Evaluation of Empirically Derived
PYT Properties for Gulf of Mexico
Crude Oils
Robert P. Sutton, SPE, * and F. Farahad, SPE, U. of Southwestern Louisiana
Summ.ry. This paper evaluates seve~al empirical PVT correlations for application in the Gulf of Mexico. Ideally, fluid properties
are determined experimentally in the laboratory; however, these data are not always available. Correlations are consequently used to
determine values for bubblepoint pressure, solution GOR, FVF, and viscosity. These values are necessary to compute oil reserves or
for calculations involving flow through pipes or porous media. A review of the correlations is provided, along with the results of calcu-
lations made on 31 individual crude oil samples.
Introduction
The calculation of reserves in an oil reservoir or the determination
of its performance requires a knowledge of the fluid's physical prop-
erties at elevated pressure and temperature. Of primary importance
are bubblepoint pressure, solution GOR, and FVF. In addition, vis-
cosity must be determined for calculations involving the flow of
oil through pipes or porous media. Ideally, these properties are
determined from laboratory studies designed to duplicate the con-
ditions of interest. Experimental data quite often are unavailable,
however, because adequate samples cannot be obtained or because
the producing horizon does not warrant the expense of an in-depth
reservoir fluid study. In these cases, PVT properties must be deter-
mined by analogy or through the use of empirically derived corre-
lations.
During the last 42 years, several correlations have been proposed
for determining PVT properties. The most widely used treat oil
and gas as a two-component system with each component having
a fixed composition. Only the specific gravity and relative amount
of each component, the pressure, and the temperature are used to
characterize the oil's PVT properties. Crude oil systems from var-
ious oil-producing regions were used in the development of the
correlations. These crude oils exhibit regional trends in chemical
composition that categorize them as paraffinic, naphthenic, or aro-
matic. Because of the differences in composition, correlations de-
veloped from regional samples that are predominantly of one
chemical base may not provide satisfactory results when applied
to crude oils from other regions. This paper examines the fluid prop-
erties and correlations shown in Table 1 to determine their applica-
bility in the offshore Gulf of Mexico region.
Correl.tlons
For years, field engineers have used empirical correlations in lieu
of laboratory data for determining the fluid properties necessary
for calculating reserves, reservoir performance, and equipment de-
sign. Until recently, the only guide for selecting a correlation was
offered by Chierici et al. ,10 who suggested the use of Lasater's
correlation for crude oils with a gravity> 15° API [ < 0.97 g/cm3]
and Standing's correlation for crude oils with a gravity < 15° API
[>0.97 g/cm3]. In 1983, Ostermann et al. 11 provided a more
complete evaluation of empirical correlations for determining the
PVT properties of Alaskan crude oils. Eight samples were analyzed,
and it was found that the correlations proposed by Glasq,4 (bub-
blepoint pressure), Standing l (oil FVF), and Beggs and Robinson8
(dead and gas-saturated oil viscosity) were the most accurate. At
this time, similar analyses have not appeared in the literature for
other oil-producing regions.
The effective use of the correlations lies in an understanding of
their development and a knowledge of their limitations. The fol-
lowing presents a review of the correlations' development. The
equations that form these correlations are provided in the Appendix.
Standing. Standing l ,12,13 published correlations for determining
the bubblepoint pressure and FVF of a gas-saturated oil from known
'Nowat Marathon 011 Co.
Copyright 1990 Society 01 Petroleum Engineers
SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1990
values of temperature, solution GOR, and oil and gas gravities.
In all, 105 experimentally determined data points on 22 different
crude-oil/natural-gas mixtures from California were used to arrive
at the correlations. The gases present in the mixtures were free of
N2 and H2S, but CO 2 was present in a few samples at concentra-
tions less than 1 mol %. All the data were obtained in the labora-
tory with a two-stage flash separation designed to duplicate average
field conditions in California. Table 2 shows the ranges of these
data. Standing reported an average error of 4.8% and 106 psi [731
kPa] for the bubblepoint-pressure correlation and an average error
of 1.17 % for the FVF correlation. The latter is more general than
the former and will provide satisfactory results for a wider variety
of crude oils.
Lasater. Lasater 2 presented a bubblepoint-pressure correlation in
1958. A total of 158 experimentally measured bubblepoint pres-
sures from 137 independent crude oil systems from Canada, western
and midcontinental U.S., and South America was used in its de-
velopment. The natural gases associated with these crudes were es-
sentially free of nonhydrocarbons. Lasater used Henry's law to
derive a "bubblepoint-pressure factor" and correlated it with the
mole fraction of gas in solution to obtain the curve shown in Fig.
1. The mole fraction of gas in solution is calculated from values
of solution GOR, oil specific gravity, and molecular weight. Be-
cause an oil's molecular weight is generally an unknown quantity ,
Lasater provided Fig. 2, which relates molecular weight to oil gravi-
ty. This relationship corresponds with that observed from crude
oils with a UOP characterization factor 14 of 11.8. Table 2 shows
the ranges of data used by Lasater in deriving the correlation. Lasater
reported an average error of 3.8% between measured and calcu-
lated bubblepoint pressures.
Vazquez and Beggs. In 1976, Vazquez and Beggs3 presented rela-
tionships for determining the solution GOR and FVF of a gas-
saturated crude oil. In total, 6,004 data points were used in the de-
velopment ofthese correlations. The data were separated into two
groups because of variations in the volatility of crude oil. The first
group contained oils with gravities s30° API [~0.88 g/cm3]. The
second group contained oils with gravities >30 o API [<0.88
g/cm 3]. Table 3 gives the number of data points and ranges of data
for each group.
Vazquez and Beggs found gas gravity to be a strong correlating
parameter in the development of the solution GOR correlation. Be-
cause gas gravity is dependent on the conditions under which the
gas is separated from the oil, Vazquez and Beggs developed a cor-
relation to normalize gas gravity to a separation pressure of 100
psig [690 kPa]. This pressure was chosen because it was felt to
be representative of average field separator conditions. The value
derived from the equation for this adjustment,
'Ygs ='Yg(p)[1.0+(5.912 x 10- 5», APITsp log(Psp/114.7)], .. (1)
is used in all of Vazquez and Beggs' correlations.
A total of 124 data points from 27 different reservoir fluids were
used to arrive at Eq. I, which was reported to have an average error
79
 TABLE 1-FLUID PROPERTY CORRELATIONS
55~~,r-~~--~~--r--r~
Fluid Property Correlation 1\
~ 50r-~~,,--r-~--~--+---~-+--~
Bubblepoint pressure Standing. 1 Lasater. 2 Vazquez
and Beggs.3 and Gla~4
o 45r-~--~---r--+---~-4~-+--~
Solution GOR Standing. Lasater. Vazquez > \.
and Beggs. and Glas.
~40r-~-+~'r-~-+--r-~~
FVF Standing. Vazquez and Beggs. ~
Isothermal compressibility
and Gla~
Calhoun. 5 Trube. 6 and $35r-~---r-~"~~~~---~~
~30~-r--+--+--+~~&--+--~-4
Vazquez and Beggs
Dead-oil viscosity Beal. 7 Beggs and Robinson. 8

