THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 99-38

Comparison of PVT Properties from

Equation of State Analysis and PVT Correlations
for Reservoir Studies

R. Wu, L. Rosenegger
Teknica Overseas Ltd.

This paper is to be presented at the 1999 CSPG and Petroleum Society Joint Convention, Digging Deeper, Finding a Better Bottom Line, in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, June 14 – 18, 1999. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if filed in writing with the technical
program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society
journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to correction.

ABSTRACT method or a set of correlations to complete the data set to

Measured fluid properties from four reservoirs are used to
compare property prediction results using an equation of
state (EOS) method and different PVT correlations available
in the literature. These fluid properties include oil bubble
point pressure, oil formation volume factor, solution gas-oil
ratio, gas formation volume factor, and gas and oil
viscosities. It is shown that with properly characterized EOS
analysis, even without the use of regression, one can match
all the measured property values better than by using
correlations. It is noted that one correlation can generally
predict one or more of the parameters better than the other
correlations. However, no one correlation can match all
measured data consistently.
INTRODUCTION
PVT properties such as oil bubble point pressure, oil
formation volume factor, solution gas-oil ratio, gas formation
volume factor, and gas and oil viscosities are required for
reservoir studies. However, they are not always available or
only an incomplete data set may be available. Hence,
engineers have to use either an equation of state (EOS)
conduct the particular study.
The literature has many comparative studies of equations
of state(1-2) and many papers on correlations for calculating
PVT properties(3-7). In this paper we compare results from
one EOS analysis to a number of available correlations. The
EOS used in this study is the Peng-Robinson EOS (PREOS),
from a commercially available PVT package. The PREOS is
a cubic EOS that is commonly used in the petroleum industry
and is derived from a van der Waal type equation of state.
The PREOS originally contained two parameters that
represent the attractive pressure term and the thermal
repulsive term respectively. To improve the volumetric phase
behavior prediction accuracy, a third parameter is usually
added (PRF shifting factor). The PREOS is a semi-empirical
equation, requiring some PVT property data to determine
these parameters before one can use it for property
predictions.
PVT correlations are typically developed for fluid
properties(3-7) in a geographic region, such as for California,
Alaska, Gulf of Mexico and the Middle East, by fitting
available regional data. The first set of correlations was
derived by Standing(3) in 1942 for California oils and gases.
 The basic assumption was that the bubble point pressure is
a function of dissolved gas-oil ratio, gravity of dissolved gas,
density of stock-tank oil, and temperature. Later, other
correlations were obtained by regression to very similar
equations but using different data sets since the crudes from
different reservoirs or regions have different properties.
Therefore, these correlations may not be applicable to oils
other than those used in deriving the regression. Furthermore,
no one correlation provides all PVT properties required for a
reservoir study. Hence, one always has to use different
correlations for different properties. For example, in a recent
study of Alaskan crude properties(4), the Glaso(16) correlation
was used for bubble point pressure and the Standing
correlation(3) was used for oil formation volume factor while
the Beggs-Robinson(25) viscosity correlation was used for
dead and live oil viscosity.
The purpose of this paper is to compare EOS results with
available PVT correlations using measured laboratory values
as a reference and then to provide some guidelines in
generating PVT properties for reservoir study.
EQUATION OF STATE CHARACTERIZATION
A reservoir fluid is a complex multi-component mixture,
the properties of which depend significantly upon the
interaction of various components. Because every reservoir
oil has its own unique composition, these interactions vary
from one oil to the next. It is impossible to describe every
component in the equations. Hence, in order to use an EOS,
one typically groups heptane and heavier components into
one or a limited number of pseudo-components(8). The
procedure used to determine the interaction of these grouped
heavy ends to other pure components is called
characterization. The procedure in Reference 8 was used in
this study because it only requires the following three kinds
of measured data:
(a) Reservoir fluid bubble point pressure (Pb) at the
reservoir temperature,
(b) Three or four density and viscosity measurements above
Pb, and
(c) Reservoir fluid composition.
The purpose of item (b) is to improve the EOS density and
viscosity calculation for regressing (adjusting) the shifting
factors and the five coefficients used in the Lohrenz, Bray,
and Clark(21) (LBC) viscosity correlation respectively. For
fairness in comparison, item (b) was not used in this study
since correlations do not use these data. Hence, no shifting
factor regression or LBC coefficient regression was used in
this study during EOS characterization. Only the default
values in the commercial PVT package were used.
2
SUMMARY OF CORRELATIONS
The correlation equations used in this study are listed in
Table 1 and the authors’ names, together with the
corresponding literature citations, are given in the
References. They are grouped into two sets, one for gas
phase(3, 9-14) and one for oil phase(3-7, 15-26) properties. The first
two columns of Table 1, the fluid bubble point pressure (Pb)
and the oil formation volume factor (Bob) at Pb, are routinely
used in reservoir studies. Both Pb and Bob are also the basic
fluid properties and the starting point of calculation for both
EOS and correlation predictions.
1. Gas Phase Correlations
The data required for gas phase properties in reservoir
studies are gas formation volume factor (Bg) and gas
viscosity (µg). These two properties are functions of
composition, temperature and pressure. The gas formation
volume factor relates the volume of gas in the reservoir to
surface volume (generally at standard conditions, Tsc & Psc).
The basic equation for Bg is given in Equation 1 in terms of
the gas deviation or compressibility factor Z:
Bg = Psc* Zr * TrR / Tsc* Pr
= C * Zr * TrR/ Pr ............................................................... (1)
The Z-factor(9-13) is a function of the pseudo-critical
temperature (Tpc) and the pseudo-critical pressure (Ppc) of the
gas mixture. If the separator or stock tank gas composition is
available, then Tpc and Ppc can be calculated by a molar
average mixing rule. Otherwise the Tpc and Ppc are correlated
to gas specific gravity (γg)(9-10).
Gas viscosity (µg) is needed for fluid flow behavior
description. Lee et al’s(14) gas viscosity correlation is used
widely and hence is considered in this study. The required
input data for determining Bg and µg are γg, reservoir
