SPE 136967

Evaluation of Compressibility Factor Correlations for Niger Delta Gas

Reservoirs
Olajide Olateju Festus, SPE, and Sunday Sunday Ikiensikimama, SPE, Institute of Petroleum studies, University of
Port Harcourt, Nigeria

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 34th Annual SPE International Conference and Exhibition held in Tinapa – Calabar, Nigeria, 31 July–7 August 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.

a source of clean and more environmentally friendly

Abstract
This paper presents evaluation of compressibility factor
correlations for the Niger Delta gas reservoirs. The
correlations were evaluated using three principal
methods. First, the use of statistical analysis - mean
relative error, mean absolute error, standard deviation of
the mean relative error and absolute error as well as the
coefficient of correlation were computed. Secondly, these
statistical parameters were combined into a single
parameter called rank using the Multiple Statistical
Optimization Model (MULSOM). Finally, performance
plots of the experimental and estimated values of the
compressibility factors were made to serve as a
confirmation of the results of the statistical and ranking
methods. The database consists of 513 data points
obtained from Niger Delta gas reservoirs. The Z-factors
evaluated are in the ranges of reduced temperature and
pressure of 0.5796≤Tr≤1.758 and 0.410≤Pr≤8.985
respectively. The Carr-Kobayashi-Burrows correction for
the presence of CO2 and N2 was used. The best correlation
for the Niger Delta natural gas is Brill and Beggs. It has a
rank of 2.82, a percentage absolute error (Ea) of 3.234
and the best performance plot. Brill and Beggs is
recommended to be used in situations where laboratory
PVT data of natural gas compressibility factor is not
available for the Niger Delta gas reservoirs as well as
other regions of the world where the gas composition is
similar to that of the Niger Delta .
Introduction
The Natural gas compressibility factor is an important
reservoir fluid property used in reservoir engineering
computations either directly or indirectly in material
balance calculations, well test analysis, gas reserve
estimates, gas flow in lines and in numerical reservoir
simulations. In recent years, the world has turned to gas as
source of power. There is therefore need to be able to
estimate the existing gas reserves and develop methods of
recovering the gas from the reservoirs as well as the
capacity to design surface facilities to handle the gas.
The compressibility factor is a dimensionless quantity
more commonly called gas deviation factor, represented as
z-factor and is defined as the ratio of the actual volume of
n-moles of gas at a given temperature and pressure to the
ideal volume of the same number of moles at that
temperature and pressure (Ahmed1). The (real) gas
deviation factor, or gas compressibility factor, (z) has been
introduced into the gas law to incorporate the deviation
from ideal gas behaviour. In dealing with gases at low
pressure and temperature, the ideal gas relationship is a
convenient and generally a satisfactory tool. At higher
pressures and temperatures, the use of the ideal gas
equation of state may lead to errors. The deviation of gases
from the ideal gas behaviour at high temperature and
pressure depends on the composition of the gas. The
deviation from the ideal gas behaviour can be explained as
the result of the inherent assumption made in the
derivation of the ideal gas law. The standard is to obtained
the gas compressibility factor (z-factor) from the
laboratory Pressure-Volume-Temperature (PVT)
measurements using reservoir samples2. The laboratory
analyses are sometimes expensive and time consuming,
therefore, estimation of gas compressibility factor at
different conditions of pressures and temperatures are
made using different empirical correlations and equations
of state (Ahmed1).
Many equations of state have been developed in the
attempt to correlate the PVT variables for real gases with
experimental data. Broadly speaking, estimating
techniques for the gas compressibility factor can be
categorized into empirical correlation, corresponding state,
2 SPE 136967