~25~-r--+--+--+--+~~~~--~-4
and Gla~
Gas-saturated-oil viscosity Chew and Connally.9 and
Beggs and Robinson
Undersaturated-oil viscosity Beal. and Vazquez and Beggs 20~-+--+--4--~--~-+~~-4
r",,
200 300 400 500
TABLE 2-DATA RANGES FOR STANDING EFFECTIVE MOLECULAR WEIGHT
AND LASATER CORRELATIONS OF TANK OIL

Standing Lasater Fig. 2-Effectlve molecular weight related to tank-oil gravity

Bubblepoint pressure. psia 130 to 7.000 48 to 5,780 (after Lasater 2 ).
Temperature. OF 100 to 258 82 to 272
FVF. RBISTB 1.024 to 2.15
Solution GOR. sct/STB 20 to 1,425 3 to 2,905
Tank-oil gravity. °API 16.5 to 63.8 17.9 to 51.1 TABLE 3-DATA FOR VAZQUEZ AND
Gas gravity (air= 1) 0.59 to 0.95 0.574 to 1.223 BEGGS CORRELATIONS
Separator pressure. psia 15 to 605
First stage 265 to 465 Solution GOR and FVF of Gas-Saturated Crude Oil
Second stage 14.7
Separator temperature. OF 100 34 to 106 'Y API >30
Number of data points 1,141 4,863
Bubblepoint pressure, psia 15 to 4,572 15 to 6,055
Average temperature, OF 162 180
FVF. RBISTB 1.042 to 1.545 1.028 to 2.226
64 Solution GOR, scf/STB o to 831 o to 2,199
6.0
Tank-oil gravity, °API 15.3 to 30.0 30.6 to 59.5
Gas gravity (air= 1) 0.511 to 1.351 0.530 to 1.259
5.6

5.2 Development of Eq. 1

>=' Separator pressure, psia 60 to 565
-c. 4.8
f< Temperature, OF 76 to 150
; . 4.4 Tank-oil gravity, °API 17 to 45
r£ 4.0 Gas gravity (air = 1) 0.58 to 1.20
~
~ 3.6
Undersaturated Oil
w
a: 3.2 Compressibility Viscosity
:>
(J)
(J)
w 2.8 Correlation Correlation
a:
Q.
....z 2.4 II Pressure, psi a 141 to 9,515 141 to 9,515
5Q. 20 I~ Temperature, OF
FVF. RBISTB
N/A
1.006 to 2.226
N/A
N/A
w
..J
III
III
1.6 .J Solution GOR, scflSTB 9.3 to 2,199 9.3 to 2,199
:>
III I'i Tank-oil gravity, °API 15.3 to 59.5 15.3 to 59.5
1.2
=
Gas gravity (air 1) 0.511 to 1.351 0.511 to 1.351
0.8 1 Viscosity, cp N/A 0.117 to 148
0.4 V
°0 0.2 0.4 0.6 08 1.0
GAS MOLE FRACTION TABLE 4-DATA RANGES FOR GLASQ)
BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURE AND OIL FVF CORRELATIONS
Fig. 1-Bubblepolnt pressure factor (after Lasater 2 ).
Bubblepoint pressure, psia 165 to 7,142
Temperature. OF 80 to 280
of -0.545 %. Table 3 gives the ranges of the data used in the de- FVF, RBISTB 1.025 to 2.588
velopment ofEq. 1. Average errors of -0.7% and 4.7 were report- Solution GOR, scflSTB 90 to 2,637
Tank-oil gravity, °API 22.3 to 48.1
ed for the solution GOR and FVF correlations, respectively. Gas gravity (air = 1) 0.650 to 1.276
Vazquez and Beggs also investigated the physical properties of Separator pressure, psia
undersaturated oils, including viscosity and isothermal compressi- First stage 415
bility. The latter is related to the oil FVF at pressures above the Second stage 15
bubblepoint by Separator temperature. OF 125
Co =(Pb -p) -1 In(BoIBob)' .......................... (2)
In all, 4,486 data points, encompassing the value ranges shown in
Table 3, were used in the development of the compressibility cor-
relation.
80 SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1990
 TABLE 5-DATA RANGES FOR GLASO AND BEAL'S VISCOSITY CORRELATIONS