temperature and the range of pressure over which the
prediction is to be made.
2. Oil Phase Correlations
Oil phase properties such as oil formation volume factor
(Bo), solution gas-oil ratio (Rs), and oil viscosity (µo) are
needed in reservoir studies. The oil bubble point pressure
(Pb) and Bob are usually used to calculate these oil phase
properties. In the literature, most correlations provide the Pb,
Bob, Bo and Rs parameters as a group and the oil viscosity is
treated separately.
The basic form of different correlations for oil phase
properties are derived from Standing’s(3) initial equation as
follows:
Pb = f(Rs, γg, γo, TR)............................................................(2)
 Therefore, the required data for input to all correlations
are Rs, γg, γo, and TR and a specified range of pressure. The
first three parameters, Rs, γg, and γo, are referred to either
separator or stock tank conditions for all correlations.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION BASED ON
EXAMPLES FROM FOUR RESERVOIR FLUIDS
The correlations used in this study were programmed in a
Microsoft Excel spread sheet using Visual Basic. The
required input is stated in Equation 2. The four reservoir
fluids from Reference 27 were used to compare the EOS and
the correlation results with the laboratory values. The
procedures for doing the EOS analysis are detailed in
Reference 27 and these are not repeated here. Table 2 lists
input data needed for the correlations from two wells of each
reservoir.
To assess the accuracy of EOS and different correlations,
the calculated error is defined as
Error (%) = (A - B) / B * 100.............................................(3)
Where; A = the quantity to be assessed, and B = the
reference (measured value in this case).
If the calculated error is less than 10%, then the result is
considered acceptable. Those correlations which yield
predictions within the acceptable range are listed at the
bottom of each calculated error table.
1. Gas Phase PVT Property Results
Gas evolves from the reservoir fluid when the pressure is
below the bubble point pressure (Pb). Hence there are no
measured values nor EOS calculated values for gas phase
(solution gas) PVT properties above Pb, but the correlations
can calculate properties over the whole range of pressures. In
this study, the assessment of the gas phase PVT properties is
limited to pressures below Pb only.
The results of Z-factor predictions are presented in Figures
1 to 4. In these figures, EOS and three correlation results,
Standing, Wichert-Aziz, and Dranchuk, are compared with
the available measured data. In all figures, Pb values are
posted as a reference to show where the measured data
stopped. Both EOS and correlation results match the
measured values within the acceptable range with one
exception; the correlation for well #1 of Reservoir 4. The
results also show that the EOS calculations match the
measured values better than do these three correlations. This
is because the EOS calculations and the measured values are
both based on the gas compositions from differential
liberation. Hence they agree well with each other. On the
other hand, correlations only use one gas composition,
generally at stock tank or separator conditions. Figures 1 to 4
also show that the three correlation results are very similar.
3
Figures 5 to 8 present the gas viscosity (µg) results from
the EOS and Lee’s correlation, but no measured values are
included since µg was not provided in the PVT reports. The
results show that the difference in calculated viscosity
between EOS and Lee’s correlation, for all reservoir fluids
except reservoir 4, is small for pressures below Pb.
Based on the above results, one can conclude that (1) EOS
calculation can match measured Z-factors better than
correlations, and (2) EOS and correlations can both be used
to generate gas viscosity for reservoir studies.
2. Oil Phase PVT Property Results
Obtaining accurate oil phase properties is a very difficult
task and even the measurements can go wrong(27). It is
therefore important to understand the physical process before
one can use a set of results in a reservoir study. The
following is a discussion of the different results for the
various parameters, starting with Pb and Bob.
2.1 Bubble Point Pressures (Pb) and Oil Formation
Volume Factor at Pb (Bob)
As shown in Table 2, the range of Pb used in this study is
from 377 to 5105 psia. This is a wide saturation pressure
range and covers most black oil case applications.
Tables 3 and 4 compare the EOS and correlation
calculated Pb and Bob with the measured values respectively.
The EOS is adjusted to match the measured Pb and hence it
was not included in Table 3. However, Table 4 includes the
EOS predicted Bob.
Tables 5 and 6 tabulate the calculated percent error in Pb
and Bob respectively. A row at the bottom of each table lists,
by number, the correlations within the 10% acceptable range.
The last row indicates the correlation number which best
matched the data.
Based on the correlation calculated errors for Pb, presented
in Table 5, the following comments can be made:
(1) The range of error is from 0.04 to 46 %, that is, the
correlation results are very scattered. Hence it is
important to know the measured Pb because Pb is the
basic parameter and the starting point for most reservoir
studies.
(2) The worst match is for Reservoir 4. This is related to
measurement problems as indicated in Reference 27.
(3) The Al-Marhoun correlation provides the best match
overall and the range of error for this correlation is from
0.15 to 7.6 % for Reservoirs 1 to 3.
(4) No one correlation best predicts Pb for two wells in the
same reservoir (i.e., for the same or very similar
reservoir fluids).
 Using the results of Table 6, the EOS and correlation
calculated error for Bob, the following observations are made:
(1) EOS matches the measured values within the acceptable
range except for well #14 of Reservoir 4. As mentioned
previously, this is due to measurement error while
conducting the differential liberation experiments.
(2) All correlations predict with an accuracy similar to the
EOS except for one or two correlations in a few wells.
From Tables 5 and 6 we conclude that; (1) the Pb must be
known to start with (e.g., lab measurements), and (2) both
EOS and correlations can predict Bob within an acceptable
accuracy range.
2.2 Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs)
Figures 9 to 12 compare the EOS and six correlation
derived Rs results with the measured values for the same four
reservoirs. The results show that Rs values at or above Pb
dominate the trend below Pb. That is, if one can match Rs
values at or above Pb then one can match the Rs values below
Pb. Hence only the Rs values at or above Pb are summarized
in Table 7 and then the calculated percent errors are tabulated
in Table 8. From Table 8, the following observations are
made:
(1) The error ranges from 0.17 to 40%. The worst match is
for Reservoirs 3 and 4. Reservoir 3 is a low GOR fluid;
the measured values ranged from 86 to 108 scf/stb.
Reservoir 4 had the measurement problem and thus
comparison is not valid.
(2) The EOS is not within acceptable range for two wells,
well #2 of Reservoir 3 and well #14 of Reservoir 4.
(3) Labedi’s correlation predicts the Rs values within
