PETROLEUM

SCIENCE &
ENGINEERING
ELSEVIER

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 ( 1995) 219-232

Assessment of the PVT correlations for predicting the properties of

Kuwaiti crude oils
Adel M. Elsharkawy,

Ahmed A. Elgibaly, Abbas A. Alikhan

Petroleum Engineering Department, Kuwait University, P.O. Box 5969

&fat 13060, Kuwait

Received 30 September 1994; accepted 8 March 1995

Abstract
Several correlations have been proposed for determining PVT properties. Limitations concerning the validity of these correlations for different types of hydrocarbon systems, accuracy, range of applicability, corrections for non-hydrocarbons contents,
etc., have been controversial.
Because crude oils from different regions have different properties, it is recommended to assess the accuracy of the available
correlations.
The present study is concerned with the assessment of these correlations for a variety of oils from Kuwaiti fields. The study
evaluated recently developed correlations in the Middle East region and the Arabian Gulf as well as those most often used. The
limitations of these correlations have been analyzed. Forty-four individual crude oil samples from Kuwaiti oil fields were used
in this study. Corrections due to the presence of non-hydrocarbon gases, adjustment to oil composition, and correction of gas
gravity to common separation conditions were taken into consideration. It was found that Standings correlation showed the best
accuracy for predicting the bubble-point pressure among all others, though such accuracy is beyond desirable engineering limits.
All the correlations examined in the present study showed a comparable accuracy in predicting OFVF at the bubble point with
Al-Marhouns correlation having the least deviation.

1. Introduction

The accurate determination

of the PVT properties of
the reservoir fluid, such as bubblepoint pressure, solution GOR and oil FVF, is necessary for the formation
evaluation of hydrocarbon reserves, reservoir performance, production operations and the design of production facilities. Although these PVT properties can be
measured in the laboratory using collected bottom-hole
samples, it may occasionally be required to make predictions
with only data on reservoir
pressure,
temperature, gas gravity and oil API gravity available.
Several correlations have been developed in the literature to estimate reservoir fluid properties. The most
0920.4105/95/$09.50

0 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDlO920-4105(9S)OOO12-7

commonly used correlations are those given by Standing (1947, 1962, 1977).
Standings correlations are based on solution gasoil ratio, gas gravity, oil API gravity and reservoir temperature. Twenty-two
different crude oil and gas
mixtures from California were used in developing his
correlation. He reported an average relative error of
4.8% for the bubblepoint pressure and an average relative error of 1.7% for the formation volume factor.
The ranges of the data used in developing Standings
correlation are given in Table 1.
Lasater ( 1958) developed a correlation for the bubblepoint pressure based on Henrys law. He correlated
mole fraction of gas in solution to a bubblepoint pressure factor. Lasaters correlation is based on I 37 inde-

220

A.M. Elsharkawy

et al. /Journal ojPetroleum

pendent crude oil and gas mixtures from Canada,

western and Mid-Continental
US and South America.
Lasater reported an average error of 3.8% for his correlation. The ranges of data used in Lasaters correlation are also given in Table 1.
Vasquez and Beggs ( 1980) developed a PVT correlation based on 600 PVT laboratory analyses from
different oil fields representing a wide variety of locations in the world. Their correlation is unique in covering a wide range of crude oils with different physical
and chemical characters. This, in the meantime, represents a weakness in the Vasquez and Beggs correlation
because the composition of crude oil (classified as paraffinic, naphthenic or aromatic) and the concentration
of non-hydrocarbon gases vary with each location. Furthermore, they found that separation conditions affect
gas gravity which is a strong correlating parameter in
their correlation. For this reason, they recommended
adjusting the gas gravity to a separator pressure of 100
psi. Vasquez and Beggs presented two correlations;
one for crudes having API gravity higher than 30 and
another for crudes having API gravity equal or less than
30. Their correlation has an average error of 4.7% for
the formation volume factor. It is important to note that
they reported the average temperature rather than the
temperature range used in developing their correlation.
Glaso ( 1980) developed correlations for calculating
the bubblepoint pressure and the oil formation volume
factor, OFVF. A total of 45 oil samples mostly from
the North Sea region were used in his correlation. He
presented an adjustment to the API gravity term when
his correlation is used with oils of different compositions. The adjustment of API gravity is a function of
residual oil gravity and dead oil viscosity from a differential test. Glaso reported that his correlations give
an average error of 1.28% for bubblepoint pressure
and - 0.43% for OFVF.
Al-Marhoun ( 1988, , 1992) developed correlations
for calculating the bubblepoint pressure and OFVF. He
used 69 bottom-hole samples collected from the Middle
East. As shown in Table I, Al-Marhouns correlations
have the advantage of covering a wide range of nonhydrocarbon gases. He reported an average error of
0.03% for bubblepoint pressure and - 0.01% for the
oil formation volume factor.
Dokla and Osman ( 1992) presented correlations for
bubblepoint pressure and oil formation volume factor.
Fifty data points from UAE reservoirs were used in

