SPE 104543
A Correlation Approach for Prediction of Crude-Oil PVT Properties
M.N. Hemmati and R. Kharrat, SPE, Petroleum U. of Technology Research Center
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 15th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and
Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Kingdom of Bahrain, 1114 March
2007.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Up until now, no specific correlation has been developed to
estimate PVT properties of Iranian crude oils, nor do existing
correlations estimate these properties with efficient accuracy.
In this paper, however, an attempt has been made to develop a
number of correlations for Iranian crude oils, using about three
hundred PVT reports. These correlations were developed for
bubble point pressure, solution gas oil ratio (Rs), and oil
formation volume factor (OFVF) at bubble point pressure. The
data used to develop the correlations cover a wide range of
reservoirs with oil gravity of 18.8 to 48.34 API.
It was found that the new correlations estimate PVT
properties of Iranian crude oils much better than the published
ones. The absolute average deviation for Pb, Bo, and Rs are
3.67%, 1.08%, and 4.07% respectively.
The results show that PVT correlations can be placed in
the following order with respect to their accuracy for Iranian
crude oils:
- Pb: Hemmati, Al-Marhoun3, Standing1, Hanafy4,
Dindoruk5.
- OFVF: Hemmati, Petrosky7, Standing1, Glaso2,
Dokla6, Al-Marhoun3, Hanafy4.
- Rs: Hemmati, Standing1, Al-Marhoun3, Dindorak5,
Glaso2, Petrosky7.
Introduction
The calculation of reserves in an oil reservoir or the
determination of its performance and economics require good
knowledge of the fluids physical properties. Bubble point
pressure, GOR, and OFVF are of primary importance in
material balance calculation. These data can be obtained either
by conducting a laboratory study on reservoir fluid samples or
estimated by using empirically derived PVT correlations.
Although laboratory results give better accuracy where
controlled conditions are imposed, the results are heavily
dependent on the validity of the reservoir fluid samples,
especially when the reservoir has depleted below the bubble
point pressure. In situations where the experimental data are
not available, empirically derived correlations are used to
estimate the physical reservoir fluid properties.
Fundamentally, there are two different types of correlations in
the literature. The first group of correlations is developed with
randomly selected data sets; we will refer to such correlations
as "generic" correlations. The second group of correlations is
developed using a known geographical area or a certain
class/type of oil. Correlations using randomly selected data
sets may not be suitable for certain types of oils or for some
geographical areas. Even though the authors of the generic
correlations attempt to cover a wide range of data, such
correlations still work better for certain types of oils.
Specialized correlations represent the properties of a certain
type of oil or geographical area (for which they have been
developed) better than the generic correlations.
Data Descriptions
More than 30 Iranian oil fields were selected for this study.
These fields were selected because they produce crude of
black oil in nature and the availability of complete PVT
reports that are necessary for the evaluation and development
of the black oil correlations were attainable. From these
oilfields, 287 laboratory PVT analyses were obtained and used
to develop the correlations. The obtained correlations from
different fluid property point of veiw were compared with the
works of Standing1, Glaso2, Al-Marhoun3, Hanafy4,
Dindoruk5, Dokla6, Petrosky7 correlations (Table 1).
A description of the data utilized in the development of each
correlation is shown in Table 2 and the range of input data
used by each Author in developing the correlations is provided
in Table 3.
Development of the PVT Correlations
Bubble Point Pressure
The following relationship between buble point pressure of an
oil and gas mixture with its fluid and reservoir properties was
assumed as:
pb = f ( Rs , g , o , Bob , T )
The nonlinear multiple regression analysis was used to
develop the following relation:
Rs
pb = 10.4566[( ) X Anti log(0.0008T 0.0098 o )
g
8.6817] (1)
2 SPE 104543

