Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 8 ( 1992 ) 221-234 221

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam

Improved correlations for predicting the viscosity of light


Rafa Labedi*
National Oil Corporation, Production Department, Tripoli, Libya
(Received November 10, 1991; revised version accepted January 21, 1992 )


Labedi, R., 1992. Improved correlations for predicting the viscosity of light crudes. J. Pet. Sci. Eng., 8:221-234.

This paper seeks to overcome the shortcomings of the previously published correlation work on light oil viscosity which
is commonly used in the oil industry. Viscosity was obtained from P F T data on about one hundred oil samples, which
were collected from one of Africa's major oil producers-Libya. The samples were mostly collected and analyzed by Core
Lab. Inc. They cover more fields and larger areas than some previously published reports. Correlations were established
for these as yet unpublished viscosity data of crude oils in Libya.
Equations were developed using multiple-regression analysis to predict oil viscosity at atmospheric pressure (dead-oil
viscosity), at saturation pressure, and above and below the saturation pressure.
The developed correlations are a function of easily-obtainable data, such as stock-tank oil gravity, reservoir pressure,
and temperature. They have been found to adequately fit a random selection of light crudes available in the literature and
to be more practical and accurate than other available techniques. They may be applied to other geographical areas with
light crudes such as the Middle East, the North Sea, and some parts of North and South America.

Introduction Commonly used correlations for estimating

dead-oil viscosity (Beal, 1946; Beggs and Ro-
The purpose of this investigation is to de- binson, 1975 ), sometimes result in a high per-
velop the empirical relationships between the centage of error that goes up to about 400%
viscosity of the crude oil at elevated pressures when applied to different oil bases. Moreover,
and temperatures, and other parameters that these correlations are also a function of API
can easily be obtained from the field. Thus, by gravity from differential vaporization, which
using the latter parameters and the empirical is hard to obtain from field data (see
relationships, the oil viscosity can be pre- Nomenclature).
dicted at reservoir conditions or through the Glaso (1980) made paraffinity correction
production string with reasonable accuracy. In for Beal's work to be applicable to North Sea
this work, correlations were developed to pre- crudes, but unfortunately, in order to do such
dict dead-oil viscosity and oil viscosity at, corrections, one must have the chemical com-
above and below bubble-point pressure. The position of the oil which cannot be obtained
correlations at, above, and below bubble-point from field data. In this study, the problem has
pressure were shown to be a strong function of been treated by using the data base from Li-
the dead-oil viscosity. byan crudes and by using API gravity from
flash vaporization which can be easily ob-
Correspondence to: R. Labedi, The Organization of Arab tained from field data.
Petroleum Exporting Countries, Cairo, Egypt. The data base for the viscosity of Libyan

0920-4105/92/$05.00 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.


crudes consists of more than one hundred lab- Discussion

oratory analyses, representing the fluids of the
entire producing reservoirs in Libya. The data The most popular methods presently used in
were collected from NOC and its operating petroleum engineering for predicting the dead-
companies (most laboratory analyses of the oil viscosity are those ofBeal ( 1946 ) and Beggs
samples were made by Core Laboratories Inc., and Robinson (1975). They all have corre-
Dallas, Texas ). lated the dead-oil viscosity as a function of its
All published correlations correlate the sat- API gravity and the reservoir temperature.
urated oil vsicosity to dead-oil viscosity and Both of these correlations, however, have been
total gas/oil ratio. Where the total gas/oil ra- tested with data from Libya, but unfortunately
tio is obtained from other correlations, the er- they resulted in a large error.
ror is accumulated. In this study, however, the Various mathematical models were tried to
saturated oil viscosity is a direct function of obtain an expression that generally fits the
dead-oil viscosity, API gravity, and bubble- dead-oil viscosity of the data from the Libyan
point pressure, thus ensuring a higher degree crudes, but all of the models tried, introduced
of accuracy. a considerable error.
The correlations presented in this paper take The following expression predicts the dead-
into consideration the effect of API gravity, oil viscosity for Libyan crudes better than other
which gives them a wider range of application correlations available in the literature:
(i.e., will be more applicable to Middle East 109 . 2 2 4
crudes than other correlations). flod -- (APi)4.7o13( TR )O.6739 ( 1)
Tables 1 and 2 show the statistical results of
Dead oil viscosity correlation
the proposed correlations and also illustrate the
comparison between the proposed correla-
The value of the gas-free crude-oil viscosity tions and the correlations of Beal (1946) and
(stock-tank or dead oil) at reservoir tempera- Beggs and Robinson ( 1975 ).
ture is needed in various petroleum engineer- The proposed correlations show more satis-
ing calculations. The values of dead-oil viscos- factory results compared with those developed
ity used in this investigation are obtained when by Beal (1946) and Beggs and Robinson
the sample is differentially vaporized down (1975). In addition, Beggs and Robinson's
to atmospheric pressure and reservoir correlations (1975) gave better results than
temperature. Beal's correlations (1946), which means that