Science and Engineering

13 (1995) 219-232

their correlation. They showed an average error of

0.45% for bubblepoint pressure and 0.023% for oil
formation volume factor.
Labedi ( 1990) developed correlations for oil formation volume factor, density and compressibility. His
correlations are based on pressure and temperature of
the first stage separator, total GOR, gas gravity, oil API
and reservoir temperature. Labedis correlation for
OFVF is based on 128 oil samples collected from African countries, mostly from Libya. He reported an average error of 0.003% and a standard deviation of 2.96%
for the OFVF.
Ostermann et al. (1983) evaluated the Standing,
Lasater, Vasquez and Beggs, and Glass correlations for
their accuracy in predicting PVT properties for the
Alaskan crudes. They used PVT results of eight
samples from flash and differential separation in their
evaluation. Ostermann et al. found that Glasos correlation for bubblepoint pressure and Standings correlation for oil FVF are the most accurate.
Suttan and Farshad (1990) studied Standings and
Glasos correlations for their ranges of accuracy in estimating the PVT correlations of the Gulf of Mexico
crudes . They used 3 1 different crude oil/gas systems
and adjusted differential PVT data to represent flash
data for the correlations used in their study. Suttan and
Farshad found that Glasos correlation is better than
Standings correlation but the accuracy is undesirable.
The presence of non-hydrocarbon
gas in surfaceproduced gas has a significant effect on the prediction
of bubblepoint pressure from PVTcorrelations. Lasater
reported that the estimated bubblepoint
pressure
decreases as the CO, content increases, while Glase,
reported the opposite effect. Jacobson (1967) and
Glaso found that bubblepoint pressure increases with
increasing N2 content but decreases with increasing
H,S content.
Although each of the afored-mentioned correlations
was developed for crude oils of a specific region, some
authors claim that their correlations adequately fit random PVT data and can be applied to crude oils from
other geological areas. Most engineers prefer Standings correlation for low API crudes and Lasaters
correlation for high API crudes.
Glaso tried to extend his correlation to oils with
different paraffinity. His correlation became of limited
use because residual API gravity and dead oil viscosity
from differential tests may not be available. It is impor-

A.M. Elsharkawy et al. /Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 219-232

Table

221

Data ranges for published PVT correlations

Standing
(1947)

and present study

Lasater
(1958)

Vasquez and Beggs

( 1980)
YAW5 30

YAM 30

Glaso
( 1980)

Al-Marhoun
(1988)

Dokla and
Osman
(1992)

Labedi
(1990)

Present study

Bubblepoint
pressure (psia)

130-7000

48-5680

154572

156055

165-7142

130-3573

590-4640

3x7-4375

Bubblepoint
pressure (Kpa)
Temperature (F)
Temperature (C)
FVF, RBISTB
(m3/Stdm7)
Solution GOR
(SCF/STB)
Solution GOR
(m/Stdm)
Tank-oil gravity
(API)
Gas gravity
(air= 1)
CO2 in surface
gases (mol%)
Nz in surface
gases (mol%)
H2S in surface
gases (mol%)