where
[
Rs = a gb oc T d p ]
e
(6)
X = A1 + A2 Bob + A3 g + A4 Bob2 where
1 T = Temperature, o F
+ A5 + A6 (
2
) (2) a e = Coefficients of the above equation having these
g Bob
g
values:
a =0.1769 b =1.0674
A1 = 1.5897 A2 = 0.2735 c =-5.0956 d =-0.1294
e =1.0857
A3 = 0.4429 A4 = 0.04692 The average error of the correlation was reported at 1.31%
with a standard deviation of 4.21%.
A5 = 0.1440 A6 = 0.1596
Statistical Error Analysis
and T = Temperature, F
o There are four main statistical parameters that are being
The above correlation was originated from studying PVT considered in this study. These parameters help to evaluate the
data on 287 data points. The average error of the correlation accuracy of the predicted fluid properties obtained from the
was reported at 1.32% with a standard deviation of 4.22%. black oil correlations.

Bubble Point Oil FVF Average Percent Relative Error

Oil FVF at bubble point pressure can be derived as a function This is an indication of the relative deviation in percent from
of solution GOR, average gas relative density, oil relative the experimental values and is given as:
density, and temperature as follows:
1 nd
Bob = f ( Rs , g , o , T ) Er = ( ) Ei (7)
nd i =1
The following empirical equation was developed by use of
Ei is the relative deviation in percent of an estimated value
the nonlinear multiple regression analysis and a trial and error
method based on the 287 experimentally obtained data points. from an experimental value and is defined by

Bob = 1 + 10 A (3) ( xest xexp )

Ei = [ ]i 100, i = 1,2... nd (8)
xexp
A = 4.6862 + 1.5959 log Bob
*

where x est and x exp represent the estimated and

0.0566(log Bob
* 2
) (4) experimental values, respectively. The lower the value of E r ,
* the more equally distributed are the errors between positive
Bob is a correlating number and is defined by the
and negative values.
following equation:
g 0.5946 Average Absolute Percent Relative Error8
*
Bob = Rs ( ) + 1.7439 T (5) This parameter is to measure the average value of the absolute
o relative deviation of the measured value from the experimental
where data. The value of AAPRE is expressed in percent. The
parameter can be defined as
T = Temperature, o F
The average error of the correlation was reported at 0.07% 1 nd
with a standard deviation of 1.71%. Ea = ( ) Ei (9)
nd i =1
Solution GOR
Solution GOR can be derived as a function of bubble point and indicates the relative absolute deviation in percent from
pressure, average gas relative density, oil relative density, and the experimental values. A lower value of AAPRE implies
better agreement between the estimated and experimental
temperature as follows: values.
Rs = f ( p b , g , o , T )
An expression for estimating the solution GOR of the Iran Minimum /Maximum Absolute Percent Relative Error
crude oil systems has been developed. The correlation After the absolute percent relative error for each data point is
originates from 287 experimental solution GOR data. calculated, Ei , i = 1,2,... n d , both the minimum and
SPE 104543 3

maximum values are scanned to derive the range of error for Graphic Error Analysis
each correlation. The equations of these values are given Graphic means help in visualizing the accuracy of a
below: correlation. Two graphic analysis techniques were used.
Cross plot
Emax = max in=d1 Ei (10) In this technique, all the estimated values are plotted against
the experimental values, and thus a cross plot is formed. A 45
and [0.79-rad] straight line is drawn on the cross plot on which the
E min = min in=d1 Ei (11) estimated value is equal to the experimental value. The closer
the plotted data points are to this line, better the correlation.
The accuracy of a correlation can be examined by
maximum absolute percent relative error. A higher accuracy is Error Distribution
achieved when the maximum value is small.
The deviations, E i for a good correlation are expected to be as
Standard Deviation8 close as possible to the normal distribution. The equation of a
normal-distribution curve to fit any data set can be derived by
Standard deviation, s x , of the estimated values with respect to
the use of the mean and standard deviation of the data set. This
the experimental values can be calculated using the following technique involves presenting relative frequency of deviation
equation: in histograms and then fitting a normal-distribution curve to it.
nd The accuracy of the correlation is then judged by matching the
1
] E i
2 2
sx = [ (nd 1) i =1
(12) error distribution with the normal-distribution curve.