Comparison between proposed, Beal's, and Beggs and Robinson's correlations (based on different data bases) for predicting
dead oil viscosity

Parameter Proposed Beal's Beggs-Robinson's

correlation correlation correlation

Data points 91 98 460

Dead-oil viscosity (cP) 0.66-4.79 0.865-155
Temperature ( F) 100-306 100-220 70-295
Oil gravity ( API ) 32.2-48.0 10.1-52.2 16-58
Average percent error -2.61 24.2 0.64
Standard deviation of 23.06 13.53
percent error


Comparison of statistical results for proposed, Bears, and

Beggs and Robinson's correlations on dead oil viscosity for
Libyan etudes

A. Experimental d a t a
Data points 91
Dead oil viscosity (cP) 0.66-4.79
Temixrature ( F ) I00-306 ~'. o
Oil gravity ( API ) 32.2-48.0
Mean of observed values (cP) 2.086 Q ~
Standard deviation of observed values 0.992

B. Calculated values
Proposed Bears Beggs- o~"lo
correlation correlation Robinson's
correlation , , ~ ' , ~ ' ,
Mean of calculated 2.025 1.233 1.682 (IJod ) cole., cp
values (cP)
Average percent - 2.61 39.16 ! 4.70 Fig. 1. Calculated and observed values of dead oil viscos-
error ity o f Libyan crude oils.
Standard deviation 23.06 30.40 30.84
of percent error
Standard deviation 0.816 0.832 0.910 when using the proposed correlation, Bears
of calculated values correlation, and Beggs and Robinson's corre-
lation to predict dead-oil viscosity for Libyan
Beggs and Robinson's correlations apply bet-
ter than Bears correlation to light oils.
Figure 1 is a plot of the observed versus cal- Bubble-point viscosity correlation
culated values of god using the newly devel-
oped correlation for Libyan crudes.
Any correlation for dead-oil viscosity usu- Viscosity of crude oils containing dissolved
ally introduces a larger error when applied to natural gas is required for various petroleum
a different base of data. The difference in the reservoir engineering calculations. In the eval-
results is related to the difference in the oil-base uation of fluid flow in porous media, the vis-
(asphaltic, paraffinic or mixed base ). cosity of the fluid is required at various values
As an example, Beggs and Robinson ( 1975 ) of reservoir pressure and at reservoir temper-
have applied their correlation to 93 cases col- ature. It is also required for evaluation of the
lected from literature, and an average error of pressure drop in both horizontal and vertical
114% was found by them. They have also re- flow calculations.
ported that when Beat's correlation was used The dependent variable for this correlation
for these 93 data points, an average error of consists of oil viscosity at bubble-point pres-
378% was obtained. Similarly, they have tested sure and reservoir temperature.
their own data with Bears correlation, and an After trying various mathematical forms in-
average error of 19.64% was obtained. Beal's cluding those previously developed in the lit-
correlation was based on Californian crudes, erature, the following relationship is the one
which are characterized by low API gravity. which most closely approximates saturated oil
Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the error distribution viscosity of the Libyan crudes:


t~ I0


I i i !
- 26.7
- 18.7 -8.'/ t.O I 1.3 21.3 31.3

error, p e r c e n t
Fig. 2. Percent error distribution in calculating#od using current correlation for Libyan crude oils.