and equation of state methods, with each method showing
a varying degree of success with different concentrations
of acid gases (nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen
sulphide) (Kumar and Lawal3). However, z-factor
correlations are easier and faster with adequate accuracy
compared to equations of state (Ahmed1). Therefore, the
purpose of this paper is to evaluate the most widely used
natural gas compressibility factor correlations for the
Niger Delta natural gas reservoirs using Niger Delta
Natural gas databank. The data used was obtained from
conventional PVT reports that derived the various fluid
properties through depletion process from different oil
fields in the Niger Delta. The Pressure-Volume-
temperature (PVT) data used in this evaluation were
validated using two methods: The material balance
technique and the profile expected from Pressure versus
compressibility factor chart based on theory (see Figure 1).
This evaluation used 513 data points. Table 1 shows the
correlations evaluated, not only in the range of input data
defined by each author but in the PVT data range for this
study as presented in Table 2.
The lower the value of the more equally distributed are
the errors between positive and negative values.
Average Absolute Percentage Relative Error (AAPRE)
The average absolute percentage relative error is defined
as:
∑ | | (3)
, indicates the relative absolute deviation in percent
from the experimental values. The lower the error the
better the correlation.
Standard Deviation
The standard deviation of the data is a reflection of the
dispersion of the data around the mean. It is expressed as
the square root of the variance.

∑ [(E − (( X − X ) / ( X )exp )i )]
n
2
Method of Choosing the Best Correlation S = n −1
i est
i =1
The eight correlations investigated were subjected to three (4)
different method of analysis using the quality checked and
quality controlled experimental data. The three methods the lower the value of the standard deviation, the smaller
used are: Statistical error analysis, Ranking the degree of dispersion of the data.
(Ikiensikimama et al. 4) and Graphical analysis (Cross
Plots).
Correlation Coefficient

Statistical Error Analysis The correlation coefficient ‘R’ represents the degree of
success in reducing the standard deviation by regression
Average % relative error, average absolute percentage analysis. On the other hand, the coefficient of
error, standard deviation of percentage relative error, determination is simply the square of the correlation
standard deviation of percentage absolute error and coefficient and defined by:
correlation coefficient were computed for all the eight
different correlations. The statistical parameters are
defined as follows:
[ ] [( X ) ]
n n
R = 1 - ∑ (X )exp - (X )ext 2i / ∑ (5)
2
exp -X
Average Percentage relative error (APRE) i =1 i =1 i

∑ [( X ) ]
n
1
The average percentage relative error is defined as: where, X = exp (6)
n i =1 i