The symbol x represents physical properties. A lower Comparison of Correlations

value of standard deviation means a smaller degree of
scatterness.
The accuracy of the correlation is determined by the value
of the standard deviation, where a smaller value indicates
higher accuracy. The value of standard deviation is usually
expressed in percent.
Correlation Coefficient and coefficient of
determination8
The purpose of performing correlation coefficient calculation
is to describe the extent of the association between two
variables namely experimental and calculated values obtained
from the correlation. The value of the correlation coefficient
varies from -1.0 to +1. A coefficient of zero indicates no
relationship between experimental and calculated values. A
+1.0 coefficient indicates a perfect positive relationship and a
-1.0 coefficient indicates a perfect negative relationship. The
correlation coefficient can be calculated using the following
equation:
m pressure for Iranian crude oils than any other known
[( x
i =1
exp xest ) i ] 2
Statistical Error Analysis
Average percent relative error, average absolute percent
relative error, minimum /maximum absolute percent relative
error, standard deviation, and correlation coefficient were
computed for each correlation.
Bubble point pressure:
Table 4 shows the statistical error analysis results of the
bubble-point pressure correlation as compared with other
known correlations. The bubble point pressure correlation
gives low values of absolute average percent relative error
(AAPRE) and standard deviation of 3.67 percent and 4.22
percent respectively. A lower value of AAPRE indicates a
better accuracy of the correlation. The correlation coefficient
is almost equal to 1.0(0.9932). This shows that a good
agreement exists between experimental and calculated bubble
point pressure. In comparison with other known correlations,
the correlation gives the lowest AAPRE, standard deviation.
This shows that this correlation predicts better bubble point
correlations.