Beal
Undersaturated 011
Dead-OII Viscosity
Viscosity Above Pb
Temperature, of 50 to 300 98 to 250 N/A N/A
Tank-oil gravity, °API 20.1 to 48.1 10.0 to 52.5 N/A N/A
Viscosity, cp 0.616 to 39.10 0.865 to 1,550 0.142 to 127 0.160 to 315
Pressure, psia N/A N/A 140 to 4,135 1,515 to 5,515
GOA, scflSTB N/A N/A 12 to 1,827 N/A

The correlation for determining the viscosity of undersaturated In addition, Beal presented a curve for estimating the viscosity
crude oils was developed from 3,593 data points with ranges also of undersaturated oil. This curve was the result of correlating 52
shown in Table 3. The average error for the viscosity correlation viscosity observations taken from 26 crude oil samples from 20
was reported at -7.54%. separate locations, 11 of which are in California. Half the data were
taken from crude oil samples at bubblepoint pressure, while the
Ga.. In 1980, Glas;4 presented correlations for calculating bub- remaining data were obtained for pressures above bubblepoint.
blepoint pressure, oil FVF (for a gas-saturated oil), and dead-oil These data represented the ranges shown in Table 5. The resulting
viscosity. He presented data from 45 oil samples, mostly from the calculation had a reported average error of 2.7 %.
North Sea region, and used them in the development of the first
two correlations. Table 4 gives the ranges of these data. Glas~'s
Chew and Connally. In 1959, Chew and Connally9 presented a
correlation was developed for oils with paraffmicities equivalent
correlation to predict the change in oil viscosity as a function of
to North Sea oils (i.e., oils with UOP characterization factors 14
solution GOR. The correlation was developed from 457 crude oil
of 11.9). An adjustment to the API gravity term in the equations
samples obtained from the major producing areas of Canada, the
was suggested when the correlations are used with oils of a differ-
U.S., and South America. These data encompassed the ranges
ent compositional nature. An average correction multiplier of 0.94
shown in Table 6.
was determined for offshore Gulf of Mexico crude oils, but use
An analysis of the data indicated that differential oil FVF or so-
of this factor decreased the accuracy of the correlation. Therefore,
lution GOR could be used as a correlating parameter. Chew and
this modification was omitted from further consideration in this
Connally selected the differential solution GOR as a correlating pa-
study. Glas~ also provided a bubblepoint-pressure correlation for
rameter because these data are more readily obtained. Although
volatile oils and a method for correcting the predicted bubblepoint
differential data were used to develop the correlation, Chew and
pressure for the presence of C02, N 2 , and H 2S in the total sur-
Connally stated that data from any of the usual liberation processes
face gases. These correlations were not applicable to this work.
could be used in its application. The final correlation was present-
Glas~ reported an average error of 1.28% with a standard devia-
ed for solution GOR's ranging from 0 to 1,600 scffSTB [0 to 288.2
tion of 6.98% for the bubblepoint-pressure correlation. The aver-
std m 3 fstock-tank-m 3] because of a lack of consistent data at higher
age error of the oil FVF correlation was reported at -0.43% with
GOR's.
a standard deviation of 2.18%.
Glas~'s dead-oil viscosity correlation was developed from data
obtained from 26 crude oil samples covering the value ranges shown Beggs and Robinson. In 1975, Beggs and Robinson 8 published
in Table 5. equations for calculating dead-oil and gas-saturated-oil viscosities.
The equations resulted from a study of 2,533 viscosity measure-
Deal. In 1946, Beal7 published graphical correlations for determin- ments (460 dead-oil observations and 2,073 gas-saturated-oil ob-
ing the viscosity of crude oil. A total of 655 values for dead-oil servations) involving 600 different crude oil systems. Table 7 gives
viscosity at 100°F [38°q were obtained from 492 oil fields, 358 the ranges covered by these data.
of which are located in the U.S. Viscosity data for an additional
98 samples were obtained for temperatures above 100°F [38°q.
The resulting correlation was based on data covering the ranges
shown in Table 5. Beal's dead-oil viscosity correlation as present- 25
ed consists of five curves covering the temperature range from 100
to 220°F [38 to 104°q, which represented the data with an aver-
age error of 24.2 %.

TABLE 6-DATA RANGES FOR CHEW AND

....
20

15
'""'" ,
'"
CONNALLY CORRELATION
'0
Bubblepoint pressure, psia
Temperature, OF
132
72
to
to
5,645
292 - 10

"
0
Solution GOA, scflSTB 51 to 3,544 u
Dead-oil viscosity, cp 0.3n to 50
5 ~
"'
TABLE 7-DATA RANGES FOR BEGGS AND ROBINSON
CORRELATIONS
o
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Pressure, psia 15 to 5,265 Pob, gmtco
Temperature, OF 70 to 295
Tank-oll gravity, °API 16 to 58 Fig. 3-Correlatlon of Isothermal 011 compressibility (after
Solution GOA, scf/STB 20 to 2,070 Calhoun 5).

SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1990 81

 ,~oo

1200 1/
'0. _ _
,,~

~
PSEUDOCRITICAL PRESSURE
....8.'000

000

f-

"'I'"
.00

1\ 1\ '00

.00
PSEUDOCRJTICAL TEMPERA TURf

~
fs
.00

,....
~g:s. 400

~~

§ '00

~ '00
0." 0 •• 0 .. ... 0" ." .'" 0" 0.'" .00 ou
SPECIFtC GRAVITY OF UNDERSATURATED RESERVOIR UQUID AT RESERVOIR PRESSURE
... .00 ...
\ CORRECTED TO 60· F

Fig. 5-Approxlmate variation of paeudocrltlcal pressure and

\ paeudoci'ltlcal temperature with specific gravity of liquid cor-
rected to 60°F (after Trube S ).

Calhoun. One of the earliest correlations for determining the

PSEUOOCRITICAl TEMPERATURE, T PI" oR
Fig. 4-Varlatlon of pseudocrltlcal temperature with specific
gravity and bubblepolnt of liquid corrected to 60°F (after
Trube 8 ).
isothermal compressibility of an undersaturated crude oil was
presented by Calhoun 5 in 1947. This correlation, shown in Fig.
3, relates a value of average compressibility to the oil specific gravity
at saturation pressure. No information was presented by Calhoun
concerning the data used for developing this correlation.

An average error of -0.64% with a standard deviation of 13.53%
was the reported accuracy of the dead-oil viscosity correlation when
tested against the data used for its development. When tested against
93 cases from the literature, the average error increased to 114.3%
with a standard deviation of 530.0%. The gas-saturated-oil-viscosity
correlation had a reported accuracy of -1.83% with a standard
deviation of 27.25 %.
Trube. In 1957, Trube6 presented a correlation for calculating the
isothermal compressibility of an undersaturated crude oil as a func-
tion of pseudoreduced pressure and temperature. Methods to esti-
mate critical pressure and critical temperature, shown in Figs. 4
and 5, also were presented. Trube recommended that Fig. 4 be used
for determining critical temperature. Bubblepoint pressure is ad-
justed to 60°F [l6°C] by use of Standing's correlation. The spe-
cific gravity of the oil at reservoir conditions is adjusted to 60°F
[16°C] with Eq. 3, which approximates the relationship 15 recom-
mended by Trube in the region of interest.
'Y060 ='Yo(T) +(T-60)(4.6x 10- 4 ) •.•.•....••....•....• (3)

The pseudoreduced compressibility of the oil is determined from

Fig. 6 and is related to oil compressibility as follows:
Co =cprlpc' ....................................... (4)

TABLE 8-U.S. GULF COAST DATA RANGES

Gas-Saturated Oil
Bubblepointpressure, psia 100 to 9,760
Temperature, OF 121 to 270
FVF, RB/STB 1.036 to 2.345
Solution GOR, scflSTB 17.7 to 2,563
Dead-oil viscosity, cp 0.55 to 7.51
Gas-saturated-oil viscosity, cp 0.14 to 6.44
Tank-oil gravity, °API 25.0 to 54.2
Total gas gravity (air= 1) 0.607 to 0.777
Separator pressure, psia 50 to 1,415
Separator temperature, OF 60 to 120
Separator gas gravity (air = 1) 0.589 to 0.772

Undersaturated Oil
Pressure, psia
At bubblepoint 727 to 9,760
Above bubblepoint 1,000 to 12,015
, .. '0'
FVF, RB/STB
Isothermal compressibility, psi -1 x 10- 6
1.059 to
3.03 to
2.283
28.31
PSEUOOflEOUCEO PRESSURE, Ppt
Solution GOR, scf/STB 107 to 2,563
Oil viscosity, cp
Fig. 6-Correlatlon of pseudoreduced compressibility for an At bubblepoint 0.144 to 3.25
undersaturated oil (after Trube'). Above bubblepoint 0.156 to 3.45

