SPE 103155
An Accurate Method for Determining Oil PVT Properties Using the Standing-Katz Gas
Z Factor Chart
R.P. Sutton, Marathon Oil Co.
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 2427 September 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
An accurate technique for estimating oil PVT properties using
the Standing-Katz Z factor chart has been developed. Prior
work to derive tuned gas pseudo-critical property values
which provide consistent and accurate compressibility factors
has been extended to oils.
Data from 1,099 worldwide oil PVT reports with 11,960
density measurements has been analyzed. The oils studied
have API gravities ranging 10.6-63 with gas-oil ratios ranging
5-4,631 scf/STB. Bubblepoint formation volume factors range
from 0.98-4.58 Bbl/STB. Saturation pressures ranged from
60-10,326 psia at temperatures ranging 50-332 F with
pressure differentials to 18,491 psi.
The resulting work shows that oil pseudo-critical properties
can be correlated with molecular weight as with gases. The
resulting relationships can be used to accurately determine
saturated and undersaturated oil density. Oil PVT properties
such as formation volume factor and isothermal
compressibility can then be derived from fundamental
relationships with density.
Since the new method correlates properties with the molecular
weight of the wellstream, the chemical nature of the oil (ie
naphthenic, paraffinic, etc) is considered. Existing
correlations (30 for bubblepoint oil formation volume factor
and 17 for isothermal compressibility) have been identified in
the literature. These methods are tested against the database
along with the new method to determine accuracy and
recommended procedures. Isothermal oil compressibility has
historically proved difficult to correlate with errors typically in
excess of 30%. The proposed method significantly reduces
the error in calculated isothermal compressibility when
compared with traditional methods.
Introduction
This paper uses a unified approach to determine oil PVT
properties using methods typically reserved for gas. Equations
involving Z factor can be applied to either single phase gas or
single phase oil systems to calculate density and isothermal
compressibility.
Since its publication in 1942, the Standing and Katz39 (SK)
gas Z factor chart has become a standard in the industry.
Several very accurate methods have been developed to
digitally represent the chart. The Dranchuk and Abou-
Kassem16 (DAK) method has been shown to provide accurate
and consistent results over a wide range of conditions
extrapolated beyond the data originally used in its
development. DAK used a form of the Benedict-Webb-Rubin
EOS to fit 1,500 points of selected digital Z factor chart data
originally published by Poettmann33. Data for isotherms less
than 1.15 required smoothing. Therefore the data used for
fitting the DAK equation encompassed the following ranges:
0 < Ppr < 30 and 1.05 < Tpr < 3.0. In 2005, Sutton41 showed
that the DAK equation could provide accurate results at
pseudoreduced pressures well beyond 30. In this paper, the
DAK equation is tested at pseudoreduced pressures up to 80
and pseudoreduced temperatures as low as 0.4.
A general gas Z factor chart, such as the one developed by
Standing and Katz, is based on the principal of corresponding
states22. This principal states that two substances at the same
conditions referenced to critical pressure and temperature will
have similar properties. These conditions are referred to as
reduced pressure and reduced temperature. Therefore, if two
substances are compared at the same reduced conditions, the
substances will have similar properties. In the context of this
paper, the property of interest is the Z factor and physical
properties that can be derived from Z factors. Mathematically,
the SK chart relates Z factor to reduced pressure and reduced
temperature.
Z = f ( pr , Tr ) ..................................................................... (1)
where
pr = p .......................................................................... (2)
pc
Tabs
Tr = ........................................................................ (3)
Tc
2 SPE 103155