r2 = 1 m
(13) The cross plot of the experimental against the calculated
bubble point pressure using the new correlation is presented in
[( x exp x) i ] 2 Figure 1. Most of the data points of the new correlation fall
i =1
very close to perfect correlation of the 45 line. A graphical
plot of residual (the difference between experimental and
where
calculated bubble point pressure) and experimental bubble
1 nd point pressure (shown in Figure 1) demonstrate a uniform
x = ( ) ( xexp ) i (14) distribution of errors with most of the data points falling
nd i =1 within 500 psia residual line. The other correlation results
The square value of correlation coefficient is known as are depicted in Figures 2 through Figure 8. As shown in Figure
coefficient of determination. The coefficient of determination 4 the negative amounts related to low bubble point pressure
is defined as the proportion of the validity in the dependent might be due to the limitation range of Petrosky and Farshad
variable (predicted) that is encountered for by the independent correlation which is valid for the range of 1574 to 6523 psia.
variable (experimental). In the correlation, a new independent variable PVT
parameter of bubble point oil FVF is introduced into the
4 SPE 104543
equation. The value of bubble point oil FVF can either be
obtained experimentally or estimated from correlations. The
above bubble point pressure study was based on bubble point
oil FVF obtained from experimental values. Table 5 shows the
statistical error analysis results of calculated bubble point
pressure where the bubble point oil FVF was used in the
equation. The statistical analysis results show no significant
differences between the two values of calculated bubble
pressure. The calculated bubble point pressure produced an
AAPRE of 3.71 percent with 4.06 percent standard deviation.
In the absence of experimental bubble point FVF this value
can be estimated from equation 3 and used to calculate bubble
point pressure without losing the accuracy.
Bubble Point oil FVF
The statistical error analysis results of the bubble point oil
FVF correlation as compared with other known correlations
are shown in Table 6. The correlation provides higher
accuracy in estimating bubble point oil FVF for Iranian crude
oils. Amongst the correlations, this correlation gives the
lowest values of AAPRE, standard deviation 1.08 percent,
1.71 percent, respectively. The correlation coefficient is 0.993,
which is close to an ideal value of 1.0. This shows that the
new bubble point oil FVF correlation corresponds better with
experimental data than any other correlations.
In the graphical error analysis, the cross plot of
experimental and estimated bubble point oil FVF shows that
most of the data points fall along the perfect correlation of
45 line (Figure 9). This is reflected with good
r 2 (coefficient of determination) value of 0.986 .The residual
plot of the bubble point oil FVF obtained from the new
correlation and others are shown in Figure 9 through Figure
16. All the data points in Figure 9 (except three data points) lie
between 0.1 residual lines. A small residual value indicates
a better accuracy of the new correlation in estimating bubble
point oil FVF for Iranian crude oils.
Solution GOR
The statistical error analysis results of the Solution GOR
correlation as compared with other known correlations are
shown in Table 7. It shows that the proposed correlation has
an average absolute deviation of 4.07% compared with over
16% for Dindoruk and 20.7% for Glaso. The correlation
coefficient is 0.991 which is close to an ideal value of 1.0.
This shows that the Solution GOR correlation correlates better
with experimental data than any other correlations.
The maximum error and standard deviation of these
correlations are in Table 7. Figure17 through Figure 22 give
cross plots of the values estimated by the same correlations
versus the measured experimental values. It is clear from both
Table 7 and Figure 17 through Figure 22 that the proposed
correlation is quite superior for Iranian crude oils than other
correlations. The cross plot of the experimental against the
calculated solution GOR using the new correlation is
presented in Figure 17. Most of the data points of the new
correlation fall very close to the perfect correlation of
45 line. A graphical plot of residual and experimental
solution GOR (shown in Figure 17) demonstrated a uniform
distribution of errors with most of the data points falling
within 150 SCF/STB residual line.
Conclusions
Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions
are obtained:
1- New empirical correlations for Iranian crude oils have been
developed for bubble point pressure, solution gas-oil-ratio, and
bubble point oil formation volume factor.
2- All of the proposed correlations have a wide range of
validity, and are superior to other published correlations in the
literature.
3- These correlations were developed specifically for Iranian
crude oils but can be used for estimating the same PVT
parameters for all types of oil and gas mixtures with properties
falling within the range of the data used in this study.
4- The new bubble point oil formation volume factor
correlation provided the highest accuracy of the correlations
evaluated; however, the other published correlations also
produced excellent estimates of bubble point oil formation
volume factors.
5- The PVT correlations can be placed in the following order
with respect to their accuracy:
a) Bubble point pressure: this study, Al-Marhoun,
Standing, Hanafy, and Dindoruk.
b) Oil formation volume factor: this study, Petrosky,
Standing, Glaso, Dokla, Al-Marhoun, and Hanafy.
c) Solution gas oil ratio: this study, standing,
Al- Marhoun, Dindorak, Glaso, and Petrosky.
6- The Proposed correlations can be tuned for other
basins/areas, or certain class of oils.
Acknowledgment
This study has been sponsored by the National Iranian Oil
Company, Research and Development Directorate (NIOC,
R&D) which is gratefully acknowledged.
Nomenclature
AAD=Abosolute Average Deviation
API=Stock-tank oil gravity, API
ARE= Abosolute Relative Error
Bo = Oil Formation Volume Factor, bbl/stb
Bob = Oil FVF at bubble point pressure, bbl/stb
Dev. =Deviation
E a = Average absolute relative error, %
Ei = Percent relative error
E max = Maximum absolute percent relative error
E min = Minimum absolute percent relative error
E r = Average relative error, %
SPE 104543 5

f = Function Subscripts
b = bubble point
m = Number of data sets est =estimated from correlation
exp =experimental
nd = Number of data points max =maximum
min =minimum
OFVF=Oil Formation Volume Factor g = gas
o= oil
P = Pressure, psia s = solution

