 0.08685097 0.082612
lo ¼ lob þ ðp
pb Þða1 laob2 þ a3 laob4 Þ ðA
15Þ
A.5 . Undersaturated isothermal oil compressibility
Coefficient Original Modified for
A.5.1 . Vasquez and Beggs (1980) Middle East data

CO ¼ ða1 þ a2 Rs þ a3 T þ a4 cg þ a5 cAPI Þ=p a1 24  10
6 62.6611  10
6

a2 1.60 1.05584
ðA
12Þ a3 38  10
6 54.5610  10
6
a4 0.56 1.05584

Coefficient Original Modified for

Middle East data
a1
14.33  10
3 2.3386  10
3 A.6.2 . Vasquez and Beggs (1980)
a2 50  10
6 36.9769  10
6
a3 0.172  10
3 55.3945  10
6 lo ¼ lob ðp=pb Þm ðA
16Þ
a4
11.80  10
3
8.1716  10
3
a5 0.1261  10
3 58.2514  10
6
where ln m = a1 + a2p + a3 ln p.
220 M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209–221

Coefficient Original Modified for Coefficient Original Modified for

Middle East data Middle East data
a1
10.55749
8.05413 a1 10.715 11.1203
a2
89.80  10
6
47.6712  10
6 a2 100 167.616
a3 1.187 0.812117 a3
0.515
0.502858
a4 5.44 5.96403
a5 150 325.817
A.6.3 . Labedi (1992) a6
0.338
0.310559

lo ¼ lob þ mðp
pb Þ ðA
17Þ

A.7.3. Labedi (1992)
where ln m = a1 + a2cAPI + a3 ln lod + a4 ln pb.
lnlob ¼ a1 þ a2 cAPI þ a3 lnlod þ a4 lnpb ðA
21Þ
Coefficient Original Modified for
Middle East data
Coefficient Original Modified for
a1
5.728832
5.270370
Middle East data
a2
0.045361
0.035434
a3 0.9036 0.866084 a1 5.397259 3.560550
a4
0.3849
0.529468 a2
0.081557
0.033600
a3 0.6447 0.753613
a4
0.426
0.457565
A.6.4 . Al-Marhoun (2003)

lnlo ¼ lnlob þ a1 c2ob ðp
pb Þ ðA
18Þ A.8 . Dead oil viscosity

A.8.1. Beggs and Robinson (1975)

where cob =(co + 2.18  10
4 R s cg )/B ob and a 1 =
0.151292  10
3.
lnðlnðlod þ 1ÞÞ ¼ a1 þ a2 cAPI þ a3 lnT ðA
22Þ
A.7 . Gas – saturated oil viscosity

A.7.1 . Chew and Connally (1959)

Coefficient Original Modified for
Middle East data
lob ¼ albod ðA
19Þ
a1 7.816432 6.12171
a3 Rs
a ¼ a1 þ a2 e a2
0.04658
0.0658765
a3
1.163
0.702127
b ¼ a4 þ a5 e a 6 R s

Coefficient Original Modified for A.8.2. Glaso (1980)

Middle East data
a1 0.2 0.242083 lnlod ¼ a1 þ a2 lnT þ a3 lnðlncAPI Þ þ a4 ðlnT Þ
a2 0.8 0.751770
a3
1.86509  10
3
4.934310  10
3  lnðlncAPI Þ ðA
23Þ
a4 0.43 0.337986
a5 0.57 0.591547
a6
1.65786  10
3
0.499735  10
3
Coefficient Original Modified for
Middle East data
A.7.2 . Beggs and Robinson (1975) a1 54.56805426 89.5270
a2
7.179530398
13.6482
lob ¼ albod ðA
20Þ a3
36.447
64.6308
a4 4.478878992 9.73761
where a ¼ a1 ðRs þ a2 Þa3 ; b ¼ a4 ðRs þ a5 Þa6
 M.A. Al-Marhoun / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 42 (2004) 209–221 221

