Comparison of PVT Properties From

Equation of State Analysis and PVT

Correlations for Reservoir Studies
R. WU , L. ROSENEGGER
Tecknica Overseas Ltd.

Abstract
Measured fluid properties from four reservoirs are used to
compare property prediction results using an equation of state
(EOS) method and different PVT correlations available in the
literature. These fluid properties include oil bubble point pressure, oil formation volume factor, solution gas-oil ratio, gas formation volume factor, and gas and oil viscosities. It is shown
that with properly characterized EOS analysis, even without the
use of regression, one can match all the measured property values better than by using correlations. It is noted that one correlation can generally predict one or more of the parameters better
than the other correlations. However, no one correlation can
match all measured data consistently.

Introduction
PVT properties such as oil bubble point pressure, oil formation
volume factor, solution gas-oil ratio, gas formation volume factor,
and gas and oil viscosities are required for reservoir studies.
However, they are not always available or only an incomplete
data set may be available. Hence, engineers have to use either an
equation of state (EOS) method or a set of correlations to complete the data set to conduct the particular study.
The literature has many comparative studies of equations of
state(1, 2) and many papers on correlations for calculating PVT
properties(3-7). In this paper we compare results from one EOS
analysis to a number of available correlations. The EOS used in
this study is the Peng-Robinson EOS (PREOS), from a commercially available PVT package. The PREOS originally contained
two parameters that represent the attractive pressure term and the
thermal repulsive term respectively. To improve the volumetric
phase behaviour prediction accuracy, a third parameter is usually
added (PRF shifting factor). The PREOS is a semi-empirical
equation, requiring some PVT property data to determine these
parameters before one can use it for property predictions.
PVT correlations are typically developed for fluid properties(37) in a geographic region, such as for California, Alaska, the Gulf
of Mexico, and the Middle East, by fitting available regional data.
The first set of correlations was derived by Standing(3) in 1942 for
California oils and gases. The basic assumption was that the bubble point pressure is a function of dissolved gas-oil ratio, gravity
of dissolved gas, density of stock-tank oil, and temperature. Later,
other correlations were obtained by regression to very similar
equations but using different data sets since the crudes from different reservoirs or regions have different properties. Therefore,
these correlations may not be applicable to oils other than those
used in deriving the regression. Furthermore, no one correlation
44

provides all PVT properties required for a reservoir study. Hence,

one always has to use different correlations for different properties. For example, in a recent study of Alaskan crude properties(4),
the Glaso(16) correlation was used for bubble point pressure and
the Standing correlation(3) was used for oil formation volume factor while the Beggs-Robinson(25) viscosity correlation was used
for dead and live oil viscosity.
The purpose of this paper is to compare EOS results with available PVT correlations using measured laboratory values as a reference and then to provide some guidelines in generating PVT
properties for reservoir study.

Equation of State Characterization

A reservoir fluid is a complex multi-component mixture, the
properties of which depend significantly upon the interaction of
various components. Because every reservoir oil has its own
unique composition, these interactions vary from one oil to the
next. It is impossible to describe every component in the equations. Hence, in order to use an EOS, one typically groups heptane
and heavier components into one or a limited number of pseudocomponents(8). The procedure used to determine the interaction of
these grouped heavy ends to other pure components is called characterization. The procedure in Reference (8) was used in this
study because it only requires the following three kinds of measured data:
a. Reservoir fluid bubble point pressure (Pb) at the reservoir
temperature,
b. Three or four density and viscosity measurements above Pb,
and
c. Reservoir fluid composition.
The purpose of item (b) is to improve the EOS density and viscosity calculation for regressing (adjusting) the shifting factors
and the five coefficients used in the Lohrenz, Bray, and Clark(21)
(LBC) viscosity correlation respectively. For fairness in comparison, item (b) was not used in this study since correlations do not
use these data. Hence, no shifting factor regression or LBC coefficient regression was used in this study during EOS characterization. Only the default values in the commercial PVT package
were used.

Summary of Correlations
The correlation equations used in this study are listed in Table
1 and the authors names, together with the corresponding literature citations, are given in the references. They are grouped into
two sets, one for gas phase(3, 9-14) and one for oil phase(3-7, 15-26)
properties. The first two columns of Table 1, the Pb and Bob at Pb,
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

TABLE 1: Available correlations in PVT properties used in this study.