References
Pb = Bubble point pressure, psia 1. Standing, M.B., A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for
Mixtures of California Oils and Gases, Drilling and Production
PVT=Pressure Volume Temprature Practice, API, 275-287.
2. Glaso, O.,Generalized Pressure-Volume-Temperature
r = Coefficient of correlation Correlations, JPT (May 1980), 785-795.
3. Al-Marhoun, M.A.," PVT Correlations for Middle East
SCF Crude Oils", JPT (1988) 650-665.
Rs = Solution gas-oil-ratio, 4. Hanafy, H.H., Macary, S.A., Elnady, Y. M., Bayomi, A.A. and El-
STB Batanoney, M.H., Empirical PVT Correlation Applied to
Egyptian Crude Oils Exemplify Significance of Using Regional
S x = Standard deviation Correlations, SPE 37295, SPE Oilfield CHEM.INT.SYMP
(Houston, 2/18-21/97) PROC (1997) 733-737.
Std. =Standard 5. Dindoruk B., Peter G. Christman,"PVT Properties and Viscosity
Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Oils", SPE Annual Technical
T = Temperature, o F Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September-3
Octobor.
x = Any physical quantity 6. Dokla, M, and Osman, M.E., Correlation of PVT Properties for
the UAE Crudes. SPE Formation Evaluation (1992) 41-46.
7. Petrosky, G.E.Jr., and Farshad, F.F., Pressure-Volume-
x = Average value of xexp Temperature Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils, SPE
26644 presented at 68th Annual Meeting of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Texas (1993) 3-6.
g = Gas specific gravity (air=1) 8. Almehaideb, R.A., "IMPROVED PVT CORRELATIONS FOR
UAE CRUDE OILS", SPE 37691-MS, Middle East Oil Show and
o = Oil specific gravity (water=1) Conference, 15-18 March, Bahrain (1997)

Table 1: Fluid Property Correlations.

Fluid property Correlations
Bubble point pressure Standing1, Glaso2, Al-Marhoun3, Hanafy4,Dindoruk5, Dokla6, Petrosky7
Solution GOR Glaso2, Standing1, Al-Marhoun3, Petrosky7, Dindoruk5
OFVF Glaso2, Petrosky7, Al-Marhoun3, Standing1,Hanafy4, Dokla6, Dindoruk7

Table 2: Data Description for Bubble Point Pressure, GOR, and Bubble Point Oil FVF.
Number of points PVT Property Minimum Maximum Mean
287 Bubble point Pressure, psia 348 5156 2780.4
287 Solution GOR, SCF/STB 125 2189.25 783.3
287 FVF, bbl/STB 1.091 2.54 1.44
287 Temperature, F 77.5 290 165
o
287 Stock tank oil gravity, API 18.8 48.34 30.1
287 Gas Gravity,(air=1) 0.523 1.415 0.924
6 SPE 104543

Table 3: Range for Bubble Point Pressure, Solution GOR, and Oil FVF Correlations.
Al-
Standing1 Glaso2 Petrosky7
Marhoun3
o
Tank oil gravity, API 16.5 to 63.8 22.3 to 48.1 19.4 to 44.6 16.3 to 45
Bubble point pressure, psia 130 to 7000 165 to 7142 130 to 3573 1574 to 6523
o
Reservoir temperature, F 100 to 258 80 to 280 74 to 240 114 to 288
Oil FVF at bubble point 1.024 to 1.025 to 1.032 to
1.1178 to 1.6229
,bbl/STB 2.15 2.588 1.997
Solution GOR, SCF/STB 20 to 1425 90 to 2637 26 to 1602 217 to 1406
Total surface gas 0.65 to 0.752 to
0.59 to 0.95 0.5781 to 0.8519
gravity(air=1) 1.276 1.367
Separator pressure, psia 256 to 465 415(mean) - -
o
Separator temperature, F 100(mean) 125(mean) - -
Reservoir pressure, psia - - 20 to 3573 1700 to 10692