908-48,800

335-39,670

105-71,931

105-42,288

908-24.954

82-272
28-133
-

162
72
1.042-1.545

180
82
1.028-2.226

74240
23-l 15
1.032-1.997

4 12032,406
190-275
88-135
1.216-2.493

2:! 14-30555

100-258
38-125
1.024-2.15

115249,880
80-280
27-138
1.032-2.588

20- 1425

3-2905

O-831

O-2199

90-2637

26-1602

3-254

O-517

O-148

O-392

16470

16.5-63.8

17.9-51.1

15.3-30.0

30.6-59.5

22.3-48.1

0.59-0.95

0.574-1.223

0.511-1.351

0.530-1.259

0,650-l

< 1%

130-250
55-121
1,057-l .770

181-2266

loo-306
38-152
1.0403.092
13-3533

5-285

32-403

2-680

6-250

19.40-44.6

2840.3

32.2-48

20-45

0.798-1.290

0.663- 1.064

,276 0.752-1.367

34-1400

0.00-16.38

0.37-8.9

0.698I.473
-

0.00-3.89

0.1-1.85

0.0-4.4

0.00-16.13

O-6.02

0.0-2.44

0.0-6.9

Average temperature
-: Unavailable data.
tant to mention
that the number of separation stages
and conditions affect the input data into any PVT correlation.
Before a given PVT correlation is selected for use in
reservoir calculations, it is necessary to examine the
range of data, covered by such a correlation, the composition of oil and gas used in developing the correlation, and compare these data with the reservoir under
study.
The objective of the present study is to examine the
PVT correlations available in the literature, especially
the recently developed correlations for oils in the Middle East, to assess their accuracy for predicting the PVT
properties of the Kuwaiti crudes.

2. The present study

Seventy-four measured PVT data points, representing 44 different crude oil/gas systems from Kuwaiti

oil fields, were utilized in the present study. The bubblepoint pressure, bubblepoint oil FVF, solution GOR,
gas gravity and oil API were measured by flash and
differential separation for 30 crude oil/gas mixtures.
PVTdata for the remaining 14 mixtures were measured
by differential separation only, Also, dead oil viscosity
by differential separation and concentration
of nonhydrocarbon gases for the 44 crude oil/gas systems,
were available in the present study (see Table 4 in
Appendix D) . It is worthy to note that these mixtures
represent samples from fields in the west, south and
southeast of Kuwait.
Crude oils from the west Kuwaiti field used in this
study are characterized by high API gravity (37-43).
The surface gas contains O-4.4% N,, 26.9% CO, and
O-2.5% H,S. South and southeast Kuwaiti fields are
characterized by medium gravity crude oils (2O35API), and surface gas contains very small amounts
of N2 and COZ, O-l% and o-0.68%, respectively, with

A.M. Elsharkawy et al. /Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 (199.5)219-232

10

Flash GOR,
Fig,

1000

100

m3/Std ,3

1,Flash versus differential GOR for Kuwaiti crudes.

1.800

1.600

Bobdaa

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.057

1.800

2.000

Flash OFVF, m3/Std m3

Fig. 2. Flash versus differential

Table 2
Statistical accuracy

of bubblepoint

Average error (%)

Average absolute error (%)
Standard deviation

pressure calculations

OFVF for Kuwaiti crudes.

for the Kuwaiti crude oils

Standing

Lasater

Vasquez-Beggs

Glaso

Dokla-Osman

Al-Marhoun

7.032
10.85
14.66

1.32
14.01
17.96

15.21
16.4
21.87

27.52
27.66
35.02

-6.3
16.86
20.43

9.96
22.64
28.42

A.M. Elsharkawy et al. /Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering I3 (1995) 219-232

Experimental bubblepoint pressure, Kpa

0

YXM IWOO ,5wo 2woo 25wo 300

Experimental Bubblepoint Pressure, psi

Fig. 3. Crossplot for bubblepoint

pressure.

35~

223

224

A.M. Elsharkawy et al. /Journal ofPetroleum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 219-232

(b)

-15

-5

25

15

Rclativc

Error

J5

Rclativc

Error %

b: Laster Correlation

a: Standing Correlation

-__20

Cc)

10 -

.___._ _

10

_-i

5-

-1
o-

--

/&.
-10

10

Relative

20

30

_----_I

40

50

20
Relative

Error %

40

60

Error %

d: Glaso Correlation

C: Vasquez and Beggs Correlation

IS

a
-33

-10

10

xl

50

Rclativc Error %
.zDoklaand

OsmanCorrdacion

-Xl

-10

10

30

50

70

Relative Error %

f AI-Marholm Comlation.