No. Correlation Name

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

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

Pb

Basic
Bob

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

Gas Phase Properties

Z
Bg
g
X
X
X

Oil Phase Properties

Bo
od
ob

Rs

X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

An X means that the correlation is for the corresponding PVT property.

TABLE 2: Data input for correlations.

Reservoir
Well No.
Measured GOR (sm3/m3)
Gas specific gravity
Oil API
Reservoir temperature ( C)
Separator temperature ( C)
Separator pressure (kPag)

N1

88

14

14

70
0.865
39
69
31
655

62
0.906
38.2
72
38
689

295
0.841
40
133
49
2,034

215
0.832
38.9
133
70
3,041

19
1.124
33.8
51
26
414

15
0.851
32.1
63
38
414

401
1.185
47.9
146
104
4,516

438
0.998
53.4
154
66
4,240

9,460
1.247
0.881

7,943
1.211
1.02

35,198
1.9573
0.32

29,261
1.6301
0.37

2,599
1.093
3.04

3,585
1.088
3.69

27,579
2.542
0.104

28,655
2.903
0.101

Additional Information
Bubble point pressure (kPa)
Oil FVF at Pb (m3/sm3)
Oil viscosity at Pb (cp)

are routinely used in reservoir studies. Both Pb and Bob are also
the basic fluid properties and the starting point of calculation for
both EOS and correlation predictions.

Gas Phase Correlations

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

these oil phase properties. In the literature, most correlations provide the Pb, Bob, Bo, and Rs parameters as a group and the oil viscosity is treated separately.
The basic form of different correlations for oil phase properties
are derived from Standings(3) initial equation as follows:

Pb = f Rs , g , o , TR

) .........................................................................(2)

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

Bg = Psc Z r TrR / Tsc Pr = C Z r TrR / Pr ................................(1)

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

Oil Phase Correlations

Oil phase properties such as oil formation volume factor (Bo),
solution gas-oil ratio (Rs), and oil viscosity (o) are needed in
reservoir studies. The Pb and Bob are usually used to calculate
July 2000, Volume 39, No. 7

Results and Discussion

The correlations used in this study were programmed in a
Microsoft Excel spread sheet using Visual Basic. The required
input is stated in Equation (2). The four reservoir fluids from
Reference (27) were used to compare the EOS and the correlation
results with the laboratory values. The procedures for doing the
EOS analysis are detailed in Reference (27) and these are not
repeated here. Table 2 lists input data needed for the correlations
from two wells of each reservoir. To assess the accuracy of EOS
and different correlations, the calculated error is defined as
Error(%) = ( A B) / B 100 ..............................................................(3)
Where A = the quantity to be assessed and B = the reference
(measured value).
If the calculated error is less than 10%, then the result is con45

FIGURE 1: Comparison of gas compressibility factor (Z).

sidered acceptable. Those correlations which yield predictions

within the acceptable range are listed at the bottom of each calculated error table.

Gas Phase PVT Property Results

Gas evolves from the reservoir fluid when the pressure is below
Pb. Hence there are no measured values nor EOS calculated values
for gas phase (solution gas) PVT properties above Pb, but the correlations can calculate properties over the whole range of pressures. In this study, the assessment of the gas phase PVT properties is limited to pressures below Pb only.
The results of Z-factor predictions are presented in Figure 1. In
this figure, EOS and three correlation results, Standing, WichertAziz, and Dranchuk, are compared with the available measured
46

FIGURE 2: Comparison of gas viscosity.

data. In all figures, Pb values are posted as a reference to show

where the measured data stopped. Both EOS and correlation
results match the measured values within the acceptable range.
The results also show that the EOS calculations match the measured values better than do these three correlations. This is
because the EOS calculations and the measured values are both
based on the gas compositions from differential liberation. Hence
they agree well with each other. On the other hand, correlations
only use one gas composition, generally at stock tank or separator
conditions.
Figure 2 presents the gas viscosity (g) results from the EOS
and Lees correlation, but no measured values are included since
g was not provided in the PVT reports. The results show that the
difference in calculated viscosity between EOS and Lees correlaJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

TABLE 3: Comparison of bubble point pressure (Pb in kPa).

Reservoir
Well No.