acceptable range for all reservoir fluids, (i.e. the error
ranged from 0.17 to 6.52%). But, because Labedi’s
correlation uses separator properties, the Rs values must
be interpolated between separator and stock tank
conditions(28) (i.e., Rs=0 at stock tank conditions).
(4) Standing’s correlation also predicts Rs very well. It only
failed for the last three wells and two of these were from
reservoir 4. The other four correlations do not show
consistent matching.
It must be remembered that one can improve EOS results
to match Rs by adjusting the shifting factors in the PVT
package. In this study, this adjustment was not performed.
Overall, EOS can more accurately predict Rs values than
correlations even when no adjustment in shifting factors is
applied.
From these observations, one can conclude that; (1) Rs at
Pb is an important value in determination of the whole range
4
of Rs values and (2) EOS can predict Rs better than
correlations with proper adjustment of the shifting factors.
2.3 Oil Formation Volume Factor (Bo)
Figures 13 to 16 compare Bo values calculated by EOS
and by seven correlations with the measured Bo values for
four reservoirs. In this case, we did not calculate the errors
for individual values. Instead we looked at the trends both
above and below the bubble point. Based on this the
following observations are made.
Bo Values Above Pb
All correlations and EOS calculated Bo values above Pb
match the measured values within the acceptable range
except for Reservoir 4. Since the equations used to calculate
Bo values above Pb are nearly linear, the accuracy of Bo
values above Pb is tied to the accuracy of Bob as shown in
Table 6.
Bo Values Below Pb
The results of Bo values below Pb are more complicated, as
shown in Figures 13 to 16. In this case, Bob is not the
dominant factor as in the Rs case. The results of Figures 13 to
16 show the following features:
(1) The EOS consistently predicts the trend and values very
well compared to the measured values for all reservoirs.
(2) The Glaso correlation calculated Bo values below Pb are
very scattered and inconsistent. That is, the trend varies
from one reservoir to another.
(3) For Reservoir 1, the results from three correlations, Al-
Marhoun, Glaso, and Labedi, show that the Bo values
increase as pressure decreases below Pb. A similar trend
was observed for some wells of Reservoirs 2 and 3 using
the Glaso and Al-Marhoun correlations.
(4) Labedi’s correlation matches the measured values very
well for Reservoir 3 but Labedi’s correlation was not
included in the Reservoir 4 because the reservoir Rs
values exceed its correlation limitation (>2000 scf/stb).
(5) It is noted that three correlations, Standing, Vazquez and
Beggs, and Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt, predict the trend
of Bo below Pb well for all reservoir fluids.
From the above observations, one can conclude that EOS
analysis can predict the Bo values more accurate than any
correlations for the entire range of pressures, both above and
below Pb.
µ o)
2.4 Live Oil Viscosity (µ
Live oil viscosity (µo) is generally calculated in four steps:
(1) dead oil viscosity (µod); (2) viscosity at Pb (µob); (3)
viscosity at pressures above Pb; and (4) viscosity for
pressures below Pb. There are many different correlations for
each step(20 to 26), but there are only two correlations which PVT properties, one may have to use different
provide all four viscosity calculation steps (Labedi and correlations for different properties. Some measured data
Kartoatmodjo-Schmidt). is needed to test the accuracy of the particular
correlations.
We first calculated µod using all the available
correlations(22, 24 to 26). Then we selected a µod value to (5) The EOS calculated viscosity, using default coefficients,
calculate µob and then selected the one µod value which gave can consistently match the measured values within the
the best match between calculated and measured µob. This µob acceptable range while no correlation can achieve a
value was then used for µo calculation over the appropriate similar result.
range of pressure for a particular correlation. The measured In generating PVT properties for reservoir studies, two
µob values are given in Table 2. As mentioned previously, guidelines are recommended.
EOS uses the default LBC coefficients to calculate µo.
(1) When Pb and reservoir fluid composition data are
Figures 17 to 20 compare EOS and correlation calculated available, one should use EOS to generate the PVT
µo with all available measured µo from the four reservoirs properties for reservoir studies.
(except well #1, Reservoir 2). From these figures, we make
(2) One must know reservoir fluid Pb and a value of Rs and
the following observations.
µob or µod to use correlations. This is so that one can test
(1) The EOS results match the measured values and are well the correlation prediction accuracy against the known
within acceptable range except in the region below the data.
separator conditions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
(2) The results from different correlations for pressures
above Pb match the measured values within acceptable The authors thank Teknica Overseas Ltd. for kindly granting
range except in well #2 from Reservoir 3. permission to present the results.
(3) For a given correlation, the match of µo below Pb is NOMENCLATURES
inconsistent from one reservoir to another. For example, B = formation volume factor
the Labedi correlation can match Reservoir 3 results C = constant equal to 0.0238 in field units and
within the acceptable range but not the other reservoirs. T = temperature
(4) The best correlation in this study is the Kartoatmodjo P = pressure
and Schmidt correlation. It matches most wells within γg = gas specific gravity (air = 1)
acceptable range except for well #2 of Reservoir 3. γo = oil gravity (water = 1)
ρ = density
From the above observations, we conclude that the default
µ = viscosity
LBC coefficients in EOS can predict µo within the acceptable
yi = gas composition of component i
range. On the other hand, for a known µob, one can predict µo
xi = oil composition of component i
within an acceptable range for pressure above Pb but not for
zi = reservoir fluid composition of component i
pressure below Pb, depending on the correlation used.
Vf = gas vapor mole fraction
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Z = gas deviation factor
The following conclusions are made: Subscripts
(1) Correlations or EOS can be used to obtain accurate gas b = bubble point
phase PVT properties, Bg and µg. c = critical properties
d = dead oil
(2) Different correlations yield a wide range of predicted Pb
g = gas phase
values. Therefore, it is very important to know the Pb
i = composition of component
value before using correlations or EOS to generate PVT
o = oil phase
properties.
r = reservoir conditions
(3) Overall, EOS analysis requires only minimum input data R = absolute temperature
(Pb and reservoir fluid composition) to more accurately pc = pseudo-critical
predict oil phase PVT properties than all available pr = pseudo-reduced
correlations. p = separator conditions
(4) No one correlation can be used consistently for oil phase sc = standard conditions
PVT property calculation. In order to complete a set of sep = separator conditions