Fig. 4. Error distribution

for bubblepoint

pressure.

A.M. Elsharkawy et al. /Journal of Petroleum Science und Engineering 13 (1995) 219-232

Table 3
Statistical accuracy

of OFVF calculations

Average error (%)

Average absolute error (%)
Standard deviation

22s

for the Kuwaiti crude oils

Standing

Labedi

Vasquez-Beggs

Glas0

1.20
3.17
4.23

1.21
3.11
4.16

0.42
3.41
4.59

no H,S. Flash PVTdata were plotted versus differential

data for GOR as shown in Fig. 1 and for OFVF as
shown in Fig. 2. These figures were used to adjust
differential PVT data to represent flash for the few
mixtures that were not measured by flash separation.
The ranges of the data used in developing the seven
correlations examined in this study are compiled in
Table 1. It is clear that these correlations have some
limitations, in that their data ranges do not cover the
properties of the Kuwaiti crudes. The Standing, Dokla
and Osman, Al-Marhoun, and Labedi correlations do
not cover the gas gravity range of the Kuwaiti crudes,
while the Vasquez and Beggs, Al-Marhoun, and Dokla
and Osman correlations have limitations on the temperature range used in developing their correlations.
Finally, Dokla and Osman, and Labedi covered a narrow range of tank-oil API in developing their correlations.

3. Results and discussion

The prediction of the bubblepoint pressures were
made using the Standing, Lasater, Vasquez and Beggs,
Glaso, Dokla and Osman, and Al-Marhoun correlations. The equations used in predicting bubblepoint
pressures are given in Appendix A. The separator pressure and temperature were used to adjust the gas gravity
for the Vasquez and Beggs correlation. The API gravity
and dead oil viscosity from differential tests were used
to adjust the API gravity term as recommended by
Glaso. It was found that adjusting the API gravity for
Glasos correlation did not improve its prediction capability of the bubblepoint pressure. Therefore, it was
decided not to adjust the API gravity used in Glasss
correlation in the present study. This is in agreement
with the findings of Suttan and Farshad who computed
a correction multiplier of 0.94 for the Gulf of Mexico
crudes and reported that the use of this correction
decreases the accuracy of Glasos correlation.

I .31
3.19
4.19

Dokla-Osman

A-Marhoun
- 0.26
2.12
3.78

0.60
3.38
4.68

The estimated bubblepoint pressures were corrected

for the presence of non-hydrocarbon
gases for all correlations except those given by Dokla and Osman, and
Al-Marhoun. The equations used in correcting the bubblepoint pressures are given in Appendix B. The decision not to correct the bubblepoint pressure estimated
from the Al-Marhoun, and Dokla and Osman correlations is based on the fact that the crude oils used in
those correlations contained non-hydrocarbon
gases in
concentrations
similar to those measured for the
Kuwaiti crudes. Predictions of the bubblepoint oil FVF
were made using the Standing, Labedi, Vasquez and
Beggs, Glass, Dokla and Osman, and Al-Marhoun correlations. (The equations are reported in appendix C.)

4. Accuracy of the correlations

The accuracy of each correlation was determined by
studying the statistical errors (Walpole and Myers,
1985). The error analysis comprises the average percent relative error, average absolute relative error and
standard deviation. The accuracies of the correlations
were also checked by crossplots of experimental versus
estimated PVT parameters and plots of error distribution histograms with overlaid normal distribution
curve.
It is important to note that the average percent relative error can be misleading if the data points distribute
equally on both sides of the unite slope line. In such
case, the average percent relative error can be very low
but the calculated and measured values can be very
different.