N1

Measured GOR (sm3/m3)

70
Measured Pb Value
9,460
1. Al-Marhoun correlation
9,626
2. Standing correlation
8,781
3. Glaso correlation
10,185
4. Dokla & Osman correlation
10,711
5. Labedi correlation
8,843
6. Lasater correlation
8,735
7. Vasquez & Beggs correlation 9,760
8. Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
9,263
correlation

88

14

14

62
7,943
8,368
7,964
9,055
9,408
9,091
7,804
8,877
8,470

295
35,198
35,250
37,594
36,362
27,078
31,438
32,289
40,396
43,686

215
29,261
29,396
30,221
30,084
21,645
29,098
29,272
32,278
34,279

19
2,599
2,430
2,544
2,252
3,462
2,978
2,404
2,987
2,743

15
3,585
3,778
2,943
2,680
3,759
4,209
2,770
3,441
3,035

401
27,579
20,706
30,218
30,470
22,655
24,050
24,064
32,467
36,581

438
28,655
30,080
35,299
35,523
29,850
27,445
28,818
38,364
41,739

TABLE 4: Comparison of oil formation volume factors at Pb.

Reservoir
Well No.

Measured Bob Value

1. Al-Marhoun correlation
2. Standing correlation
3. Glaso correlation
4. Dokla & Osman correlation
5. Labedi correlation
6. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
7. Kartoatmodj & Schmidt
correlation
8. Majeed & Salman correlation
9. EOS

N1

88

14

14

1.247
1.242
1.229
1.206
1.212
1.331
1.256
1.236

1.211
1.229
1.215
1.191
1.202
1.256
1.236
1.223

1.957
1.932
2.079
1.999
2.106
2.079
2.309
1.988

1.630
1.711
1.781
1.732
1.825
1.869
1.771
1.754

1.093
1.080
1.079
1.062
1.029
1.115
1.092
1.086

1.088
1.079
1.074
1.055
1.044
1.094
1.094
1.085

2.542
2.508
2.816
2.588
2.930
2.550
2.904
2.572

2.903
2.746
3.033
2.735
3.210
2.822
3.400
2.866

1.199
1.295

1.183
1.185

1.922
1.957

1.524
1.767

1.083
1.079

1.077
1.071

2.317
2.532

2.587
3.550

tion is small for pressures below Pb.

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

Oil Phase PVT Property Results

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

Bubble Point Pressures and Oil Formation Volume

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

2,600 to 35,200 kPa. This is a wide saturation pressure range and

covers most black oil case applications.
Tables 3 and 4 compare the EOS and correlation calculated Pb
and Bob with the measured values respectively. The EOS is adjusted to match the measured Pb and hence it was not included in
Table 3.
Tables 5 and 6 tabulate the calculated per cent error in Pb and
Bob respectively. A row at the bottom of each table lists, by number, the correlations within the 10% acceptable range. The last
row indicates the correlation number which best matched the data.
Based on the correlation calculated errors for Pb, presented in
Table 5, the following comments can be made:
1. The range of error is from 0.04 to 46%, that is, the correlation results are very scattered. Hence it is important to know
the measured Pb because Pb is the basic parameter and the
starting point for most reservoir studies.
2. The worst match is for Reservoir 4. This is related to measurement problems as indicated in Reference (27).

TABLE 5: Calculated error for bubble point pressure (Pb in kPa).

Reservoir
Well No.

1
N1
(sm3/sm3)

Measured GOR
70
Measured Value
9,460
1. Al-Marhoun correlation
1.76
2. Standing Correlation
-7.17
3. Glaso Correlation
7.67
4. Dokla & Osman correlation
13.23
5. Labedi correlation
-6.51
6. Lasater correlation
-7.66
7. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
3.18
8. Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
2.07
correlation
Acceptable (within 10%)
All but 4
Best match
1
July 2000, Volume 39, No. 7

88

14

14

62
7,943
5.36
0.27
14.01
18.44
14.46
-1.75
11.77
6.64

295
35,198
0.15
6.81
3.31
-23.07
-10.68
-8.26
14.77
24.12

215
29,261
0.46
3.28
2.81
-26.03
-0.56
0.04
10.31
17.15

19
2,599
-6.50
-2.12
-13.36
33.21
14.58
-7.50
14.92
5.51

15
3,585
5.38
-17.91
-25.24
4.84
17.39
-22.75
-4.03
-15.34

401
27,579
-24.92
9.57
10.48
-17.85
-12.80
-12.75
17.72
32.64

438
28,655
4.97
23.19
23.97
4.17
-4.22
0.57
33.88
45.66

1, 2,6,8
2

1,4,7
7

2
2

1, 4,5,6
6

1,2,6,8
2

1, 2, 3, 6 1,2,3,5,6
1
6

47

TABLE 6: Calculated error for oil formation volume factors at Pb.