∑ (1)
The correlation coefficient lies between 0 and 1. A value
Ei is of 1 indicates a perfect correlation whereas a value of 0
the relative deviation in percent of an estimated value from implies no correlation at all among the given independent
a measured value and is defined by : variables. The larger the value of R, the greater is the
⎡ (X )exp - (X )est ⎤ reduction in sum of square errors, and the stronger is the
Ei = ⎢ x 100 i = 1, 2, ... n
( X )exp ⎥⎥⎦
relationship between the independent and dependent
⎢⎣ variables. The values of these statistical parameters
(2) computed are shown in Table 3 for all the eight
correlations evaluated.
Where Xexp and Xest represent the experimental and
estimated values respectively. is an indication of the
relative deviation in percent from the experimental values.
SPE 136957
Method of Ranking
There is always a difficulty in knowing which of the
statistical parameter to rely on when making a choice of
the best correlation. Hence, the need for a new screening
technique that combines all the statistical parameters into a
single parameter called Rank. This new technique is called
Multiple Statistical Optimization Model (MULSOM)
using the Rank as a single criterion. According to
Ikiensikimama et al4, the use of multiple combinations of
statistical parameters in selecting the best correlation can
be modelled as a constraint optimization problem with the
objective function formulated as:
m
Min Z i = ∑ S i , j q i , j (7)
j =1
subject to
n
∑S
i =1
i, j =1 (8)
with
0 ≤ Si , j ≤ 1 (9)
Where is the strength of the statistical parameter j of
correlation i and qi,j the statistical parameter j
corresponding to correlation i. j = Er , Ea…..R1, where R1 =
1 – R and Zi is the Rank (Rk) of the desired correlation
and i is the number of correlations for a particular fluid
property.
Various strengths were attached to the different statistical
parameters mentioned in the previous section except the
root mean square error. Sensitivity analysis was done
using the optimization model (Equations 7 - 9) on
randomly attached strengths for these parameters. It was
observed that the ranking of the correlations was most
sensitive to Ea followed by correlation coefficient (R), Sa &
Sr and least affected by Er. A total of about 45,000 trials
were made using random variable technique with
performance plots. The final acceptable parameter
strengths so obtained for the quantitative screening are 0.4
for % AAPRE (Ea), 0.2 for correlation coefficient (R),
0.15 for % SDA (Sa), 0.15 for % SDR (Sr), and 0.1 for %
APRE (Er). Ranking of correlations was therefore made
after the correlations had been evaluated against the
available database. The correlation with the lowest rank
was awarded the best correlation for the compressibility
factor. Table 4 shows the values of Rank obtained for the
eight correlations evaluated in this study.
Graphical Analysis (Use of Cross Plots)
For graphical analysis, cross plots were used. The cross
plot is a graph of the predicted versus measured properties
with a 45o reference line to readily ascertain the
correlation’s fitness and accuracy. A perfect correlation
would plot as a straight line with a slope of 45o. The visual
examination of these cross plots would give a basis for a
compromise where necessary; especially where statistical
3
results might be misleading; in cases where statistical
results rank a correlation high while the cross plot clearly
predicted negative values. Figures 2 to 9 show the cross
plots of the correlations evaluated.
Results and Discussion
The results of the evaluation of the eight of the most
widely used compressibility factor correlations as applied
to natural gas are presented. The correlations used for the
evaluation for the Niger Delta compressibility factor data
are: Burnett 5, Hall and Yarborough6, Gopal7, Papay8,
Papp9, Dranchuk and Abuo-Kassem10, Brill and Beggs14,
Dranchuk-Purvis-Robinson11 (see Table 1). For all these
correlations, the Carry-Kaboyashi-Burrows12 correction for
the presence of impurities was used.
Statistical Error Analysis
Table 3 presents the result obtained for the statistical
analysis method. It shows that Brill and Beggs13
correlation has the lowest value of absolute percentage
relative error while Gopal7 has the highest value. From the
statistical method Brill and Beggs correlation is the best.
This agrees with Al-Marhoun’s14 assertion that the best
correlation should have the least absolute percentage
relative error.
Method of Ranking
The second method of choosing the best correlation
combined all the statistical parameter into a single
parameter called Rank for all the different correlations
evaluated. Equation 9 was used for the ranking. The
correlation with the lowest rank was selected as the best
correlation for this fluid property. Brill and Beggs13
obtained the lowest value and the highest value of rank
was obtained by Gopal7. Hence, because the best
correlation should have the lowest rank (Ikiensikimama et
al 4) Brill and Beggs13 is also considered the best by this
method. This result is as presented in Table 4.
Graphical Analysis (Use of Cross Plots)
Cross plots are plots of experimental values of
compressibility factor against those estimated by the
correlations are shown in Figures 2 to 9. The plot agrees
with the conclusion drawn from the statistical analysis and
the Rank of the correlations. Brill and Beggs13 gave the
best cross plot.
Conclusion
In this work, eight correlations for computing the natural
gas compressibility factor were evaluated. Due to the
presence of impurities in the gas the Carry-kaboyashi-
Burrows12 correction for the presence of impurities was
used to correct for the presence of CO2 and N2 in the
natural gas streams that were used for the analysis. Three
 4 SPE 136967

methods were used in choosing the best correlation for the
Niger Delta natural gas. They are: the statistical approach,
the rank method and the use of cross plots. From these
methods, the Brill and Beggs13 correlation was found to be
the best correlation. It has the lowest rank of 2.82, the
lowest percentage absolute error of 3.234 and the best
cross plot. It is noteworthy to state that there was no
correction made for hydrogen sulphide because Niger
Delta natural gas is sweet.
7. Gopal, V. N., “Gas Z-factor Equations developed for
computer”, The Oil and Gas Journal, 1977; pp 58-60.
8. Papay, J., “A Termelestechnologiai Parameterek VoltoZasa
a GaJlelepK Muvelese Soran”, OGIL MUSZ, Tud, KUZL,
Budapest, 1968; pp 267-273.
9. Papp Istuan, “Uj modsZer foldgazok elteresi tenyeZojenek
sZamitasara,” Kodaj es Foldgaz 12 (112) evfolyam 11.
Szam, 1979; pp 345-37.