5. Accuracy of bubblepoint

pressure correlations

Table 2 presents the errors and standard deviations

for the six correlations used in this study. It is clear
from this table, that Standings correlation shows the

226

A.M. Elsharkawy et al. /Journal

of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 219-232

2.000
1.900
1.600
1.700
1.600
1.500

2.000

1.400

1.900

1.300

1.600

1.200

1.700

1.100

1.600

1.000

1.500

1.900

1400

1.600

1.300

1.700

1.200

(Q

1600
(e>

'.'O"

1.500

1000

1.400

1900'

1.300

1 BOO

,200

I 700

1.100

1600

1000

1500

1900

1.400

1.900

1300

1.700

1.200

(d)

1.100

1.600
Cc)

@I

1.500

1.000

1.400

:
1.900

1.300

1.600

1.200

1.700

1.100

1.600

1.000

1.500

Correlations
a. 1 Standing
b.
LabcdiC.
Vasquez-Beggs
d.
Glas$
Dokla-Osman
:
Al-Marhoun

I.400
1.300
1.206
1.100
Cal

l.ooa
I.600

1.100

1.260

1.300

1.400

Experimental

1.500

l-

1.600

I.700

1.606

OFVF, m3/Std m3

Fig. 5. Crossplot for bubblepoint OFVF.

,.900

I
r600

A.M. Elsharkawy ef al. /Journal ofPefroieum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 219-232
40

30

2o

B
6

10

.!!I
Relative

a: Standing

(4
20

c
5
=

s
6

10

-a

-3

Relative Error

Error %

Correlation

12

1;

b: Labedi Correlation

20

20

-5
Relative

10

15
Relative

Error %

Error %

d: Glaso Correlation

c: Vasquez and Beggs Correlation

25
20
s
P
s 10
E

-10

e:

-5
Relative

0
Error %

DoWa and Oman

10

15

-5

L
5

Relative Error %

Correlation

fi Al-Marhoun

Fig. 6. Error distribution for bubblepoint OFVF

Cordation

10

15

228

A.M. Elsharkawy et al. /Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 219-232

lowest errors and standard deviation followed by the

Lasater, and Dokla and Osman correlations, while the
Glaso, Vasquez and Beggs, and Al-Marhoun correlations show poor accuracy.
Crossplots of the bubblepoint
pressures are presented in Fig. 3. These plots are grouped in one figure
with shifted vertical scales for the purpose of comparison. This figure demonstrates that the Standing and
Lasater correlations depicted closer scatter to the unite
slope line of perfect correlation than the others. The
Dokla and Osman, and Al-Marhoun correlations show
wide scatter around the 45 line. The Glaso and Vasquez and Beggs correlations revealed their overestimation.
Error distribution plots are presented in Fig. 4. These
plots illustrated that Standings correlation has the
smallest relative error range, from - 15 to 35%, followed by Lasaters correlation with relative error range
from - 20 to 50%, and having mean values about 7%
and 9%, respectively. In addition, the Vasquez and
Beggs, and Glass correlations show wider error range
and peaks at 15% and 30%, respectively. This indicates
a high overestimation
and stronger positive skewed
error distribution than the others. In conclusions all six
correlations failed to predict acceptable bubble-point
pressures for the Kuwaiti crudes.

6. Accuracy of oil FVF correlations

Table 3 presents the errors and standard deviation
for the calculated OFVF. Al-Marhouns
correlation
shows the smallest average relative error, average absolute error, and standard deviation followed closely by
the others.
Crossplots of bubblepoint OFVF (Fig. 5) illustrate
that all the correlations have a scatter around the perfect
correlation line. However, Al-Marhouns
correlation
shows closer scatter to the perfect correlation line than
the others.
Error distribution plots presented in Fig. 6 reveals
that Al-Marhouns
correlation has the smallest error
range and the normal curve peak is close to zero. The
other correlations show comparable error ranges and
skewness.
Comparing Figs. 4 and 6, it is obvious that the bubblepoint OFVF correlations showed better accuracy
than the bubblepoint pressure correlations, because by

nature of their values, bubble-point OFVFs have a narrow range of values compared to their absolute values.
This is very different from the values of bubble-point
pressures which have a wide range compared to their
possible absolute values. From this observation it can
be seen that it is highly possible that the bubble-point
OFVF correlations would give the estimates that are
much closer to the measured values than those given
by the bubble-point pressure correlations and all relative errors calculated for the bubble-point OFVF estimation can be much lower than those for the
bubble-point pressure estimation.