82 SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1990

 TABLE 9-STATISTICAL ACCURACY OF BUBBLEPOINT PRESSURE AND SOLUTION GOR CORRELATIONS

Bubblepoint Pressure Solution GOR

Pressure Range Standing Lasater Vazquez Glasfl Standing Lasater Vazquez Glasfl
<1,000 pal.
Average error, % -21.50 -17.52 -36.70 -19.31 11.68 8.47 22.63 7.31
Standard deviation 36.11 33.86 41.95 36.25 28.37 30.15 27.68 31.12
Average absolute error, % 29.96 27.51 41.51 31.29 24.79 24.57 30.43 23.62
Standard deviation 29.40 26.29 37.14 26.47 17.92 19.26 18.65 21.41
1,001 to 2,000 pal.
Average error, % 8.03 6.62 -1.58 -7.09 -13.86 -11.60 -3.24 3.58
Standard deviation 13.03 14.24 16.75 16.95 25.00 27.82 32.36 26.76
Average absolute error, % 12.10 12.17 13.02 13.85 18.05 16.63 17.71 14.98
Standard deviation 9.32 9.85 10.54 12.00 22.12 25.11 27.21 22.40
2,001 to 3,000 pal.
Average error, % 12.36 3.92 3.48 -2.21 -18.80 -5.99 -6.96 0.76
Standard deviation 9.47 13.59 12.28 12.43 15.57 16.96 20.36 15.82
Average absolute error, % 13.53 10.91 8.96 9.82 20.08 12.24 12.70 11.60
Standard deviation 7.68 8.90 9.02 7.83 13.86 13.12 17.32 10.68
3,001 to 4,000 pal.
Average error, % 18.32 8.06 12.54 7.48 -29.06 -12.63 -20.01 -11.90
Standard deviation 8.15 9.76 11.11 9.16 16.63 16.07 21.18 15.52
Average absolute error, % 18.32 9.84 12.56 9.11 29.06 14.96 20.02 13.90
Standard deviation 8.15 7.87 11.10 7.45 16.63 13.83 21.1 r- 13.67
4,001 to 5,000 pal.
Average error, % 14.23 8.35 13.66 8.60 -21.46 -18.60 -21.04 -14.14
Standard deviation 7.50 6.00 9.92 6.95 14.41 16.70 16.95 12.59
Average absolute error, % 14.23 8.68 13.73 8.98 21.46 19.21 21.12 14.65
Standard deviation 7.50 5.48 9.81 6.43 14.41 15.96 16.84 11.97
>5,000 pal.
Average error, % 10.96 18.66 3.92 11.65 -20.45 -40.49 -10.83 -27.80
Standard deviation 17.55 11.92 18.86 12.51 29.92 49.91 32.19 38.07
Average absolute error, % 16.22 8.66 3.46 13.17 24.94 41.10 20.02 30.18
Standard deviation 12.42 11.92 13.31 10.76 26.00 49.37 27.03 36.06
Total
Average error, % 0.96 -0.77 -9.27 -6.87 -8.83 -6.00 1.34 0.30
Standard deviation 27.18 24.68 32.58 25.34 27.59 29.29 30.91 27.05
Average absolute error, % 18.86 16.66 21.18 17.79 22.02 19.43 21.16 17.63
Standard deviation 19.56 18.20 26.41 19.29 18.79 22.70 22.54 20.49

Trube did not specify the data used to develop the correlation,
nor did he allude to its accuracy, although the examples presented
in his paper showed an average absolute error of 7.9% between
calculated and measured values.
U.S. Gulf Co••t PVT D.t.
Data representing 31 different crude-oil/natural-gas systems were
gathered from PVT samples taken along the Louisiana and Texas
gulf coasts. This information consists of 285 data points for gas-
saturated oil and 134 data points for undersaturated oil. These sam-
ples were typical of the crude oil systems found in the Gulf of Mex-
ico. The majority of the data came from oils of low to moderate
volatility; however, two of the oils had a highly volatile nature.
The gases were relatively free of impurities, but CO 2 and N2 were
present at concentrations averaging 0.4 and 0.3 %, respectively. Ta-
ble 8 shows the ranges of value~ covered by these data.
The data were obtained from conventional PVT reports that de-
rive the various fluid properties through a differential liberation
process. For comparison with the various PVT correlations, the
solution GOR and FVF data were adjusted to represent a flash liber-
ation process by the technique proposed by Amyx et al. 16 and used
by Vazquez and Beggs 3 in the development of their correlations:
Bo=Bod(BojbIBodb) ................................ (5)
The solution GOR was further adjusted to reflect a pressure base
of 14.7 psia [101 kPa) to be consistent with the correlations.
Re.ult.
Calculations of various PVT properties were made with all the afore-
mentioned correlations. The equations or charts of these correla-
tions were used in the following evaluation. In arriving at the
calculated results, measured quantities were used for input into the
correlations. Graphs of calculated vs. measured properties are
provided in Ref. 17 for each of the correlations examined. A refer-
ence line was placed on each graph so that the correlation's ac-
curacy can readily be ascertained. In addition, the statistical error
exhibited by each correlation is provided.
Bubblepoint Pressure. Results of bubblepoint-pressure calculations
are shown in Figs. 7A through 7D of Ref. 17. The statistical ac-
curacies of the correlations are provided in Table 9. Overall, the
results were less than desirable, and Glas0's correlation provided
the best results for the entire data set. Because of the large errors,
Table 9 provides the statistical results for several pressure ranges.
All the correlations performed poorly at pressures less than 1,000
psia [6.9 MPa). The results are somewhat more acceptable for
higher pressure ranges.
Solution GOR. Results of the solution GOR calculations are shown
in Figs. 8A through 8D of Ref. 17. The statistical accuracy is provid-
ed in Table 9. In this instance, Glas0's correlation provided the
best results; however, its accuracy declines for solution GOR's in
excess of 1,400 scf/STB [252 std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ). Table 9 pro-
vides the statistical results for the various pressure ranges, because
of the general inaccuracy of the correlations, and their relationship
to the bubblepoint pressure correlations. Lasater's correlation is
limited in its application above solution GOR's of 1,000 scf/STB

SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1990 83

 TABLE 10-STATISTICAL ACCURACY OF CORRELATIONS

Isothermal Compressibility for Undersaturated-Oil

Bubblepoint Pressure/Oil FVF Undersaturated Oils FVF Calculations
Vazquez Vazquez Vazquez
Standing & Beggs GlasJ Calhoun Trube & Beggs Calhoun Trube & Beggs
---
Average error, % -0.90 -2.67 1.69 -8.45 -5.20 5.00 0.21 -0.31 -0.49
Standard deviation 2.53 2.57 2.28 18.17 37.94 30.78 0.54 0.78 0.98
Average absolute error, % 1.59 2.n 2.38 13.07 22.99 23.20 0.25 0.39 0.53
Standard deviation 2.16 2.45 1.55 15.17 30.57 20.74 0.52 0.74 0.96