5
REFERENCES Fluids,” J of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 4,
1. Perschke, D.R., Chang, Y., Pope, G.A. and Sepehrnoori, 1990.
K., “Comparison of Phase Behavior Algorithms for an 19. Dokla, M.E. and Osman, M.E. “Correlation of PVT
Equation of State Compositional Simulator,” SPE Properties for UAE Crudes,” SPE Formation Evaluation,
19443, 1989. March 1992
2. Ahmed, T.H., “Comparative Study of Eight Equations of 20. Kartoatmodjo, R.S. and Schmidt, Z. “New Correlations
State for Predicting Hydrocarbon Volumetric Phase for Crude Oil Physical Properties,” SPE 23556, 1990.
Behavior,” SPE Reservoir Engineering Feb. 1988. 21. Lohrenz, J., Bray, B.G. and Clark, C.R.: ”Calculating
3. Standing, M.B. “A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Viscosity of Reservoir Fluids from their composition,”
Correlation for Mixtures of California Oils and Gases,” JPT 1964 1171, Trans., AIME, 231.
API, 1942. 22. Beal, C. “A Viscosity-Temperature Correlation at
4. Ostermann, R.D., Ehlig-Economides, C.A., and Atmospheric Pressure for Gas-Free Oils,” Industrial Eng.
Owolabi, O.O., “Correlations for the Reservoir Fluid Chem Process Des. Dev. 1982, 21.
Properties of Alaskan Crudes,” SPE 11703, 1983. 23. Standing, M.B. “Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil
5. Sutton, R.P. and Farshad, F., “Evaluation of Empirically Field Hydrocarbon Systems,” SPE 1977.
Derived PVT Properties for Gulf of Mexico Crude Oils,” 24. Chew, J. and Connally, C.A. “A Viscosity Correlation
SPE Reservoir engineering, Feb. 1990. for Gas-Saturated Crude Oils,” AIME 216, 1959.
6. Labedi, R. “Use of Production Data to Estimate the 25. Beggs, H.D. and Robinson, J.R. “Estimating the
Saturation Pressure, Solution GOR, and Chemical Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems,” JPT Sept. 1975.
Composition of Reservoir Fluids,” SPE 21164, 1990
26. Labedi, R. “Improved Correlation for Predicting the
7. Al-Marhoun, M.A., “PVT Correlations for Middle East Viscosity of Light Crudes,” J. of Petroleum Science and
Crude Oils,” JPT, May 1988. Engineering, 8, 1992.
8. Wu, R.S. and Fish, R.M. “C7+ Characteization for Fluid 27. Wu, R.S. and Rosenegger, L.W.: ”EOS Oil
Properties Predictions,” The Journal of Canadian Characterization Aids Integrated Reservoir Studies,”
Petroleum Technology, July-august, 1988. CIM paper 97-05, presented at 48th Annual Technical
9. Standing, K.B. and Katz, D.L. “Density of Natural Gas,” Meeting of the Petroleum Society in Calgary, 1997.
Trans. AIME (1942), 140. 28. Private discussion with Dr. R. Lebedi, March, 1999.
10. Sutton, R.P. “Compressibility Factors for High
Molecular Weight Reservoir Gas,” SPE 14265, 1985.
11. Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, J.H., “Calculation of
Z Factors for Natural Gases Using Equations of State,” J.
of Cdn. Petr. Tech., July-Sept. 1975.
12. Wichert, E. and Aziz, K. “Compressibility Factor of
Sour Natural Gas,” Cdn. J. Chem. Eng. April 1971.
13. Wichert, E. and Aziz, K. “Calculate Z’s for Sour Gases,”
Hydrocarbon Processing, March 1977.
14. Lee, A.L., Gonzales, M.H., and Eakin, B.E. “The
Viscosity of Natural Gases,” JPT Aug. 1966.
15. Laster, J.A.: “Bubble Point Pressure Correlation,” Trans.
AIME 213, 1958.
16. Glaso, O. “Generalized A Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Correlations,” JPT May 1980.
17. Vazquez, M.E. and Beggs, H.D. “Correlations for Fluid
Physical Property Predictions,” JPT June 1980.
18. Labedi, R. “Use of Production Data to Estimate Volume
Factor, Density and Compressibility of Reservoir