Reservoir
Well No.

Measured Value
1. Al-Marhoun correlation
2. Standing correlation
3. Glaso correlation
4. Dokla & Osman correlation
5. Labedi correlation
6. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
7. Kartoatmodj & Schmidt
correlation
8. Majeed & Salman correlation
9. EOS
Acceptable (within 10%)
Best match

N1

88

14

14

1.247
-0.41
-1.43
-3.27
-2.78
6.72
0.75
-0.86

1.211
1.49
0.34
-1.61
-0.72
3.70
2.03
0.99

1.957
-1.30
6.23
2.11
7.62
6.19
17.98
1.58

1.630
4.96
9.28
6.27
11.94
14.67
8.64
7.60

1.093
-1.18
-1.28
-2.81
-5.88
2.02
-0.08
-0.68

1.088
-0.79
-1.27
-3.03
-4.09
0.57
0.52
-0.25

2.542
-1.33
10.78
1.82
15.25
0.31
14.22
1.18

2.903
-5.39
4.48
-5.77
10.57
-2.80
17.12
-1.26

-3.85
3.85
all
1

-2.31
-2.15
all
2

-1.82
-0.02
all but 6
9

-0.95
-1.28
all
6

-1.03
-1.56
all
7

3. The Al-Marhoun correlation provides the best match overall

and the range of error for this correlation is from 0.15 to
7.6% for Reservoirs 1 to 3.
4. No one correlation best predicts Pb for two wells in the same
reservoir (i.e., for the same or very similar reservoir fluids).
Using the results of Table 6, the EOS and correlation calculated
error for Bob, the following observations are made:
1. EOS matches the measured values within the acceptable
range except for well #14 of Reservoir 4. As mentioned previously, this is due to measurement error while conducting
the differential liberation experiments.
2. All correlations predict with an accuracy similar to the EOS
except for one or two correlations in a few wells.
From Tables 5 and 6 we conclude that; (1) the Pb must be
known to start with (e.g., lab measurements), and (2) both EOS
and correlations can predict Bob within an acceptable accuracy
range.

Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs)

Figure 3 compares the EOS and six correlation derived Rs

-6.52
8.40
all but 4,5
1

-8.84
-10.90
-0.39
22.29
all but 2,4,6 1,2,3,5,7
5
7

results with the measured values for the same four reservoirs. The
results show that Rs values at or above Pb dominate the trend
below Pb. That is, if one can match Rs values at or above Pb then
one can match the Rs values below Pb. Hence only the Rs values at
or above Pb are summarized in Table 7 and then the calculated per
cent errors are tabulated in Table 8. From Table 8, the following
observations are made:
1. The error ranges from 0.17 to 40%. The worst match is for
Reservoirs 3 and 4. Reservoir 3 is a low Rs fluid; the measured values ranged from 15 to 19 sm3/sm3. Reservoir 4 had
the measurement problem and thus comparison is not valid.
2. The EOS is not within acceptable range for two wells, well
#2 of Reservoir 3 and well #14 of Reservoir 4.
3. Labedis correlation predicts the Rs values within acceptable
range for all reservoir fluids (i.e., the error ranged from 0.17
to 6.52%). But, because Labedis correlation uses separator
properties, the Rs values must be interpolated between separator and stock tank conditions(28) (i.e., Rs = 0 at stock tank
conditions).
4. Standings correlation also predicts Rs very well. It only
failed for the last three wells and two of these were from

TABLE 7: Comparison of solution gas-oil ratio (Rs in sm3/m3) at Pb.

Reservoir
Well No.