Undersaturated-
Dead-Oil Viscosity Gas-Saturated-Oil Viscosity Oil Viscosity
Beggs Chew Beggs Vazquez
Beal & Robinson GlasJ & Connally & Robinson Beal & Beggs
Average error, %
- -
15.48 -12.27 17.43 -18.34 11.05
--
2.91 -0.32
Standard deviation 32.48 35.07 23.33 21.71 19.21 4.64 5.50
Average absolute error, % 30.75 28.01 25.36 22.14 17.31 3.33 3.47
Standard deviation 18.01 23.95 13.89 17.80 13.81 4.34 -4.26

[180 std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]. Above this value, some of the calcu- Furthermore, Chew and Connally found that the laboratory-
lated values reached the upper limit of the correlation and any ex- measured data can be in error by 20%, which is comparable to the
trapolation gave unrealistic results. statistics found here.

on FVF. Results of FVF calculations for crude oil at bubblepoint
pressure are shown in Figs. 9A through 9C of Ref. 17. The statistical
accuracies are provided in Table 10. According to the results of
the calculations, Glas~'s correlation offers the best accuracy. Gla-
s~'s correlation typically underpredicts FVF. Standing's correla-
tion tends to ove~redict FVF's greater than 1.2 RBISTB [1.2 res
m 3 /stock-tank m ]. The Vazquez and Beggs correlation over-
predicted FVF for the majority of cases examined.
Isothennal Compressibility. The results of isothermal compress-
ibility calculations for undersaturated crude oils are shown in Figs.
lOA through IOC of Ref. 17. Statistical results are provided in Ta-
ble 10. Calhoun's correlation yields a single value of compressi-
bility based on the specific gravity of the bubblepoint oil and
provides the best accuracy. Although the errors for all the correla-
tions are rather high, the statistics for the calculated FVF for un-
dersaturated oils are excellent. This quantity is related to
compressibility by the following equation, which dampens the error:
Bo=Bob exp[co(Pb-P)], ........................... (7)
These statistics are also given in Table 10. Trube's correlation, de-
scribed by Figs. 4 through 6, is not adequate for volatile oils that
exceed the method's ranges of specific gravity. The calculations
performed for this paper were constrained by the ranges of values
shown in Figs. 4 through 6. While the results of the calculations
for volatile oils did not result in any decrease in accuracy, the limits
of the correlation are evident.
Dead-Oil Viscosity. Results of the viscosity calculations for dead
crude oils are shown in Figs. llA through llC of Ref. 17. The
statistical accuracies of the correlations are provided in Table 10.
For this evaluation, Bea1' s correlation was extrapolated to temper-
atures up to 270°F [132°C] without adversely affecting the corre-
lation's results. Glas~'s correlation showed the best accuracy of
the three correlations examined.
Gas-Saturated-Oil Viscosity. Results of the viscosity calculations
for gas-saturated crude oils are shown in Figs. 12A and 12B of
Ref. 17. The statistical accuracies of the correlations are provided
in Table 10. Chew and Connally's correlation tended to overpredict
oil viscosity, while Beggs and Robinson's correlation showed an
opposite trend. Beggs and Robinson's correlation was found to be
more accurate. Any improvement in accuracy should not be ex-
pected, according to a comparison of the results found by this work
and the results determined during the correlations' development.
Undersaturated-Oil Viscosity. Results of the undersaturated-oil
viscosity calculations are shown in Figs. 13A and 13B of Ref. 17.
The statistical accuracies of the correlations are given in Table 10.
Both correlations gave very satisfactory results; however, the
method of Vazquez and Beggs is recommended because of the sim-
plicity of its formulation and slightly better statistics.
Conclusions
This paper's goal was to review the various PVT correlations and
to compare their accuracy for application in the Gulf of Mexico.
Glas~' s correlation yields the best results for calculations of bub-
blepoint pressure, solution GOR, and oil FVF. At solution GOR' s
above 1,400 scf/STB [252 std m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ] and bubblepoint
pressures greater than 7,000 psia [48.3 MPa], Gl~' s correlations
for these values show a decrease in accuracy. For these cases, Vaz-
quez and Beggs' correlation is more accurate. The isothermal com-
pressibility of an undersaturated oil is best determined with
Calhoun's correlation. Dead-oil viscosity is determined most ac-
curately with Glas~'s correlation and the method of Beggs and
Robinson. Vazquez and Beggs' correlation should be used for de-
termining the viscosities of gas-saturated and undersaturated oils.
Recommendations
This work compared the accuracy of several PVT co.rrelations using
exclusively measured data in the correlations. Further work should
be undertaken to determine the interaction between the different
correlations. This work would entail, for instance, using calculat-
ed values of solution GOR in the oil FVF correlations and calcu-
lated values of viscosity (both for dead and gas-saturated oil) in
the correlations for gas-saturated and undersaturated-oil viscosi-
ties. Thus, the accuracy of these correlations could be ascertained
for instances where measured data are completely lacking.
Nomenclature
a,b = coefficients in correlation equations
Bo = oil FVF, RBISTB [res m 3 /stock-tank m 3]
Bob = oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure, RBISTB
[res m 3 /stock-tank m 3]
Bod = oil FVF resulting from differential liberation,
RBISTB [res m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
Bodb = oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure resulting from
differential liberation, RBISTB
[res m 3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
Bojb = oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure resulting from flash
liberation, RBISTB [res m 3 /stock-tank m 3]