o to

u ~j

-91.2 -71.2 -51.2 -31.2 - I I .2 8.82 26.8 48.8 68.8 88.8
error, p e r c e n t
Fig. 3. Percent error distribution in calculating/~odusing Beal correlation for Libyan crude oils.

ity is related to the dead-oil viscosity and bub-

/'Lob ~--- ( 1 02'344--0"03542AP1) (/~od)O'6447/(pb)0"426 ble-point pressure. Figure 6 is a plot of the ob-
(2) served values versus the calculated values,
whereas Fig. 7 shows the percent error distri-
Equation 2 shows that the saturated oil vis- bution using Eq. 2. Table 3 summarizes the
cosity is strongly related to dead-oil viscosity statistical results of Eq. 2.
and bubble-point pressure. It was shown that Beal (1946), Chew and Connally (1959),
inclusion of stock-tank API gravity improves and Beggs and Robinson (1975) have shown
the correlation. that saturated oil viscosity is related to dead-
Figure 5 shows how the saturated oil viscos- oil viscosity and the dissolved gas/oil ratio.



o I0

U 1

! ! |
-89.2 - 69.2 -49.2 - 2 9 s~ -9.24 10.8 30.8 50.8 70.8

error, p e r c e n t
Fig. 4. Percent error distribution in calculating #od using Beggsand Robinson's correlation for Libyan crude oils.


3' "


O.J I I I I I il I I I I I I I III 1 I l t l I I I IO
0 I I0 I
!Jod , Cp O.l (Pob) colc.

Fig. 5. Values o f # o b for different values Of~o~and some

constant values of p~. Fig. 6. Calculated and observed values of/zob for Libyan
crude oils.
The results of the present work agree with their
work as the bubble-point pressure is a strong The data have been tested using Beal's
function o f the dissolved gas/oil ratio. An at- ( 1 9 4 6 ) , Chew and Connally's ( 1 9 5 9 ) , and
tempt has been m a d e to use either dissolved or Beggs and Robinson's ( 1 9 7 5 ) correlations.
total gas/oil ratio as an independent variable The proposed correlation, together with the
instead o f using bubble-point pressure, but it correlations by Beggs and Robinson, Chew and
was found that it is more accurate and practi- Connaly, and Beal, all reproduced, in the same
cal to use bubble-point pressure. order, the data more closely. The results ob-



D-i ~0

0 2o


, , I I I I
-7'3.8 -B3.8 -5~e -t~.e e.a5 26.2 4e.a
error, percent
Fig. 7. Percent error distribution in calculating/~ob for Libyan crude oils.

TABLE 3 Correlation of oil viscosity above bubble-point

Statistical results of saturated oil viscosity of Libyan crudes pressure

The following steps were considered in de-
Data points 91 veloping the correlation of oil viscosity above
Saturated oil viscosity ( cP ) 0.115-3.72 the bubble-point pressure (refer to Appendix ):
Bubble-point pressure (psia) 60-6358
Oil gravity (API) 32.2-48
( 1 ) It has been noted that for all samples a
Dead oil viscosity (cP) 0.66-4.79 linear relationship exists between oil viscosity
Average percent error (%) - 2.38 and reservoir pressure above the bubble-point
Standard deviation of percent error 22.81 pressure. This has also been reported in Beal's
Mean of observed values 0.942
Mean of calculated values 0.948 work, and is used here for estimating oil vis-
Standard deviation of observed values 0.772 cosity above the bubble-point pressure.
Standard deviation of calculated values 0.878 (2) Then one can present the following

tained by the last three correlations, however, /Uo=///ob + m ( p - - P b ) (3)