(sm3/sm3)

Measured GOR
1. Lasater correlation
2. Standing correlation
3. Glaso correlation
4. Vasquez & Beggs correlation
5. Labedi correlation
6. Kartoatmodj & Schmidt
correlation
7. EOS

N1

88

14

14

70
60
75
63
66
69
70

62
49
61
54
54
62
57

295
356
273
282
251
296
290

215
230
206
207
191
215
180

19
13
20
22
16
20
18

15
12
19
20
16
16
18

401
528
353
343
324
394
289

438
460
363
344
330
467
309

67

57

274

201

15

14

419

381

TABLE 8: Calculated error for solution gas-oil ratio (Rs) at Pb.

Reservoir
Well No.

1
N1

1. Lasater correlation
-14.09
2. Standing correlation
7.23
3. Glaso correlation
-9.08
4. Vasquez & Beggs correlation -5.37
5. Labedi correlation
-1.14
6. Kartoatmodj & Schmidt
0.49
correlation
7. EOS
-3.57
Acceptable (within 10%)
All but 1
Best match
6

48

88

14

14

-19.74
-0.33
-12.49
-12.37
0.74
-6.79

20.67
-7.44
-4.46
-14.93
0.17
-1.81

7.19
-3.80
-3.74
-11.00
0.24
-15.89

-33.56
2.44
12.91
-15.21
2.29
-5.70

-19.14
25.29
28.92
5.00
2.51
19.98

31.78
-12.01
-14.34
-19.11
-1.66
-27.91

5.05
-17.15
-21.52
-24.76
6.52
-29.50

-6.39
1,2,3,5,7
2

-23.15
2, 5, 6
2

-9.30
4,5,7
5

4.53
5,7
5

-13.00
5
5

-6.94
2,5,6,7
2

-7.12
2,3,5,6,7
5

Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

FIGURE 3: Comparison of solution oil gas ratio (Rs).

Reservoir 4. The other four correlations do not show consistent matching.

It must be remembered that one can improve EOS results to
match Rs by adjusting the shifting factors in the PVT package. In
this study, this adjustment was not performed. Overall, EOS can
more accurately predict Rs values than correlations even when no
adjustment in shifting factors is applied.
From these observations, one can conclude that; (1) Rs at Pb is
an important value in determination of the whole range of Rs values and (2) EOS can predict Rs better than correlations with proper adjustment of the shifting factors.
July 2000, Volume 39, No. 7

FIGURE 4: Comparison of oil formation volume factor (Bo).

Oil Formation Volume Factor (Bo)

Figure 4 compares Bo values calculated by EOS and by seven
correlations with the measured Bo values for four reservoirs. In
this case, we did not calculate the errors for individual values.
Instead we looked at the trends both above and below the bubble
point. Based on this the following observations are made.
Bo Values Above Pb
All correlations and EOS calculated Bo values above Pb match
the measured values within the acceptable range except for
Reservoir 4. Since the equations used to calculate Bo values above
Pb are nearly linear, the accuracy of Bo values above Pb is tied to
the accuracy of Bob as shown in Table 6.
49

4. Labedis correlation matches the measured values very well

for Reservoir 3 but Labedis correlation was not included in
the Reservoir 4 comparison because the reservoir Rs values
exceed its correlation limitation (> 356 m3/m3).
5. It is noted that three correlations, Standing, Vazquez and
Beggs, and Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt, predict the trend of
Bo below Pb well for all reservoir fluids.
From the above observations, one can conclude that EOS
analysis can predict the Bo values more accurately than by any of
the correlations for the entire range of pressures, both above and
below Pb.

Live Oil Viscosity (o)

Oil viscosity (o) is generally calculated in four steps: (1) dead
oil viscosity (od), (2) viscosity at Pb (ob), (3) viscosity at pressures above Pb, and (4) viscosity for pressures below Pb. There are
many different correlations for each step(20-26), but there are only
two correlations which provide all four viscosity calculation steps
(Labedi and Kartoatmodjo-Schmidt).
We first calculated od using all the available correlations(22, 2426). Then we selected a value to calculate and then selected
od
ob
the one od value which gave the best match between calculated
and measured ob. This ob value was then used for o calculation
over the appropriate range of pressure for a particular correlation.
The measured ob values are given in Table 2. As mentioned previously, EOS uses the default LBC coefficients to calculate o.
Figure 5 compares EOS and correlation calculated o with all
available measured o from the four reservoirs (except well #1,
Reservoir 2). From these figures, we make the following observations.
1. The EOS results match the measured values and are well
within acceptable range except in the region below the separator conditions.
2. The results from different correlations for pressures above Pb
match the measured values within acceptable range except in
well #2 from Reservoir 3.
3. For a given correlation, the match of o below Pb is inconsistent from one reservoir to another. For example, the Labedi
correlation can match Reservoir 3 results within the acceptable range but not the other reservoirs.
4. The best correlation in this study is the Kartoatmodjo and
Schmidt correlation. It matches most wells within acceptable
range except for well #2 of Reservoir 3.
From the above observations, we conclude that the default LBC
coefficients in EOS can predict o within the acceptable range. On
the other hand, for a known ob, one can predict o within an
acceptable range for pressure above Pb but not for pressure below
Pb, depending on the correlation used.