84 SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1990

 Co = isothermal compressibility of oil, psi -I [kPa -I]
cpr = pseudoreduced compressibility
CI>C2 ,
C3 = coefficients in Vazquez and Beggs correlation
Ei = error (measured value-calculated
value x lOO/measured value), %
i = average error, '£Ejln, %
Iii = average absolute error, '£Iiilln, %
Fp = bubblepoint-pressure factor
m = coefficient in Vazquez and Beggs correlation
Mo = effective molecular weight of stock-tank oil
n = number of observations
N B = correlating number for calculating FVF
Npb = correlating number for calculating bubblepoint
pressure
P = reservoir pressure, psia [kPa]
Pb = bubblepoint pressure, psia [kPa]
Pc = critical pressure, psia [kPa]
Ppr = pseudoreduced pressure
Psp = separator pressure, psia [kPa]
Rs = solution GOR, scf/STB [std m3 /stock-tank m 3 ]
Rsp = gas liberated as a result of flashing a bubblepoint
oil, scf/STB [std m3 /stock-tank m3 ]
(RI)st = gas liberated as a result of differentially lowering the
pressure below bubblepoint, scf/STB
[std m3 /stock-tank m3]
T = reservoir temperature, OF [0C]
Tc = critical temperature, OR [K]
Tpr = pseudoreduced temperature
Tsp = separator temperature, OF
X, Y,Z = coefficients in Beggs and Robinson correlation
Yg = mole fraction of gas in solution
I' API = stock-tank oil gravity, °API [g/cm 3 ]
I'g = total gas specific gravity (air = 1)
'Yg(p) = gas specific gravity at pressure P (air = 1)
I'gs = separator-gas specific gravity (air = 1)
'Yo = oil specific gravity (water = 1)
I'ob = oil specific gravity at bubblepoint pressure
(water = 1)
I' o(T) = specific gravity of undersaturated oil at reservoir
temperature (water = 1)
I' 060 = specific gravity of undersaturated oil adjusted to
60°F (water = 1)
11-0 = viscosity of undersaturated oil, cp [mPa' s]
11-0b = viscosity of gas-saturated oil, cp [mPa's]
l1-od = viscosity of gas-free oil, cp [mPa· s]
Acknowledgments
We thank the management of Marathon Oil Co. for permission to
publish this article and the U. of Southwestern Louisiana, where
this research was undertaken.
References
1. Standing, M.B. "A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation For Mix-
tures of California Oils and Gases," Drill. & Prod. Prac.• API (1947)
275-87.
2. Lasater, J.A.: "Bubble Point Pressure Correlation," Trans .• AIME
(1958) 213, 379-81.
3 .. Vazquez, M.E. and Beggs, H.D.: •'Correlations for Fluid Physical Prop-
erty Prediction," JPT (June 1980) 968-70.
4. Glas¢, (j).: "Generalized Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations,"
JPT (May 1980) 785-95.
5. Calhoun, J.C. Jr.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, U. of Ok-
lahoma Press, Norman, OK (1947) 35.
6. Trube, A.S.: "Compressibility of Undersaturated Hydrocarbon Reser-
voir Fluids," Trans .• AIME (1957) 210, 341-44.
7. Beal, C.: "The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas, Crude Oil and
Its Associated Gases at Oil Field Temperatures and Pressures," Oil
and Gas Property Evaluation and Reserve Estimates. Reprint Series,
SPE, Richardson, TX, (1970) 3, 114-27.
SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1990
8. Beggs, H.D. and Robinson, J.R.: "Estimating the Viscosity of Crude
Oil Systems," JPT (Sept. 1975) 1140-41.
9. Chew, J. and Connally, C.A. Jr.: "A Viscosity Correlation for Gas-
Saturated Crude Oils," Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 23-25.
10. Chierici. G.L.. Ciucci. G.M., and Sclocchi, M.: "Two-Phase Verti-
cal Flow in Oil Wells-Prediction of Pressure Drop," JPT(Aug. 1974)
927-38; Trans .• AIME, 257.
11. Ostermann. R.D., Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and Owalabi, 0.0.:
•'Correlations for the Reservoir Fluid Properties of Alaskan Crudes,"
paper SPE 11703 presented at the 1983 SPE California Regional Meet-
ing, Ventura, March 23-25.
12. Standing, M.B.: "Oil-System Correlations," Petroleum Production
Handbook, T.C. Frick (ed.), SPE, Richardson, TX (1962) 2, Chap. 19.
13. Standing, M.B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocar-
bon Systems, SPE, Richardson, TX (1977).