7. Conclusions
The objectives of the present study are to characterize the Kuwaiti crude oils and study the recently developed correlations in the area and those most often used.
It also aims at assessing the accuracy of these correlations for their applicability in predicting the PVTproperties of the Kuwaiti crudes.
Although Standings correlation was developed
from Californian crudes and Lasaters correlation from
North and South American crudes, and both contained
essentially no non-hydrocarbon
gases, they yield the
least errors for the bubblepoint pressures, but such
errors are unacceptable.
All the OFVF correlations studied showed a very
close range of accuracy. The Al-Marhoun, and Dokla
and Osman correlations (although developed for Middle East and UAE crudes, respectively, with identical
ranges of non-hydrocarbon
gases and API gravity, and
sometimes produced from the same formation) did not
satisfactorily estimate the bubblepoint pressure for the
Kuwaiti crudes. Because all published correlations considered in this study failed to give satisfactory predictions, it is recommended that a correlation for bubble
point pressure and bubble point OFVF be developed
for the Kuwaiti crudes.

8. Nomenclature
B ob

B,
YAP1

Oil FVF at bubble point pressure, RB /

STB [ res m3/stock-tank m3]
Correlating number for calculating Bob
Tank oil gravity (API)

A.M. Elsharkawy et al. /Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 2 I9-232

YiPI

Residual oil API from differential

separation
Corrected residual oil API from
differential separation
Corrected tank oil API from flash
separation
Total gas specific gravity (air = 1.O)
Total gas specific gravity from separator
condition of 100 psi
Tank oil specific gravity (water = 1.O)
Effective tank oil molecular weight
Reservoir pressure, Psia [ kPa]
Bubble point pressure, Psia [ kPa]
Correlating number for bubble point
Bubble point pressure factor
Separator pressure, Psia [ kPa]
Solution GOR, SCF/STB [ Std m3/
stock-tank m]
Reservoir temperature, F [Cl
Reservoir temperature R [K]
Dead oil viscosity at reservoir
temperature, cP [ mPa.s]
Mole fraction of gas

*
YAPIcon

YAPIcon

P, = 18.2 [ (R)o.3antilog
(0.00091?-O.O125y,,,)
Lasater

p =
b

factors

API= 141.5/( 131.5+ y,,)

bbl x 1.589 873 E - 01
DegreeF (F-32)/1.8
Degree R F + 460
psia X 6.894 757 EOO
SCF/STB Y 1.801 175 E - 01

= gm/cm3
=m3
=C
=R
= kPa
= Stdm3/m3

W(T+459.67)
Yg

M,=725.32143p,=O.38418-

16.03333YApI+0.09524$.p1
1.20081Y,+9.64868Y;

Vasquez and Beggs

Cl&

P,= (-

antilog

Ygs

YAPI

9. SI metric conversion

- 1.41

3o

c3YAPI

YAP1 >

C, = 27.64
c, = 1.0937
C,= 11.172

) I/c2

T+ 459.67

30

C, = 56.06
C,= 1.1870
c3 = 10.393

G Las@

Pb = antilog [ 1.7669 + 1.7447 log p;

-0.30218(logp,)*]

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Oil
and the Kuwait Oil Company (KOC) for providing the
information used in the present study.

where:
pb =

($8190.172

YAP1 -

0.989

YS
L
YAPIcom

antilog[ up&]

a=3.184(10-)T3.44
Appendix

Bubblepoint
Standing

b= [ 10.213(logT)

pressure correlations

YAPIcorr

=- Y~PIcolT
YiPI

-36.4471-l

YAP1

229

A.M. Elsharkawyet al. /Journal of PetroleumScience and Engineering 13 (1995) 219-232

230

Al-Marhoun

P, = 5.38088
X

10-3~0.715082 - 1.877840 7.1437 1.32657

5
Y
T,
7,

Vasquez and Beggs

Dokla and Osman
B,,b=1.0+C,R,+C2(T-60)(T)