Conclusions and Recommendations

FIGURE 5: Comparison of oil viscosity.

Bo Values Below Pb
The results of Bo values below Pb are more complicated, as
shown in Figure 4. In this case, Bob is not the dominant factor as
in the Rs case. The results presented in Figure 4 show the following features:
1. The EOS consistently predicts the trend and values very well
compared to the measured values for all reservoirs.
2. The Glaso correlation calculated Bo values below Pb are very
scattered and inconsistent. That is, the trend varies from one
reservoir to another.
3. For Reservoir 1, the results from three correlations, AlMarhoun, Glaso, and Labedi, show that the B o values
increase as pressure decreases below Pb. A similar trend was
observed for some wells of Reservoirs 2 and 3 using the
Glaso and Al-Marhoun correlations.
50

The following conclusions are made:

1. Correlations or EOS can be used to obtain accurate gas
phase PVT properties, Bg and g.
2. Different correlations yield a wide range of predicted Pb values. Therefore, it is very important to know the Pb value
before using correlations or EOS to generate PVT
properties.
3. Overall, EOS analysis requires only minimum input data (Pb
and reservoir fluid composition) to more accurately predict
oil phase PVT properties than all available correlations.
4. No one correlation can be used consistently for oil phase
PVT property calculation. In order to complete a set of PVT
properties, one may have to use different correlations for different properties. Some measured data is needed to test the
accuracy of the particular correlations.
5. The EOS calculated oil viscosity, using default coefficients,
can consistently match the measured values within the
acceptable range while no correlation can achieve a similar
result.
In generating PVT properties for reservoir studies, two guidelines are recommended.
Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

1. When Pb and reservoir fluid composition data are available,

one should use EOS to generate the PVT properties for
reservoir studies.
2. One must know reservoir fluid Pb and a value of Rs and ob
or od to use correlations. This is so that one can test the correlation prediction accuracy against the known data.

13.
14.
15.
16.

Acknowledgement

17.

The authors thank Teknica Overseas Ltd. for kindly granting

permission to present the results.

18.

NOMENCLATURE

19.

B
C
T
P

yi
xi
zi
Vf
Z

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

formation volume factor

constant equal to 0.0238 in field units
temperature
pressure
specific gravity
density
viscosity
gas composition of component i
oil composition of component i
reservoir fluid composition of component i
gas vapour mole fraction
gas deviation factor

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

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

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

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

REFERENCES
1. PERSCHKE, D.R., CHANG, Y., POPE, G.A., and SEPEHRNOORI,
K., Comparison of Phase Behaviour Algorithms for an Equation of
State Compositional Simulator; SPE 19443, 1989.
2. AHMED, T.H., Comparative Study of Eight Equations of State for
Predicting Hydrocarbon Volumetric Phase Behaviour; SPE
Reservoir Engineering, February 1988.
3. STANDING, M.B., A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for
Mixtures of California Oils and Gases; API, 1942.
4. OSTERMANN, R.D., EHLIG-ECONOMIDES, C.A., and
OWOLABI, O.O., Correlations for the Reservoir Fluid Properties of
Alaskan Crudes; SPE 11703, 1983.
5. SUTTON, R.P. and FARSHAD, F., Evaluation of Empirically
Derived PVT Properties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils; SPE
Reservoir Engineering, February 1990.
6. LABEDI, R., Use of Production Data to Estimate the Saturation
Pressure, Solution GOR, and Chemical Composition of Reservoir
Fluids; SPE 21164, 1990.
7. AL-MARHOUN, M.A., PVT Correlations for Middle East Crude
Oils; Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1988.
8. WU, R.S. and FISH, R.M., C7+ Characterization for Fluid Properties
Predictions; Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, July
August, 1988.
9. STANDING, K.B. and KATZ, D.L., Density of Natural Gas; Trans.
AIME, 140, 1942.
10. SUTTON, R.P., Compressibility Factors for High Molecular Weight
Reservoir Gas; SPE 14265, 1985.
11. DRANCHUK, P.M. and ABOU-KASSEM, J.H., Calculation of Z
Factors for Natural Gases Using Equations of State; Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, July September 1975.
12. WICHERT, E. and AZIZ, K., Compressibility Factor of Sour
July 2000, Volume 39, No. 7