14. Watson, K.M., Nelson, E.F., and Murphy, G.B.: "Characterization
of Petroleum Fractions," Ind. & Eng. Chern. (1935) 1460-64.
15. Brown, G.G. et al.: Natural Gasoline and The Volatile Hydrocarbons,
Natural Gas Assn. of America, Tulsa, OK (1948) 48.
16. Amyx, J.W., Bass, D.M. Jr., and Whiting, R.L.: Petroleum Reser-
voir Engineering: Physical Propenies. McGraw-HilI Book Co. Inc.,
New York City (1960) 395-97.
17. Sutton, R.P. and Farshad, F.: "Supplement to SPE 13172, Evaluation
of Empirically Derived PVT Properties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils,"
paper SPE 20277 available from SPE Book Order Dept., Richardson,
TX.
18. Aziz, K., Govier, G.W., and Fogarasi, M.: "Pressure Drop in Wells
Producing Oil and Gas," J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1972) 38-48.
Appendix-Correlation Equations
Bubblepoint Pressure Calculations.
Standing. 13
Pb = 18. 2 [(Rsl'Y g)O.83 antilog(0.00091 T -0.01251' API)-1.4].
Lasater. 2
Y g = (R s/379 .3)/[(Rs/379 .3) + (350')'oIMo)]
and Pb = [(Pf)(T+459.67)]1')' g'
where Pf and Mo are determined from Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
Vazquez and Beggs. 3
Pb = {(C IRsl'Y gs)antilog[ - C3'Y API/(T+ 459.67)]} IIC2 ,
where C 1 =27.64 for 'YAPIS30 and 56.06 for 'YAPI> 30,
C2 = 1.0937 for I' API S 30 and 1.1870 for I' API> 30, and
C3 =11.172 for 'YAPIS30 and 10.393 for 'YAPI>30.
Glas;. 4
Pb=antilog[1.7669+ 1.7447 log Npb -0.30218(log Npb)2],
where Npb = (Rsl'Y g)O.816(To· 172 /'Y APIO. 989 ).
Solution GOR Correlations.
Standing.
1.2048
RS='Yg[ (1:~2 + 1.4)antilog(0.0125'YAPI-0.00091T) l
Lasater.
pr [(Pb)(I'g)]/(T+459.67)
and Rs = 132,7551' oYgIMo(l-Yg),
where Yg and Mo are determined from Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.
Vazquez and Beggs.
Rs =(1'gsPb c2/CI)antilog[C3'Y API/(T+459.67)] ,
where C 1=27.64 for 'YAPIS30 and 56.06 for 'YAPI>30, C2 =
1.0937 for 'YAPIS30 and 1.1870 for 'YAPI>30, and C3=11.172
for 'YAPIS30 and 10.393 for 'YAPI>30.
85
 GIos~. Beggs and Robinson. 8
R.='Yg[NpbhAPIo.989ITo.112)] I.22SS , 1'00= loX-I,
where Npb =antilog[2.8869-(14.1811- 3.3093 log Pb)O.s]. where X=YT-1.l63, Y=IOZ, and Z=3.0324-0.02023'YAPI'
GIos~.
011 FVF Correlations.
1'00=(3.141 x 10 10)T-3.444(1og 'Y API)[10.313(lOS T)-36.447].
Standing. 12
Bob =0.972 + 1.47 x 10-4[R,('Yg1'Yo)0.s + 1.25T] 1.175 . Gas-Saturated-Oil Viscosity Correlations.
Vazquez and Beggs.
Chew and Connally. 9,18
Bob =1.0+C1R. +C2(T-60)('YAPI )+C3R,(T_60)('YAPI), 1'00 =a<l'ool ,
'Yg, 'Yg,
where a=0.20+0.80 antilog( -0.OOO81R,) and b=0.43+
where C 1=4.677 x 10- 4 for 'YAPIs30 and 4.670x1O- 4 for 0.57 antilog( -O.OOO72Rs)'
'YAPI>30, C2=1.75IX1O- s for'YAPIs30and 1.l00xl0-s for
'YAPI>30, and C 3 =-1.8106xlO- 8 for 'YAPIS30 and Beggs and Robinson.
1.337 x 10-9 for 'Y API> 30. 1'00 =a(l'oo)b ,
GIos~. where a=1O.715(R,+I00)-0.SIS and b=5.44(R,+150)-0.338.
B ob =1.0+antilog[ -6.58511 +2.91329 log NB
Undersaturated-Oil Viscosity Correlations.
-0.27683(1og N B)2],
where NB =Rshgl'Yo)0.S26 +O.968T. Beal.
1'0 =1'00 +0.OOI(P-Pb)(0.024I'ob 1.6 +0.0381'00 0.56).
Undersaturated-Oil Compressibility Correlations.
Vazquez and Beggs.
Calhoun s (see Fig. 3).
1'0 = l'ob(Plpb)m ,
'Yob=ho +2.18x 1O-4'YgRs)IBo'
where m=2.6p1.l87 antilog[( -3.9x 1O- 5)(P-5.0)].
Trube 6 (see Figs. 4 through 6).
Tpr =(T+459.67)ITc' 8. ".trlc Conv....lon Factor.
Ppr=plpc' °API 141.5/(131.5+ o API) = g/em 3
bbl x 1.589 873 E-Ol = m 3
and co=cprlpc.
cp x 1.0. E-03 = Pa's
Vazquez and Beggs. of (OF - 32)11.8 = °C
co =[( -1433.0+5.0)(R,+ 17.2)(T-11SO.0)('Yg,+ 12.61) psi x 6.894 757 E+OO = kPa
oR °R/I.8 =K
x 'Y APd/(P X lOs). scflbbl x 1.801 175 E-Ol = std m 3 /m 3
Dead-Oil Viscosity Correlations.
·Converslon factor Is exact. SPERE
Beal. 13
Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 16,1984. Paper accepted for publlce-
1'00=[0.32+(1.8 x 107)/'Y API 4.53 ][360/(T+200)]Q, lion Aug. 30, 1969. RevIeed manuscript received June 9,1969. Paper (SPE 13172) first
preeented etthe 1984 SPE Annual Technical Conference and exhibition held in Houston,
where a=antilog[O.43 +(8. 33/'Y API)]' Sept. 16-19.

86 SPE Reservoir Engineering, February 1990