6
Table 1 Available Correlations in PVT Properties Used in this study
Basic Gas Phase Properties Oil Phase Properties
No Correlation Name Pb Bob Z Bg µg Rs Bo µod µob µo
1 Standing X X X X X X
2 Wichart & Aziz X X
3 Dranchuk & Abou-Kassem X X
4 Lee et al X
5 Al-Marhoun X X X
6 Glaso X X X X X
7 Dokla & Osman X X
8 Labedi X X X X X X
9 Lasater X X
10 Vasquez & Beggs X X X X X
11 Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt X X X X X X X
12 Majeed & Salman X
13 Beal X X
14 Beggs & Robinson X X
15 Chew & Connally X
An "X" means that the correlation is for the corresponding PVT property.

Table 2 Data Input for correlations

Reservoir 1 2 3 4
Well No. N1 88 1 8 2 14 1 14
Measured GOR (scf/stb) 392 346 1658 1205 108 86 2250 2461
Gas specific gravity 0.865 0.906 0.841 0.832 1.124 0.851 1.185 0.998
Oil API 39 38.2 40 38.9 33.8 32.1 47.9 53.4
Reservoir Temperature (F) 156 161 271.4 271.4 124 146 295 309
Separator Temperature (F) 87 100 120 158 78 100 220 150
Separator Pressure (Psig) 95 100 295 441 60 60 655 615
Additional Information
Bubble point pressure (Psia) 1387 1152 5105 4244 377 520 4000 4156
Oil FVF at Pb (rb/stb) 1.247 1.211 1.9573 1.6301 1.093 1.088 2.542 2.903
Oil Viscosity at Pb (cp) 0.881 1.02 0.32 0.37 3.04 3.69 0.104 0.101

Table 3 Comparison of Bubble point pressure (Pb)

Reservoir 1 2 3 4
Well No. N1 88 1 8 2 14 1 14
Measured GOR (scf/stb) 392 346 1658 1205 108 86 2250 2461
Measured Pb Value 1372 1152 5105 4244 377 520 4000 4156
1. Al-Marhoun correlation 1396 1214 5113 4264 353 548 3003 4363
2. Standing correlation 1274 1155 5453 4383 369 427 4383 5120
3. Glaso correlation 1477 1313 5274 4363 327 389 4419 5152
4. Dokla & Osman correlation 1554 1364 3927 3139 502 545 3286 4329
5. Labedi correlation 1283 1319 4560 4220 432 610 3488 3981
6. Lasater correlation 1267 1132 4683 4246 349 402 3490 4180
7. Vasquez & Beggs correlation 1416 1288 5859 4682 433 499 4709 5564
8. Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt correlation 1344 1229 6336 4972 398 440 5306 6054