Acknowledgments 10. Dranchuk, P. M and Abu-Kassem, J. H., ” Calculation of

The authors gratefully acknowledge the management of
Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria
Limited for providing the data, support and permission to
publish this work.
References
1. Ahmed, T., Reservoir Engineering Hand
Book, 3rd Edition, Elsevier Inc, Oxford, 2006, P37.
2. Standing, M. B., “A Pressure Volume Temperature
Correlation for Mixture of California Oils and Gases,”
Drill. & Prod. Prac. API, Dallas; 1947, 275-87.
3. Kumar, N and Lawal, A. S., “A component Based EOS for
the Compressibility Factor of Natural and Sour gases”,
Centre for Petrophysical and Reservoir Studies, Texas
Tech, Lubbock, TX, USA; 2009.
4. Ikiensikimama, S. S, Egbe, T, and Okon, E. U., “New
Screening Technique for PVT Corrections as applied to the
Niger Delta Crude”, Refereed Proceedings, SPE Paper
119710. 32nd Annual International Conference of the SPE
Nigerian Council, 4-6th August 2008, Abuja, Nigeria.
Z-factors for Natural Gases Using Equation-of-State”,
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 1975; pp 34-
36.
11. Dranchuk, P. M, Purvis, R. A and Robinson, D. B.,
“Computer Calculations of Natural Gas compressibility
factors Using the Standing and Katz Correction”, Inst. of
Petroleum Technical Series, 1974; No. IP 74-008.
12. Carr, N., Kobayashi, R., and Burrows, D., “Viscosity of
Hydrocarbon Gases under Pressure”, Trans, AIME, Vol.
201, 1954; pp 270-275.
13. Brill, J. and Beggs, H., “Two-phase flow in Pipes”, Tusla,
OK; The University of Tusla, 1978.
14. Al-marhoun, M. A.,” The coefficient of Isothermal
Compressibility of Black Oils”, SPE 81432, Paper to be
presented at the SPE 13th Middle East Oil Show &
Conference to be held in Bahrain, 2003.

5. Burnett, R. R., “Calculator gives Compressibility factors”,

The Oil and Gas Journal, 1979; pp 70-74.

6. Hall, K. R and Yarborough, L. J., “A new equation-of-State

for Z-factor Calculations” Oil and Gas Journal, 1973; pp
82-92
SPE 136957 5

Table 1: List of the correlations evaluated

CORRELATIONS EVALUATED
Brill and Beggs(13)
Burnett(5)
Papp(9)
Hall and Yarborough(6)
Danchuk and Abu-Kaseem (10)
Dranchuk et al (11)
Papay (8)
Gopal(7)

Table 2: Data Range for the Study

Parameter Minimum Maximum Mean

Reservoir Temperature 600 715 649

(R)
Average Molecular 16.77 33.35 20.92
weight (g/gmol)
Reservoir pressure, Pr 130 5953 2501.08
(psia)