P, = 0.836386
X

~~4y,l.0104Y~107YY'~,0.Y52S84~7Z4047

+C 3R s(T-60)(+
%

Appendix

API I 30

API> 30

1O-4
c, = 1.751 x 1o-s
c,=
-1.8106X
1o-8

C, =4.670x 1O-4
c,= 1.100x 1o-s
c3 = 1.337 x lo9

C1 =4.677x

Effect of Non-hydrocarbon

gases

Glas#

Glas@

Nitrogen:
C,,=

l.O+ [( -2.65x

10-4y,,I+5.5x

10-3)T

B,, = 1.O+ antilog

+(0.0931yA,,+0.8295)]Y,,,2+[(1.954
X lo-$$p)T+

(O.O27y,,,-2.366)]

[ -6.58511+2.9132910gB~b-0.27683(logB,,)2]
(YN2)2

where:

where Y,, is the mole fraction of nitrogen.

Carbon dioxide:

B,b = R,( yg/y,)o.526 + 0.968T

Cco2 = 1.0 - 693.8Yco2T

Al-Marhoun

- .s33

where Y,,, is the mole fraction of C02.

Hydrogen sulfide:

B,, = 0.497069

c H2S= l.O- (0.9035 +0.0015y,&Y,,,

+".019(45-~,4PI)(yH2S)2

X 10-2F+0.318099x

Dokla and Osman

X 10-l $0.156667

x 10p2T,+0.139775
X 10-2F+0.380525

OFVF correlations
Standing

10-5F2

~0.742390 .323294 -1.202040

s
g
Yo

B,,=0.431935
Appendix

X lo- 3T, + 0.182594

where:
F=

C= 15.85 +2.86N,,-0.,07T

+ 0.862963

x lo-F2
where:

A.M. Elsharkawy et al. /Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

I3 (1995) 219-232

231

Table 4
Fluid property of the Kuwaiti crudes
No. Bubble point pressure
(Kpa)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44

17535
16645
15590
12706
13323
15241
10994
12535
2171
5069
4637
25618
18186
15652
17193
12878
16481
18111
10062
15138
15823
10912
11419
11521
11110
13131
13309
13199
18734
16439
19727
29331
17981
15617
11179
12672
19536
22741
19042
9007
17741
29968
13665
19625

Bubble point oil FVF

(m3/Std m3)

Solution GOR
(Std m3/Stock m)

Flash

Diff.

Flash

Diff.

I .704
1.664
1.634
1.383
1.385
1.510
1.292
I .368
1.057
1.138
1.127
1.533
I.416
1.338
1.355
1.243
1.350
1.273
1.020
1.243
1.342
I.238
1.270
1.269
1.226
I.227
1.330
1.199
1.325

1.969
1.936
1.859
1.519
1.522
I.681
1.399
1.500
1.076
1.178
1.149
1.671
1.454
1.369
1.438
1.279
I.437
1.493
1.197
1.280
1.407
1.235
I.311
1.289
1.267
1.323
1.332
1.289
I.411
I .470
1.590
1.710
1.470
1.320
I.240
1.300
1.530
1.610
1.450
1.250
1.450
1.770
1.260
1.520

183.6
169.9
157.4
89.6
88.0
126.3
80.9
104.7
6.1
31.0
24.6
180.4
111.8
98.0
112.2
70.9
99.0
135.0
42.6
75.9
98.8
69.5
82.8
88.2
54.0
82.8
90.7
67.0
128.2

246.5
232.4
209. I
127.5
118.1
192.5
104.7
130.9
6.9
40.2
29.4
213.4
133.7
115.2
129.5
79.1
127.9
138.6
54.7
89.4
117.4
86.4
98.3
94.4
72.7
103.7
107.7
108.1
129.8
132.7
175.6
249.3
131.8
95.8
57.9
83.9
157.6
185.0
125.4
63.8
134.5
236.9
79.1
151.0

Tank oil gravity

Reservoir temp.