Table 4: Summary of Statistical Measures for Pb for New and Common Correlations
7 2 1 3 5 6 4
Proposed Petrosky Glaso Standing Al-Malhoun Dindoruk Dokla Hanafy
%AAD 3.67 15.13 22.43 8.28 8.77 42.46 18.50 16.88
%ARE 1.32 -6.99 -22.43 -4.36 8.00 -42.45 7.51 -12.06
%Max.
10.95 161.96 73.13 45.68 26.04 91.01 197.81 192.34
Dev.
%Min Dev. 0.00012 0.185 1.591 0.009 0.105 0.070 0.108 0.192
Std. Dev. 4.22 24.58 25.69 11.28 10.57 44.65 29.08 30.15
r 0.993 0.91 0.84 0.95 0.97 Negative 0.8549 0.94

Table 5: Statistical Error Analysis of the New Pb Correlation

(FVF is estimated from the New Correlation (equation 3).
This study
AAPRE,% 3.71
Standard Deviation,% 4.06
Coefficient of Determination 0.986
Correlation of Coefficient 0.993
Max.AAPRE,% 10.48
Min.AAPRE,% 0.0087

Table 6: Summary of Statistical Measures for Bob for New and Common Correlations
3 1 2 7 6 7 4
Proposed Al-Marhoun Standing Glaso Petrosky Dokla Dindoruk Hanafy
%AAD 1.08 2.25 1.88 1.96 1.35 2.55 3.61 8.89

%ARE -0.07 -1.19 +1.15 -0.49 +0.06 -1.51 +1.65 8.77

%Max Dev. 8.05 15.25 11.21 12.28 13.76 13.08 26.94 22.65
%Min. Dev. 0.006 0.003 0.0008 0.0164 0.015 0.0045 0.0091 0.135
Std Dev. 1.706 3.30 2.65 2.59 2.35 3.35 4.92 9.69
r 0.9929 0.965 0.985 0.9849 0.9870 0.9805 0.9495 0.7676
SPE 104543 7

Table 7: Summary of Statistical Measures for Solution GOR for New and Common Correlations.
3 1 2 7 5
Proposed Al-Marhoun Standing Glaso Petrosky Dindorak
%AAD 4.07 14.95 8.73 20.70 15.70 16.80
%ARE -0.33 13.43 -4.23 -20.70 -6.70 +7.53
%Max Dev. 10.86 101.7 32.99 38.29 116.41 126.48
%Min Dev. 0.0003 0.1471 0.0009 2.0813 0.1522 0.0138
Std. Dev. 4.95 19.98 11.01 22.06 23.17 24.21
r 0.9911 0.9014 0.9536 0.8920 0.8839 0.8950

this study this study

500
5100
Calculated Bubble point

Residual ,psia
pressure,psia

4100

3100 0

2100

1100
-500
100
100 1100 2100 3100 4100 5100 0 2000 4000 6000

Measured Bubble point pressure,psia Experimental bubble point pressure ,psia

Figure 1: Cross plot and residual plot of Pb (this study) based on Iran PVT data.

Standing Standing

5100 1500
Calculated Bubble point pressure,psia

1000
4100
Residual ,psia

500
3100
0

2100 -500

1100 -1000

-1500
100 0 2000 4000 6000
100 1100 2100 3100 4100 5100
Measured Bubble point pressure,psia
Experimental bubble point pressure ,psia

Figure 2: Cross plot and residual plot of Pb (Standing) based on Iran PVT data.
8 SPE 104543

Marhoun Marhoun
Calculated Bubble point pressure,psia

1000
5100

4100 500

Res idual ,ps ia

3100
0

2100

-500
1100

100 -1000
100 2100 4100 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Measured Bubble point pressure,psia Experimental bubble point pressure ,psia

Figure 3: Cross plot and residual plot of Pb (Marhoun) based on Iran PVT data.

Petrosky and Farshad Petrosky and Farshad

5500
Calculated Bubble poin

1000
500
pressure,psia

Residual ,psia

3500 0
-500
-1000
1500
-1500
-2000
-500 0 2000 4000 6000
0 2000 4000 6000
Experimental bubble point pressure ,psia
Measured Bubble point pressure

Figure 4: Cross plot and residual plot of Pb (Petrosky) based on Iran PVT data.