Table 4 Comparison of Oil Formation Volume Factors at Pb

Reservoir 1 2 3 4
Well No. N1 88 1 8 2 14 1 14
Measured Bob Value 1.247 1.211 1.957 1.630 1.093 1.088 2.542 2.903
1. Al-Marhoun correlation 1.242 1.229 1.932 1.711 1.080 1.079 2.508 2.746
2. Standing correlation 1.229 1.215 2.079 1.781 1.079 1.074 2.816 3.033
3. Glaso correlation 1.206 1.191 1.999 1.732 1.062 1.055 2.588 2.735
4. Dokla & Osman correlation 1.212 1.202 2.106 1.825 1.029 1.044 2.930 3.210
5. Labedi correlation 1.331 1.256 2.079 1.869 1.115 1.094 2.550 2.822
6. Vasquez & Beggs correlation 1.256 1.236 2.309 1.771 1.092 1.094 2.904 3.400
7. Kartoatmodj &Schmidt correlation 1.236 1.223 1.988 1.754 1.086 1.085 2.572 2.866
8. Majeed & Salman correlation 1.199 1.183 1.922 1.524 1.083 1.077 2.317 2.587
9. EOS 1.295 1.185 1.957 1.767 1.079 1.071 2.532 3.550
Table 5 Calculated Error for Bubble point pressure (Pb)
Reservoir 1 2 3 4
Well No. N1 88 1 8 2 14 1 14
Measured GOR (scf/stb) 392 346 1658 1205 108 86 2250 2461
Measured Value 1372 1152 5105 4244 377 520 4000 4156
1. Al-Marhoun correlation 1.76 5.36 0.15 0.46 -6.50 5.38 -24.92 4.97
2. Standing Correlation -7.17 0.27 6.81 3.28 -2.12 -17.91 9.57 23.19
3. Glaso Correlation 7.67 14.01 3.31 2.81 -13.36 -25.24 10.48 23.97
4. Dokla & Osman correlation 13.23 18.44 -23.07 -26.03 33.21 4.84 -17.85 4.17
5. Labedi correlation -6.51 14.46 -10.68 -0.56 14.58 17.39 -12.80 -4.22
6. Lasater correlation -7.66 -1.75 -8.26 0.04 -7.50 -22.75 -12.75 0.57
7. Vasquez & Beggs correlation 3.18 11.77 14.77 10.31 14.92 -4.03 17.72 33.88
8. Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt correlation -2.07 6.64 24.12 17.15 5.51 -15.34 32.64 45.66
Acceptable (within 10%) All but 4 1,2,6,8 1, 2, 3, 6 1,2,3,5,6 1, 2,6,8 1,4,7 2 1, 4,5,6
Best match 1 2 1 6 2 7 2 6

Table 6 Calculated Error for Oil Formation Volume Factors at Pb

Reservoir 1 2 3 4
Well No. N1 88 1 8 2 14 1 14
Measured Value 1.247 1.211 1.957 1.630 1.093 1.088 2.542 2.903
1. Al-Marhoun correlation -0.41 1.49 -1.30 4.96 -1.18 -0.79 -1.33 -5.39
2. Standing Correlation -1.43 0.34 6.23 9.28 -1.28 -1.27 10.78 4.48
3. Glaso Correlation -3.27 -1.61 2.11 6.27 -2.81 -3.03 1.82 -5.77
4. Dokla & Osman correlation -2.78 -0.72 7.62 11.94 -5.88 -4.09 15.25 10.57
5. Labedi correlation 6.72 3.70 6.19 14.67 2.02 0.57 0.31 -2.80
6. Vasquez & Beggs correlation 0.75 2.03 17.98 8.64 -0.08 0.52 14.22 17.12
7. Kartoatmodj &Schmidt correlation -0.86 0.99 1.58 7.60 -0.68 -0.25 1.18 -1.26
8. Majeed & Salman correlation -3.85 -2.31 -1.82 -6.52 -0.95 -1.03 -8.84 -10.90
9. EOS 3.85 -2.15 -0.02 8.40 -1.28 -1.56 -0.39 22.29
Acceptable (within 10%) all all all but 6 all but 4,5 all all all but 2,4,6 1,2,3,5,7
Best match 1 2 9 1 6 7 5 7

Table 7 Comparison of Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs) at Pb

Reservoir 1 2 3 4
Well No. N1 88 1 8 2 14 1 14
Measured GOR (scf/stb) 392 346 1658 1205 108 86 2250 2461
1. Lasater correlation 337 278 2001 1292 72 70 2965 2585
2. Standing Correlation 420 345 1535 1159 111 108 1980 2039
3. Glaso Correlation 356 303 1584 1160 122 111 1927 1931
4. Vasquez & Beggs correlation 371 303 1410 1073 92 90 1820 1852
5. Labedi correlation 388 349 1661 1208 110 88 2213 2622
6. Kartoatmodj &Schmidt correlation 394 322 1628 1013 102 103 1622 1735
7. EOS 378 322 1540 1128 83 78 2352 2141

Table 8 Calculated Error for Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs) at Pb