Non-hydrocarbon

gases

(C)

0.814
0.812
0.818
0.828
0.823
0.838
0.836
0.822
0.920
0.910
0.917
0.852
0.861
0.872
0.874
0.906
0.73
0.869
0.930
0.904
0.883
0.872
0.856
0.859
0.872
0.859
0.862
0.873
0.887
0.880
0.890
0.860
0.870
0.890
0.920
0.906
0.860
0.860
0.890
0.900
0.860
0.860
0.910
0.860

115.6
121.1
121.1
120.6
116.7
95.6
104.4
116.7
71.1
81.1
81.1
85.6
87.2
76.7
81.7
80.0
82.2
80.0
73.9
80.0
81.1
54.4
56. I
56.7
55.6
55.6
57.2
57.2
73.9
78.9
95.6
94.4
88.9
78.9
78.9
76.7
82.2
89.4
98.9
77.8
77.8
93.9
77.8
88.9

Nz (%)

CO> (%)

H,O(%)

0.20
0.16
0.29
0.21
0.18
0.00
0.13
0.78
4.40
0.49
0.67
0.03
0.39
0.32
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.48
0.83
0.52
0.29
1.310
I .030
1.300
0.710
0.00
1.650
0.760
1.70

3.63
3.92
3.67
2.09
2.12
3.91
2.35
2.09
4.4 1
6.90
6.80
0.63
0.68
0.39
0.30
0.43
0.45
0.42
0.43
0.15
0.4 1
0.68
0.15
0.33
2.83
2.81
0.92
0.28
2.70

0.16
1.66
2.44
0.20
0.11
1.37
0.06
0.84
0.00
1.21
0.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
~3.00
0.00
0.00
IO.00
Il.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

A.M. Elsharkawy et al. /Journal

232

404020

F+.773572$.

of Petroleum Science and Engineering 13 (1995) 219-232

yo- 0.882605

Labedi

Appendix

Fluid property of the Kuwaiti crudes

The fluid properties of the Kuwaiti crudes are listed
in Table 4.

References
Al-Marhoun, M.A., 1988. PVT Correlations for Middle East crude
oils. J. Pet. Technol., (May): 650-666; Trans. AIME, 285.
Al-Marhoun, M.A., 1992. New correlation for formation volume
factors of oil and gas mixtures. J. Can. Pet. Technol., 31(3): 2226.

Dokla, M.E. and Osman, M.E., 1992. Correlation of PVT properties

for UAE crudes. SPE Form. Eval., (March): 4146.
Glaso, O., 1980. Generalized pressure-volume-temperature
correlations. J. Pet. Technol., (May) : 785-795.
Jacobson, H.A., 1967. The effect of nitrogen on reservoir fluid saturation pressure. J. Can. Pet. Technol.. (July-Sept.):
101-105.
Labedi, R., 1990. Use of production data to estimate volume factor
density and compressibility of reservoir fluids. J. Pet. Sci. Eng.,
4: 357-390.
Lasater, J.A., 1958. Bubble point pressure correlation. Trans. AIME,
213: 379-381.
Ostermann, R.D., Ehlig-Economides,C.A.
and Owalabi, O.O., 1983.
Correlations for the reservoir fluid properties of Alaskan crudes.
SPE 11703, presented at 1983 SPE Calif. Reg. Meet., Ventura,
Calif., March 23-25.
Standing, M.B., 1947. A pressure-volume-temperature
correlation
for mixtures of California oils and gases. Drill. Prod. Prac. API,
pp. 275-287.
Standing, M.B., 1962. Oil-system correlations. In: T.C. Frick (Editor), Petroleum Production Handbook. SPE, Richardson, Tex.,
2, Ch. 19.
Standing, M.B., 1977. Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field
Hydrocarbon Systems. SPE. Richardson, Tex., 124.
Suttan, R.P. and Farshad, F.F., 1990. Evaluation of empirically
derived PVT properties for Gulf of Mexico crude oils. SPE Res.
Eng., (Feb.): 79-86.
Vasquez, M.E. and Beggs, H.D., 1980. Correlations for fluid physical
property prediction. J. Pet. Technol., (June): 968-970.
Walpole, R.E. and Myers, R.H., 1985. Probability and Statistics for
Engineers and Scientists. McMillan Publishing Inc Co., New
York, N.Y., 373 pp.