Glaso Glaso
1500
Calculated Bubble point

5100 1000
Residual ,psia
pressure,psia

4100 500
3100 0

2100 -500

1100 -1000

100 -1500
100 2100 4100 0 2000 4000 6000
Experimental bubble point pressure ,psia
Measured Bubble point pressure,psia

Figure 5: Cross plot and residual plot of Pb (Glaso) based on Iran PVT data.
SPE 104543 9

Hanafy Hanafy
1000

5100
500
Calculated Bubble point

4100

Residual ,psia
pressure,psia

0
3100
-500
2100
-1000
1100

100 -1500
100 2100 4100 0 2000 4000 6000

Measured Bubble point pressure,psia Experimental bubble point pressure ,psia

Figure 6: Cross plot and residual plot of Pb (Hanafy) based on Iran PVT data.

Dokla Dokla
2000

1500
5100
Calculated Bubble point

1000
Residual ,psia
pressure,psia

4100
500
3100
0
2100
-500
1100
-1000
100 0 2000 4000 6000
100 2100 4100
Experimental bubble point pressure ,psia
Measured Bubble point pressure,psia

Figure 7: Cross plot and residual plot of Pb (Dokla) based on Iran PVT data.

Dindoruk Dindoruk
1000

5100 500
Calculated Bubble point

0
4100
Residual ,psia
pressure,psia

-500
3100 -1000
-1500
2100
-2000
1100
-2500
100 -3000
100 2100 4100 0 2000 4000 6000
Measured Bubble point pressure,psia
Experimental bubble point pressure ,psia

Figure 8: Cross plot and residual plot of Pb (Dindorak) based on Iran PVT data.
10 SPE 104543

This study
This study correlation
3
0.2
2.8
2.6
Calculated Bo,bbl/STB

2.4 0.1

Residuals,bbl/STB
2.2
2
0
1.8
1.6
1.4 -0.1

1.2
1 -0.2
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3
Measured Bo,bbl/STB Experimental bubble point oil FVF,bbl/STB

Figure 9: Cross plot and residual plot of Bo (this study) based on Iran PVT data

Standing Standing correlation

3 0.3
2.8
0.2
Calculated Bo,bbl/STB

2.6
Residuals,bbl/STB

2.4
0.1
2.2
2 0
1.8
1.6 -0.1
1.4
-0.2
1.2
1 -0.3
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3
Measured Bo,bbl/STB Experimental bubble point oil FVF,bbl/STB

Figure 10: Cross plot and residual plot of Bo (Standing) based on Iran PVT data.
SPE 104543 11

Al-Marhoun Al-Marhoun correlation

3 0.4
2.8
2.6
Calculated Bo,bbl/STB

Residuals,bbl/STB
2.4
0.2
2.2
2
1.8
1.6 0
1.4
1.2
1 -0.2
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3
Measured Bo,bbl/STB Experimental bubble point oil FVF,bbl/STB

Figure 11: Cross plot and residual plot of Bo (Al-Marhoun) based on Iran PVT data.

Petrosky &Farshad Petrosky &Farshad correlation

3 0.4
2.8
Calculated Bo,bbl/STB

2.6
Residuals,bbl/STB

2.4
0.2
2.2
2
1.8
1.6 0
1.4
1.2
1 -0.2
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3
Measured Bo,bbl/STB Experimental bubble point oil FVF,bbl/STB

Figure 12: Cross plot and residual plot of Bo (Petrosky) based on Iran PVT data.