do not differ significantly. (4)
(/to -- #ob ) = mpb (P/Pb -- 1 )
A restriction c o m m o n to Beal's work and
that of Chew and Connally is that they do not
cover saturated oil viscosity for oil with a so-
(~u) =M~,a(pI~ - i ) = - M . a ( 1 -PlPb)
lution gas/oil ratio above 1000 Scf/STB. Beggs
and Robinson correlation covers oil with so- (3) A plot of (A/I) as a function of ( p /
lution gas/oil ratio up to 2100 Scf/STB but PD-- I ) will be a straight line with an intercept
they did not specify the range for dead-oil vis- of zero and a slope Mua.
cosity. They have also reported that when they (4) Step 3 is generally valid for any pressure
applied Chew and Connally's correlations range.
(1959) to their data, an average percent error (5) A plot of (A#) as a function of
of 25.35% and a standard deviation of 35.7% (P/Pb-- I ) was prepared for every sample and
were obtained. a different slope was obtained for each sample.

(6) The following relationship was ob- dead-oil viscosity, but in the case of the Li-
tained for estimated M~a: byan crudes, the effect of bubble-point pres-
M~a = 10- 2.488(/zoa) 0.9036(/~o)0.6151/ 10'197(apt) sure and stock-tank API gravity was signifi-
cant enough to be considered.
(6) Figure 8 shows the effect of#od on M~; Fig.
9 presents the plot of calculated values of M,a
M ~ was found to be directly related to the versus the observed values; and Fig. 10 illus-
trates the error distribution in calculating M~a
using Eq. 6. Table 4 shows the statistical re-
sults for calculating M~.
The results are better than those obtained
from Vasquez and Beggs correlation ( 1980 ).

T,I Correlation of oil viscosity below the bubble-

T t ;./~? point pressure

The following procedure was followed to de-

m ~& velop oil viscosity below bubble-point pres-
sures (see Appendix):
(1) Below bubble-point pressure, one can
use the following equations:

I I j i i t t tl I I I I ] i i i i
1/#o = l /#ob --m(Pb --P ) (7)
I I0
Pad * cp /.rob/fl o = l -- m f l o b pb ( 1 --P/Pb) (8)
Fig. 8. Relationship between M ~ and ~ for Libyan crude
oils. #. = 1 --M~,b ( 1 --PlPb) (9)

0.4 /Zo= (gob)/[ 1 --Mzb(1 --P/Pb) ] (10)

(2) If one plots/~ as a function of ( 1 - p~
Pb), a straight line will be obtained with an in-
0.3 tercept of unity and a slope of M#b.
(3) Step 2 is valid in the pressure range:
Pb> p>0.15Pb.
(4) A plot of/~ was prepared for every sam-
0.2 ple and the corresponding value of M~b was
obtained. The following expression for esti-
mating M/,b was developed:
M~ b = lO-3.876(pb)o.s423(APi ) 1.1302 ( 11 )
e e
Mub was found to be strongly related to bub-
ble-point pressure (Fig. 11 ). It has been found
o.c I I I that the inclusion of stock-tank API gravity
O. I 0.2 0)3 0.4
( Muo ) cole improves the correlation. Figure 12 shows the
Fig. 9. Observed and calculated values of M ~ for Libyan plot of calculated values versus the observed
crude oils. values of the Libyan crude. Figure 13 demon,





-95.0 -75.0 -55.0 -35.0 - tS.0 5 25.0

error, percent
Fig. 10. Percent error distribution in calculating Muafor Libyan crude oils.


Statistical results for calculating M ~


Data points
Dead-oil viscosity (cP)
"../.t. oo
Saturated oil viscosity (cP) 0.115-3.72 ~E eo
Bubble-point pressure (psia) 60-6358
Reservoir temperature (F) 100-306
Stock-tank oil gravity, (API) 32.2-48
Average percent error - 3.1 1