Reservoir 1 2 3 4
Well No. N1 88 1 8 2 14 1 14
1. Lasater correlation -14.09 -19.74 20.67 7.19 -33.56 -19.14 31.78 5.05
2. Standing Correlation 7.23 -0.33 -7.44 -3.80 2.44 25.29 -12.01 -17.15
3. Glaso Correlation -9.08 -12.49 -4.46 -3.74 12.91 28.92 -14.34 -21.52
4. Vasquez & Beggs correlation -5.37 -12.37 -14.93 -11.00 -15.21 5.00 -19.11 -24.76
5. Labedi correlation -1.14 0.74 0.17 0.24 2.29 2.51 -1.66 6.52
6. Kartoatmodj &Schmidt correlation 0.49 -6.79 -1.81 -15.89 -5.70 19.98 -27.91 -29.50
7. EOS -3.57 -6.94 -7.12 -6.39 -23.15 -9.30 4.53 -13.00
Acceptable (within 10%) All but 1 2,5,6,7 2,3,5,6,7 1,2,3,5,7 2, 5, 6 4,5,7 5,7 5
Best match 6 2 5 2 2 5 5 5
Figure 1 Z-Factors for Reservoir 1 Figure 3 Z-Factors for Reservoir 3

1.2 Wichart & Aziz 1.2

Well #2 Wichart & Aziz Standing
1.1 Well #14 Standing
Dranchuk 1.0 Dranchuk EOS
1.0 EOS Meas.

Z-Factor
0.8

Z-Factor
0.9 Meas.
0.8 0.6 Pb = 377 Psia
Pb =1387 Psia
0.7
0.4
0.6
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0.2
Pressure (Psia) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Pressure (Psia)

1.4 1.2
1.3 Wichart & Aziz
Well #88 1.1 Well #14 Wichart & Aziz
1.2 Standing
Standing
1.1 Dranchuk 1.0 Dranchuk

Z-Factor
EOS
Z-Factor

1.0 0.9 EOS

Pb = 1152 Psia
0.9 Meas.
0.8
0.8 Pb =520 Psia
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (Psia)
Pressure (Psia)

Figure 2 Z-Factors for Reservoir 2 Figure 4 Z-Factors for Reservoir 4

1.4 1.2
Wichart & Aziz Wichart & Aziz Standing
1.3 Standing 1.1
1.2 Well #1 Dranchuk EOS
Dranchuk 1.0 Meas.
1.1
Z-Factor

EOS

Z-Factor
1.0 0.9
0.9 Pb = 5105 Psia Pb = 4000 Psia
0.8
0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 Well #1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (Psia)
Pressure (Psia)

1.6 1.6
Wichart & Aziz
1.5 Well #14 Wichart & Aziz
Standing
1.4 Well #8 1.4 Standing
Dranchuk
1.3 EOS Dranchuk
1.2 1.2 EOS
Z-Factor

Z-Factor

1.1 Meas.
1.0 1.0
0.9
0.8 0.8 Pb = 4156 Psia
Pb = 4244 Psia
0.7
0.6 0.6
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Pressure (Psia) Pressure (Psia)

 Figure 5 Gas Viscosity for Reservoir 1 Figure 7 Gas Viscosity for Reservoir 3
0.050 0.050
N1-Lee, Pb = 1387 Psia 2-Lee, Pb = 377 Psia
0.040 N1-EOS 0.040 2-EOS

Gas Viscosity (cp)

Gas Viscosity (cp)

88-Lee, Pb = 1152 Psia 14-Lee, Pb = 520 Psia

0.030 0.030 14-EOS
88-EOS

0.020 0.020

0.010
0.010

0.000
0.000
0 500 1000 1500 2000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure (Psia) Pressure (Psia)

Figure 6 Gas Viscosity for Reservoir 2 Figure 8 Gas Viscosity for Reservoir 4

0.05 0.050
1-Lee, Pb = 4000 Psia
1-Lee, Pb = 5105 Psia
1-EOS

Gas Viscosity (cp)

1-EOS 0.040
0.04 14-Lee, Pb = 4156 Psia
8-Lee, Pb = 4244 Psia
Gas Viscosity (cp)

14-EOS
8-EOS
0.030
0.03

0.020
0.02

0.010
0.01

0.000
0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (Psia) Pressure (Psia)
Figure 9 Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs) for Reservoir 1 Figure 11 Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs) for Reservoir 3
400 300
Rs-EOS Rs-Meas
Rs-EOS 250 Lasater Standing
300

Rs (Scf/bbl)
Rs-Meas Glaso Vazquez & Beggs
200

Rs (Scf/bbl)
Lasater Labedi Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
200 Standing
150
Glaso
100
Vazquez & Beggs 100
Well #1 Labedi
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 50
0
0 Well #2
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (Psia)
Pressure (Psia)

400 300
Rs-EOS Rs-Meas
250
Rs (Scf/bbl)

Well #88 Lasater Standing

300

Rs (Scf/bbl)
Rs-EOS 200 Glaso Vazquez & Beggs
Rs-Meas Labedi Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
200 Lasater 150
Standing
Glaso 100
100 Vazquez & Beggs
Labedi 50
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
0 0
0 500 1000 Well #3
1500 2000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Pressure (Psia)
Pressure (Psia)

Figure 10 Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs) for Reservoir 2 Figure 12 Solution Gas-Oil Ratio (Rs) for Reservoir 4

2500 Rs-EOS 3500 Rs-EOS

Rs-Meas Rs-Meas
Lasater Well #1 3000
Rs (Scf/bbl)