26.
27.

28.

Natural Gas; Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, April

1971.
WICHERT, E. and AZIZ, K., Calculate Zs for Sour Gases;
Hydrocarbon Processing, March 1977.
LEE, A.L., GONZALES, M.H., and EAKIN, B.E., The Viscosity of
Natural Gases; Journal of Petroleum Technology, August 1966.
LASTER, J.A., Bubble Point Pressure Correlation; Trans. AIME
213, 1958.
GLASO, O., Generalized A Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Correlations; Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1980.
VAZQUEZ, M.E. and BEGGS, H.D., Correlations for Fluid Physical
Property Predictions; Journal of Petroleum Technology, June 1980.
LABEDI, R., Use of Production Data to Estimate Volume Factor,
Density, and Compressibility of Reservoir Fluids; Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 4, 1990.
DOKLA, M.E. and OSMAN, M.E., Correlation of PVT Properties
for UAE Crudes; SPE Formation Evaluation, March 1992.
KARTOATMODJO, R.S. and SCHMIDT, Z., New Correlations for
Crude Oil Physical Properties; SPE 23556, 1990.
LOHRENZ, J., BRAY, B.G., and CLARK, C.R., Calculating
Viscosity of Reservoir Fluids from their composition; Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 1964 1171, Trans., AIME, 231.
BEAL, C., A Viscosity-Temperature Correlation at Atmospheric
Pressure for Gas-Free Oils; Industrial Engineering Chemical
Process Des. Dev., 21, 1982.
STANDING, M.B., Volumetric and Phase Behaviour of Oil Field
Hydrocarbon Systems; SPE 1977.
CHEW, J. and CONNALLY, C.A., A Viscosity Correlation for GasSaturated Crude Oils; AIME 216, 1959.
BEGGS, H.D. and ROBINSON, J.R., Estimating the Viscosity of
Crude Oil Systems; Journal of Petroleum Technology, September
1975.
LABEDI, R., Improved Correlation for Predicting the Viscosity of
Light Crudes; Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 8,
1992.
WU, R.S. and ROSENEGGER, L.W., EOS Oil Characterization
Aids Integrated Reservoir Studies; Petroleum Society paper 97-05,
presented at the 48th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum
Society, Calgary, AB, 1997.
Private discussion with Dr. R. Lebedi; March 1999.

ProvenanceOriginal Petroleum Society manuscript,

Comparison of PVT Properties From Equation of State
Analysis and PVT Correlations for Reservoir Studies, (99-38),
first presented at the 50th Annual Technical Meeting, June 14 18, 1999, in Calgary, Alberta. Abstract submitted for review
January 14, 1999; editorial comments sent to the author(s) July 8,
1999; revised manuscript received September 27, 1999; paper
approved for pre-press October 22, 1999; final approval June 28,
2000.

Authors Biographies
Ray Wu is currently a senior engineer with
Teknica Overseas Ltd. Before joining
Teknica, he was involved in oil recovery
research, both conventional and thermal,
with a major oil company. He received an
M.A.Sc. in 1972 from the University of
Windsor, Ontario and a Ph.D. in 1976 from
the University of Alberta, both in mechanical engineering. Dr. Wu is a member of
APEGGA, the Petroleum Society, and the
SPE.
Lothar Rosenegger is currently engineering manager with Teknica Overseas Ltd.
and has 26 years of diverse petroleum engineering experience, both domestic and
international. He received B.Eng. and
M.Eng. degrees in mechanical engineering
from McGill University in 1971 and 1973
and an MBA from University of Calgary in
1980. Mr. Rosenegger is a member of
APEGGA, the Petroleum Society, and the
SPE.
51