Standard deviation of percent error 27.19

Mean of observed values 0.1062
Mean of calculated values 0.1039
Standard deviation of observed values 0.066
Standard deviation of calculated values 0.061
6 I I I I 1 I I tl I [ [ 1 1 I I I I
10 3 10 4
Pb' psia

strates the percent error distribution in calcu-

lating Mubusing Eq. 1 1. Fig. 11. Relationship between M~,band Pb for Libyan crude
Table 5 shows the statistical results for cal-
culating Mub,using Eq. 1 1.
pressure (Fig. 14). The API gravity used in all
Relationship between residual and flash API of the oil viscosity correlations developed in
gravity this study is obtained by flashing the fluid
sample to the atmospheric pressure, which can
It has been noted that the residual stock-tank be easily done in the field by flashing the well
oil gravity obtained by differentially vaporiz- directly to the stock-tank. A sample is then
ing bubble-point fluid down to atmospheric taken from the stock-tank and the API gravity
pressure sometimes differs from that obtained is determined.
by flashing the fluid directly to atmospheric This relation enables the writer to utilize the

,o Conclusions

The conclusions can be summarized as

( 1 ) The newly developed correlations for all
ee o viscosities were shown to be more accurate and
practical when compared with similar corre-
1~0.~ o o
lations commonly used, such as Beal (1946),
Chew and ConnaUy ( 1959 ), Beggs and Robin-
% son (1975), and Vasquez and Beggs (1980).
(2) The developed equations can be used in
0.2 case laboratory test analysis is not available or
difficult to conduct. Also, the approach used
in developing the equations above and below
bubble-point pressure may be used in smooth-
o.% ' ' ' 04
i ' ' ' 0 i8 ' ' ' 1.2
' ing data from the laboratory.
(Mub) cole.
(3) These correlations hold also when ap-
Fig. 12. Calculated and observed values for M.b of Li- plied to paraffinic base crude; for example, the
byan crude oils. application of this new correlation to Abu-At-
tifel paraffinic crude gives an acceptable error
viscosity data from the samples that are not of plus or minus 20% for pressures ranging
flashed to the atmospheric pressure, but dif- from 7215 psia to 2000 psia.
ferentially liberated, and to base the correla- (4) The new correlations should be used
tion on one type of API gravity. The curve of within the limit of input data, i.e., should not
Fig. 14 may be fitted by the following equation: be extrapolated for crudes of less than 32 API.
( 5 ) The newly developed equations may be
API= 1.02715 (API)d -0.3501 (12)
used as subroutines in the computer programs
where (API)d=residual oil gravity from dif- of vertical and horizontal pressure drop
ferential vaporization ( API ). calculations.


o 20

U I0

I! I! i i
-112 -91.0 -71.8 -m-e -31.e -..e 8. :) 28.2

error, percent
Fig. 13. Percent error distribution in calculating Mab for Libyan crude oils.

Statistical results for calculating M~b


Data points 80
M.b 0.138-0.903
Dead oil viscosity (cP) 0.66-4.58
Saturated oil viscosity (cP) 0.13-3.00
n d
Bubble-point pressure (psia) 413-6358 o

Reservoir temperature(*F) 128-306

Stock-tank oil gravity ( AP I ) 32.2 -45.0
Average percent error 3.5 d
Standard deviation of percent error 28.78
Mean of observed values 0.5025
Mean of calculated values 0.4944
Standard deviation of observed values 0.1755
Standard deviation of calculated values 0.1745 i L [ [ I i [ [ I J [ I ] I I I L I J i l ~ ~ I

CiO'.O O t 0.2 o.3 0.4 0.5


Fig 15. Comparison between measured and empirical

values of oil viscosity above bubble-point pressure.


e*# I


c~ I

35 w

30 / iq

25 I l I I [ I i 1 I I I I I ~1140 I I 141 I t I I ]
30 35 5 50
(APJ) d
t~O.O 02 04 06 OI I.O
Fig. 14. Relationship between stock-tank oil gravity ob-
tained by flashing sample directly to the atmosphere and Fig 16. Comparison between measured and empirical
that determined by differential vaporization. values of oil viscosity below bubble-point pressure.