Glaso Glaso correlation

3 0.4
2.8
Calculated Bo,bbl/STB

2.6
Residuals,bbl/STB

2.4
0.2
2.2
2
1.8
0
1.6
1.4
1.2
1 -0.2
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3
Measured Bo,bbl/STB Experimental bubble point oil FVF,bbl/STB

Figure 13: Cross plot and residual plot of Bo (Glaso) based on Iran PVT data.
12 SPE 104543

Dokla
Dokla correlation
3 0.4
2.8
Calculated Bo,bbl/STB

2.6

Residuals,bbl/STB
2.4
0.2
2.2
2
1.8
1.6 0
1.4
1.2
1 -0.2
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3
Measured Bo,bbl/STB Experimental bubble point oil FVF,bbl/STB

Figure 14: Cross plot and residual plot of Bo (Dokla) based on Iran PVT data.

Dindoruk Dindoruk correlation

3 0.5
2.8
0.3
Calculated Bo,bbl/STB

2.6
Residuals,bbl/STB

2.4
2.2 0.1
2
1.8 -0.1

1.6
-0.3
1.4
1.2
-0.5
1
0 1 2 3
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Measured Bo,bbl/STB Experimental bubble point oil FVF,bbl/STB

Figure 15: Cross plot and residual plot of Bo (Dindoruk) based on Iran PVT data.

Hanafy
Hanafy correlation
3 0.2
2.8
0.1
2.6
Calculated Bo,bbl/STB

Residuals,bbl/STB

2.4 0
2.2
-0.1
2
1.8 -0.2
1.6 -0.3
1.4
-0.4
1.2
1 -0.5
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 1 2 3
Measured Bo,bbl/STB Experimental bubble point oil FVF,bbl/STB

Figure 16: Cross plot and residual plot of Bo (Hanafy) based on Iran PVT data.
SPE 104543 13

This study This study's correlation

200
Calculated Solution GOR,SCF/STB

1700

Residuals,SCF/STB
1300

0
900

500

100 -200
100 600 1100 1600 0 500 1000 1500
Measured Solution GOR,SCF/STB Experimental solution GOR,SCF/STB

Figure 17: Cross plot and residual plot of Rs (this study) based on Iran PVT data.

Crossplot for Solution GOR,Glaso Glaso correlation

400
Calculated Solution GOR,SCF/STB

2100

200
Residuals,SCF/STB

1600

0
1100

-200
600

100 -400
100 600 1100 1600 2100 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Measured Solution GOR,SCF/STB Experimental solution GOR,SCF/STB

Figure 18: Cross plot and residual plot of Rs (Glaso) based on Iran PVT data.
14 SPE 104543

Crossplot Solution GOR,Standing Standing correlation

800
Calculated Solution GOR,SCF/STB

1650

Residuals,SCF/STB
1250 400

850
0
450

50 -400
50 550 1050 1550 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Measured Solution GOR,SCF/STB Experimental solution GOR,SCF/STB

Figure 19: Cross plot and residual plot of Rs (Standing) based on Iran PVT data.

Crossplot for Solution GOR,Marhoun Al-Marhoun correlation

2100 400
Calculated Solution GOR,SCF/STB

1700
Residuals,SCF/STB

0
1300

900
-400

500

100 -800
100 600 1100 1600 2100 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Measured Solution GOR,SCF/STB Experimental solution GOR,SCF/STB

Figure 20: Cross plot and residual plot of R s (Al-Marhoun) based on Iran PVT data.

Dindoruk Dindoruk correlation

800

2100
Calculated Solution GOR,SCF/STB

400
Residuals,SCF/STB

1600

0
1100

-400
600

100 -800
100 600 1100 1600 2100 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Measured Solution GOR,SCF/STB Experimental solution GOR,SCF/STB

Figure 21: Cross plot and residual plot of Rs (Dindoruk) based on Iran PVT data.
SPE 104543 15

Crossplot for Solution GOR,Petrosky Petrosky correlation

2150 800
Calculated Solution GOR,SCF/STB

1750 400

Residuals,SCF/STB
1350 0

950 -400

550 -800

150 -1200
150 650 1150 1650 2150 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Meas ured Solution GOR,SCF/STB Experimental solution GOR,SCF/STB

Figure 22: Cross plot and residual plot of Rs (Petrosky) based on Iran PVT data.