A.8.3 . Labedi (1992) B.5 . Correlation coefficient

pffiffiffi X nd X
nd

lnlod ¼ a1 þ a2 lncAPI þ a3 lnT ðA
24Þ r ¼ 1
½Xexp
Xest 2i = ½Xexp
X̄ 2i ðB
6Þ

1 1
where

Coefficient Original Modified for

Middle East data 1 Xnd
X̄ ¼ ½Xexp i ðB
7Þ
a1 21.23904 25.7154
nd 1
a2
4.7013
4.72616
a3
0.6739
1.56400
References

Appendix B . Statistical parameters Al-Marhoun, M.A., 1988. PVT correlations for Middle East crude
oils. J. Pet. Technol. 40 (5), 650 – 666.
Al-Marhoun, M.A., 1992. New correlations for formation volume
The following statistical means are used to deter- factors of oil and gas mixtures. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 31 (3),
mine the accuracy of the correlations. 22 – 26.
Al-Marhoun, M.A., 2003. The coefficient of isothermal compressi-
B.1 . Average percent relative error bility of black oils. Presented at the Soc. Pet. Eng. 13th Middle
East Oil Show and Conference, Bahrain 6 – 9 June 2003, Pap.
SPE 81432.
1 Xnd
Beal, C., 1946. The viscosity of air, water, natural gas, crude oil and
Er ¼ Ei ðB
1Þ its associated gases at oil field temperature and pressures. Trans.
nd 1
AIME (Am. Inst. Min. Metall.) 165, 94 – 112.
Beggs, H.D., Robinson, J.R., 1975. Estimating the viscosity of
where crude oil system. J. Pet. Technol. 9, 1140 – 1149.
Calhoun Jr., J.C., 1947. Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK, p. 35.
  Chew, J., Connally Jr., C.A., 1959. A viscosity correlation for gas –
Xexp
Xest
Ei ¼ 100 ði ¼ 1; 2; : : : ; nd Þ ðB
2Þ saturated crude oils. Trans. AIME (Am. Inst. Min. Metall.) 216,
Xexp i 23 – 25.
Glaso, O., 1980. Generalized pressure – volume – temperature corre-
lations. J. Pet. Technol. 32 (5), 785 – 795.
B.2 . Average absolute percent relative error Labedi, R., 1992. Improved correlations for predicting the viscosity
of light crudes. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 8, 221 – 234.
1 Xnd Ng, J.T.H., Egbogah, E.O., 1983. An improved temperature vis-
Ea ¼ jEi j ðB
3Þ cosity correlation for a crude oil system. Presented at the Pet.
nd 1 Soc., Can. Inst. Min. Metall., Annu. Tech. Meet., Banff, Alta.,
May 10 – 13, 1983, Pap. CIM 83-34-32.
B.3 . Maximum absolute percent relative errors Petrosky Jr., G.E., Farshad, F.F., 1993. Pressure – volume temper-
ature correlation for the Gulf of Mexico. Presented at 68th Soc.
Pet. Eng. Annu. Tech. Conf., Houston, TX, Oct. 3 – 6, 1993,
nd Pap. SPE 26644.
Emax ¼ maxjEi j ðB
4Þ Standing, M.B., 1947. A pressure – volume – temperature correla-
1
tion for mixtures of California oils and gases. Drilling and Pro-
duction Practice. Am. Pet. Inst., Tulsa, OK, pp. 275 – 287.
B.4 . Standard deviation Trube, A.S., 1957. Compressibility of undersaturated hydrocarbon
reservoir fluids. Trans. AIME (Am. Inst. Min. Metall.) 210,
341 – 344.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Vasquez, M.E., Beggs, H.D., 1980. Correlation for fluid physical
1 X nd
S¼ ðEi
Er Þ2 ðB
5Þ property prediction. J. Pet. Technol. 32 (6), 968 – 970.
nd
1 1