Appendix A
( 6 ) Multiple-regression technique was used
in developing the equation. This made it pos- Illustration examples
sible to investigate various mathematical
Example 1
models and to calculate the coefficients of the
equations more precisely. This example illustrates the approach used

TABLE6 the proposed method solution gas/oil ratio is

not needed (Table 8 and Fig. 17 ).

v ~ (p/~-l) (m--mb) Given data

(psia) (cP) (cP)
6015 0.588 0.4200 0.101
Oil gravity= 35.85API;
5715 0.575 0.3492 0.088 bubble-point pressure = 4236 psia;
5415 0.555 0.2783 0.068 reservoir temperature= 250 F; and
5115 0.538 0.2075 0.051
4815 0.521 0.1369 0.034
solution gas/oil ratio (Table 8 ).
4415 0.499 0.0423 0.012
4236 0.487 0.0000 0.000 Calculations: Proposed correlation
From Eq. I:
TABLE 7 /~od= ( 10 )0.9224/(35.85 )4.7013(250)0.6739
Values below bubble-point pressure = 1.995 cP
P ~o ( 1 - P/Pb) (~b/~ =/~) From Eq. 2:
(psia) (cP)
4236 0.487 0.0000 1.0000
4017 0.516 0.0517 0.9438 ( 10 ) (2.344-- 0.03542 X 35.85 ) ( 1 99 5 )0.6447 -- O. 528 cP
3720 0.553 0.1218 0.8087 - (42 36 ) 0.6447
3315 0.602 0.2174 0.8090
2915 0.651 0.3119 0.7481
2518 0.711 0.4056 0.6850
2117 0.787 0.5002 0.6188 Above bubble-point pressure, Eq. 6 gives:
1715 0.870 0.5951 0.5600
1312 0.968 0.6903 0.5031 10-2.488( 1.995 ).936(4236)-6151
915 1.071 0.7840 0.4547 M~ - 100"0917(35"85) 0.2031 - -

515 1.241 0.8784 0.3924

in developing the equations to predict the val- Equation 5 gives:

ues of oil viscosity above and below the bub- /to =0.528-0.2031 ( 1 - p / 4 2 3 6 )
ble-point pressure and, at the same time, com-
pares the measured values with the results Below bubble-point pressure, Eq. 11 gives:
obtained from the developed equations (Figs. M/~b = 1 0 - 3.876 (4236)0.5423( 3 5 . 8 5 ) 1.13 ~--0.7043
15,16). The values above the bubble-point Equation 10 gives:
pressure (p > Pb ) are listed in Table 6 (see also
Fig. 15 ). The values below the bubble-point /to = (0.528) / [ 1 - 0.7043 ( 1 - p / 4 2 3 6 ) ]
pressure (P<Pb) are listed in Table 7 (see also
Fig. 16): Calculations: Other correlations
(a) Beal (1974). From charts (for p.o above
Example 2 and below bubble-point pressure ) : / ~ = 0.7 cP,
f l o b = 0 . 2 8 cP.
This example illustrates how to calculate the (b) Chew and Connally (1959). (For/to be-
oil viscosity at any pressure (at, above and be- low bubble-point pressure):/rob = 0.28 cP for
low the bubble-point) by different methods /Zod=0.7 cP (From Beal); R ~ = 8 8 8 Scf/STB.
given stock-tank oil gravity reservoir, temper- (c) Beggs and Robinson Correlation
ature and solution gas/oil ratio. Notice that in ( 1975 ). This correlation gives oil viscosity be-

Actual deta
Current c o r r e l a t i o n

X X--If, X ]ILX-- Vesquez correio(ton

- - X X I( Begg e and R o b i n s o n correlation

- - 6 - - 6 Beol correlation

~ o ee Chew and C o n n a l y c o r r e l o t i o n






,2 _ l a t v r e t i o n Preseure

I i i I ~ i I I
0 tO00 ZOO0 3000 4000 5000 6000 7o0o
Preeeure (psi)

Fig 17. Comparison between commonly used methods for predicting oil viscosity, current correlation, and actual data.