2000 Lasater

Rs (Scf/bbl)
Standing Standing
Glaso
2500 Glaso
1500 Vazquez & Beggs
Vazquez & Beggs 2000
Labedi Labedi
1000 Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 1500 Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

500 1000
500
0 Well #1
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (Psia) Pressure (Psia)

2000 3000
Rs-EOS Rs-EOS
Rs-Meas Well #8 Rs-Meas
Lasater 2500 Lasater
1500 Standing
Rs (Scf/bbl)

Standing
Glaso
Rs (Scf/bbl)

Glaso 2000 Vazquez & Beggs

Vazquez & Beggs
1000 Labedi Labedi
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
1500 Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

500 1000
Well #14
500
0
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (Psia)
Pressure (Psia)
Figure 13 OIl Formation Volume Factor (Bo) for Reservoir 1 Figure 15 OIl Formation Volume Factor (Bo) for Reservoir 3

1.5 1.40
Well #1 1.30 Well #2
1.20
1.10

Bo (RB/Stb)

Bo (RB/Stb)
1.0 1.00
Bo-EOS Bo-Meas Bo-EOS Bo-Meas
0.90
Al-Marhoun Standing
Al-Marhoun Standing
Glaso Vazquez & Beggs 0.80
Glaso Vazquez & Beggs
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt Labedi 0.70
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt Labedi
0.5 0.60
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (Psia) Pressure (Psia)

1.6 1.4
Well #59 Well #14
1.4 1.3
1.2
1.2

Bo (RB/Stb)
1.1
Bo (RB/Stb)

1.0 1.0
Bo-EOS Bo-Meas 0.9 Bo-EOS Bo-Meas
0.8
Al-Marhoun Standing 0.8 Al-Marhoun Standing
0.6 Glaso Vazquez & Beggs
0.7
Glaso Vazquez & Beggs
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt Labedi Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt Labedi
0.4 0.6
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Pressure (Psia) Pressure (Psia)

Figure 14 OIl Formation Volume Factor (Bo) for Reservoir 2 Figure 16 OIl Formation Volume Factor (Bo) for Reservoir 4

2.5 3.0 Bo-EOS

Well #1 Bo-Meas Well #1
2.0 Standing
2.5 Glaso
Vazquez & Beggs
Bo (RB/Stb)

1.5 Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

Bo (RB/Stb)
2.0
1.0 Bo-EOS Bo-Meas
Al-Marhoun Standing
0.5 1.5
Glaso Vazquez & Beggs
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
0.0 1.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (Psia) Pressure (Psia)

3.0 4.0 EOS

Bo-EOS Well #8 Meas Well #14
Bo-Meas 3.5 Standing
2.5 Al-Marhoun
Standing Glaso
Glaso 3.0 Vazquez & Beggs
Bo (RB/Stb)
Bo (RB/Stb)

2.0 Vazquez & Beggs Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
2.5
1.5
2.0
1.0 1.5

0.5 1.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (Psia)
Pressure (Psia)
Figure 17 Oil Viscosity for Reservoir 1 Figure 19 Oil Viscosity for Reservoir 3

2.0 EOS 7.0

Meas. EOS Meas.
Well #N1 Labedi Labedi Beal

Oil Viscosity (cp)

Beal
6.0 Well #2
1.5 Vazquez & Beggs Vazquez & Beggs Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt

Oil Viscosity (cp)

Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 5.0 Chew & Connally Beggs & Robinson
Chew & Connally
1.0 4.0
3.0
0.5
Pb = 1387 psia 2.0
0.0 Pb = 377 psia
1.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Pressure (Psia) Pressure (Psia)

2.0 EOS 7.0

Oil Viscosity (cp)

Meas. EOS Meas.
Labedi 6.0
Beal Labedi Beal
Oil Viscosity (cp)

1.5 Vazquez & Beggs Vazquez & Beggs Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 5.0
Chew & Connally Beggs & Robinson
1.0 Pb = 1152 psia 4.0
3.0
0.5 Well #88
2.0 Well #14
Pb = 520 psia
0.0 1.0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Pressure (Psia)
Pressure (Psia)

Figure 18 Oil Viscosity for Reservoir 2 Figure 20 Oil Viscosity for Reservoir 4

2.0 0.7 EOS

EOS Labedi Meas.
0.6 Labedi
Beal Vazquez & Beggs Beal

Oil Viscosity (cp)

Oil Viscosity (cp)

1.5 Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt Chew & Connally 0.5 Vazquez & Beggs
Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
Beggs & Robinson 0.4 Chew & Connally
1.0 0.3 Well #1 Pb = 4000 psia
Pb = 5105 psia
0.2
0.5
Well #1 0.1
0.0
0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (Psia) Pressure (Psia)

2.0 0.7
EOS Meas. EOS Meas
Oil Viscosity (cp)

Well #8 Labedi Beal 0.6 Labedi Beal

Oil Viscosity (cp)

1.5 Well #14

Vazquez & Beggs Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt 0.5 Vazquez & Beggs Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt
Chew & Connally Beggs & Robinson Chew & Connally Beggs & Robinson
0.4
1.0
0.3
Pb = 4244 psia Pb = 4156 psia
0.5 0.2
0.1
0.0 0.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Pressure (Psia) Pressure (Psia)