0.579 1.152 0.7224

Gas gravity

1.372 1.877 1.652

Reduced Temperature

0.196 8.985 3.688

Reduced Pressure

0.716 1.282 0.893

Experimental Z-factor
6 SPE 136967

Table 3: Statistical parameters for all the eight correlations evaluated

CORRELATION Er Ea Sr Sa R

Papay(8) 30.04 30.65 10.762 10.705 0.0000

Gopal(7) -43.32 87.92 91.55 72.38 0.0000

Burnett (5) -2.562 4.6217 5.7402 4.2573 0.3583

Papp(9) 4.625 6.2352 7.424 6.1312 0.9455

Hall and Yarborough(6) -2.681 8.032 9.4614 5.664 0.0000

Dranchuk and Abu-Kaseem(10) -6.921 10.504 11.015 7.667 0.0000

Dranchuk et al (11) -27.56 24.413 25.195 24.413 0.0000

Brill and Beggs(13) 0.7659 3.2341 5.106 4.0234 0.5778

Table 4: The Ranks obtained for the Correlations evaluated

CORRELATIONS RANKS

Brill and Beggs(13) 2.824

Burnett(5) 3.2204

Papp(9) 5.1898

Hall and Yarborough(6) 5.41351

Danchuk and Abu-Kaseem (10) 6.512

Dranchuk et al (11) 14.6504

Papay (8) 18.68414

Gopal (7) 55.6255

SPE 136957 7

DEPLETION EXPERIMENT AT 650 R DEPLETION EXPERIMENT AT 622  R
0.96 0.98
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR

COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR
0.94 0.96
0.92 0.94
0.92
0.9
0.9
0.88 0.88
0.86 0.86
0.84 0.84
0.82 0.82
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

PRESSURE(PSIA) PRESSURE (PSIA)

Figure 1a: QA/QC plots showing good data for Figure 1b: QA/QC plot showing good data for
Depletion experiment at 650oR Depletion experiment at 622oR

DEPLETION EXPERIMENT AT 656 R
DEPLETION EXPERIMENT AT 623 R
1.00
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR

0.98 0.98
COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR

0.96 0.96
0.94 0.94
0.92 0.92
0.90 0.90
0.88 0.88
0.86 0.86
0.84 0.84
0.82 0.82
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 2000 4000 6000

PRESSURE (PSIA) PRESSURE ( PSIA)

Figure 1c: QA/QC plot showing bad data for Figure 1d: QA/QC plot showing bad data for
Depletion experiment at 623R depletion experiment at 656R

Figures 1a-1d are Quality Assurance and quality control plots used to validate the 513 data points used in the statistical
analysis. Figures 1a and 1b shows the profile that a good data should follow; i.e. it should be parabolic. While figures 1c and
1d illustrates a bad data as it deviates from the parabolic profile because of the errors in the data.
8 SPE 136967

Burnett (5) Brill and Beggs (13)
1.10 1.20

1.00 1.10
Predicted

Predicted
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70
0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20
Measured Measured

Figure 2: Cross plot for the Burnett (5) Figure 3: Cross plot for the Brill and Beggs (13)

Hall and Yarborough (6) Dranchuk‐Purvis‐Robinson(11)
1.00
2.10
1.90
0.90
1.70
Predicted

Predicted

0.80 1.50
1.30
0.70 1.10
0.90
0.60 0.70
0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 0.70 1.05 1.40 1.75 2.10
Measured Measured
              
Figure 4: Cross plot for Hall and Yarborough (6) Figure 5: Cross Plot for Dranchuk-Purvis-Robinson (11)
SPE 136957 9

Gopal (7) Papay (8)

3.50 1.25
3.00 1.10
2.50 0.95

Predicted
Predicted

2.00
0.80
1.50
0.65
1.00
0.50 0.50
0.00 0.35
0.00 0.70 1.40 2.10 2.80 3.50 0.35 0.50 0.65 0.80 0.95 1.10 1.25
Measured Measured

Figure 6: Cross Plot for Gopal (7) Figure 7: Cross Plot for the Papay (8)

Papp (9) Dranchuk and Abu‐Kassem (10)
1.10 1.20
1.10
1.00
Predicted 

1.00
Predicted

0.90 0.90
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70 0.60
0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 0.60 0.75 0.90 1.05 1.20
Measured Measured

Figure 8 : Cross Plot for the Papp (9) Figure 9: Dranchuk and Abu-Kassem (10)