Calculations of oil viscosity above and below bubble-point pressure using different methods

p Rfl flo (flo)BL (flo)CC (#o)BG (flo)VB (flo)CR

(psia) (Scf/STB) (cP) (cP) (cP) (cP) (cP) (cP)

6015 888 0.588 0.321 0.384 0.613

5715 888 0.575 0.314 0.373 0.599
5415 888 0.555 0.307 0.362 0.584
5115 888 0.538 0.300 0.352 0.570
4815 888 0.521 0.293 0.343 0.556
4615 888 0.511 0.289 0.337 0.546
4415 888 0.499 0.284 0.331 0.536
4236 888 0.487 0.280 0.280 0.326 0.326 0.528
4017 829 0.516 0.300 0.290 0.340 0.548
3720 761 0.553 0.310 0.300 0.354 0.577
3315 674 0.602 0.350 0.320 0.373 0.623
2915 591 0.651 0.370 0.350 0.398 0.676
2518 515 0.711 0.400 0.380 0.424 0.739
2117 439 0.787 0.415 0.400 0.455 0.815
1715 365 0.870 0.450 0.430 0.493 0.909
1312 292 0.968 0.470 0.480 0.540 1.027
915 223 1.071 0.500 0.500 0.601 1.179
515 151 1.241 0.555 0.550 0.688 1.384

R~a =Differential solution gas/oil ratio (Scf/STB).

#o = Oil viscosity (cP), measured value.
(/to) BL = Oil viscosity (cP), calculated from Beal.
(/to)cc = O i l viscosity (cP), calculated from Chew and Connaly.
(#o) a~ = Oil viscosity (cP), calculated from Beggs and Robinson.
(#o) vB = Oil viscosity (cP), calculated from Vasquez and Beggs.
(#o) CR = Oil viscosity (cP), calculated from this work.

low the bubble-point pressure only. From iated companies for supplying the data used in
Beggs and Robinson equations (for/to below the study. Special thanks to Professor Gian
bubble-point pressure): Pod= 1.137 cP, Luigi Chierici, Faculty of Engineering, Uni-
/rob=0.326 cP. versity of Bologna, Italy; Professor George V.
(d) Vasquez and Beggs Correlation ( 1980 ). Chilingar, Petroleum Engineering Depart-
This correlation gives oil viscosity above the ment, University of Southern California, and
bubble-point pressure only. aob=0.326 cP Dr. Abduhamid Uraiet, University of A1-Fa-
(From Beggs and Robinson's equation). teh-Tripoli, for reviewing this manuscript. My
For #o above bubble-point pressure (Table thanks also go to Mrs. Joan Rollin of the Pe-
8, Fig. 17). troleum Research Centre-Tripoli, and Mrs.
Ghada A1-Nimer-(OAPEC) for typing the
Acknowledgements manuscript.

I would like to express my gratitude to the

National Oil Corporation (NOC) and its affil-


Symbol Description Unit

API Stock-tank oil gravity obtained when API

flashing reservoir fluid from bubble-point
pressure directly to the atmosphere
(API)d Stock-tank oil gravity of residual oil API
from differential vaporization
Mpa = (#o--l~ob)/(P/Pb-- 1 ), for P>Pb dimensionless
= ( 1 --/Zob//to)/( 1 -- P/Pb), for P<Pb dimensionless
P Reservoir pressure psia
ei Initial reservoir pressure psia
Bubble-point pressure psia
A Difference
Reservoir temperature F
#o Oil viscosity at reservoir pressure p cP
~ob Oil viscosity at bubble-point pressure cP
~od Oil viscosity at atmospheric pressure and
reservoir temperature (dead oil viscosity) cP
Rs~ Differential solution gas/oil ratio Scf/STB

References Chew, J. and Connally, C.H., Jr., 1959. Viscosity corre-

lation for gas saturated crude oils. Trans. AIME, 216:
Beai, C., 1946. The viscosity of air, natural gas, crude oil 23-25.
and its associated gases at oil fields temperature and Glaso, O., 1980. Generalised pressure-volume-tempera-
pressures. Trans. AIME, 165: 94-112. ture correlations, J. Pet. Technol., 2: 785-795.
Beggs, H.D. and Robinson, J.R., 1975. Estimating the Vasquez, M. and J. Beggs, H.D., 1980. Correlation for
viscosity of crude oil systems. J. Pet. Technol., 9:1140- fluid physical property prediction. J. Pet. Technol., 6:
1149. 968-970.