For mixtures, the critical properties are replaced with A total of 1,321 experiments from 1,099 fluid samples are
pseudocritical properties. These values have no physical represented. Relative volume and density measurements at
significance but serve as correlating parameters for 11,960 pressures are recorded in the database. Figs. 1-6
corresponding states calculations. graphically depict property trends from the fluids as they
relate to molecular weight. The change in density with
The Z factor is simply a relationship between real and ideal pressure is shown in Fig. 7 for conditions above the
behavior of a fluid. Mathematically it is equal to real volume bubblepoint. High molecular weight or low volatile crude oil
divided by ideal volume. Z factor is also defined by the systems exhibit a 0.5%/1000 psi change in density while low
following equation which is valid for both liquids and gases. molecular weight or highly volatile crude oils exhibit a 0.5-
2.8%/1000 psi change in density depending on the pressure
pV
Z= ........................................................................(4) and temperature environment. These changes relate to the
n R Tabs variability in fluid compressibility.
Density is defined
In order to test the suitability of the DAK equation for
pM determining liquid Z factors, this quantity was determined for
= .......................................................................(5)
n-Decane over the range 0.40 < Tr < 1.05 and 0.6 < Pr < 90.
Z RTabs
Using data from NIST26 as a standard, the errors are shown in
Relatively simple methods have been published for accurately Fig. 8. For comparison, the same scenario was evaluated
determining Z factors. Traditionally, gas Z factors are using the original Peng-Robinson (PR) EOS49 (no regression
correlated as functions of pseudoreduced properties. A and no volume shift) and the results are shown in Fig. 9.
necessary component for determining the pseudoreduced
properties are pseudocritical properties which in turn can be The DAK equation exhibits errors typically in the range 10-
related to gas specific gravity40,41, a derivation from molecular 15% for the reduced temperatures of interest. The errors are
weight (28.964g). On the other hand, single phase crude oil relatively constant as reduced pressure increases making it
properties are typically correlated as a function of API gravity, ideal for correlating pseudocritical properties. The changes in
gas gravity, and gas-oil ratio. This work treats oils the same error response with reduced temperatures less than 0.55 will
as gases using molecular weight as the primary correlating be reflected in the development of the pseudocritical property
parameter. relationships. The PR EOS performance shows increasing
error with pseudoreduced pressure as well as a spread in errors
A database of oil properties determined from constant with reduced temperature. The errors are positive which
composition experiments (CCE) above the bubblepoint translates into the underprediction of density. Volume shift
pressure was developed. CCE experiments measure relative factors were introduced to improve the performance of the PR
volume and density versus pressure at a constant temperature. EOS in the prediction of liquid density. A constant shift factor
This data is found in all routine laboratory PVT reports. In moves the error response surface up or down but does nothing
addition, compositional data, oil API gravity, gas gravity, to eliminate the spread in error with temperature.
solution gas-oil ratio and bubblepoint formation volume factor Temperature dependent shift factors significantly improve this
were included in the database. The data was derived from situation and are required to reduce error as temperature
internal reports accessed through the GeoMark database35 and changes.
from published sources24 representing samples from around
the world and encompassing a wide range of properties. A nonlinear regression routine was developed to infer
pseudocritical properties from data measurements recorded for
Property Minimum Maximum the individual oil samples. Liquid Z factors were determined
Oil gravity, API 10.6 63.0 from the CCE experiments using the wellstream molecular
Gas gravity (air=1) 0.565 1.739 weight calculated from composition, pressure, temperature
Gas-oil ratio, scf/STB 5 4,631 and density measurements.
Oil FVF, bbl/STB 0.983 4.581 pM o
Pressure, psia 60 19,308 ZL = ................................................................... (6)
o RTabs
Bubblepoint pressure, psia 60 10,326
Pressure differential, psi 0 18,491 The resulting pseudocritical properties were plotted against the
Temperature, F 50 332 molecular weight of the wellstream fluid to determine a
Wellstream H2S, mole % 0.0 29.9 relationship (Fig. 10). For reference, data from a separate
Wellstream CO2, mole % 0.0 72.3 database of gas condensates41 is included in Fig. 11. The
Wellstream N2, mole % 0.0 27.9 pseudocritical property data ranging from gas condensates to
Molecular weight, lbm/lb-mole 41.7 375.8 crude oil systems can be accurately represented by the
Bubblepoint oil density, g/cc 0.4100 0.9498 following equations.
Liquid Z Factor 0.054 12.91 p pc = 768.1 4.919 M o + 1.302 M o [ln (M o ) 3.366] ........... (7)
co (instantaneous), psi-1 x 10-6 2.16 120.2
co (average), psi-1 x 10-6 3.36 115.1
T pc = 135.6 + 10.864 M o 2.81M o [ln (M o ) 3.366] ............ (8)
SPE 103155 3

Fig. 18 provides a comparison of the gas condensate

The resulting distribution of pseudoreduced properties from
the database is provided in Figs. 12 & 13. Referring to Fig. 8,
the error from the DAK equation varies at reduced
temperatures below 0.6 which contributes to some of the
scatter in the regressed pseudocritical properties. Despite this
issue, reasonable accuracy of the method is maintained.
The accuracy of Eqns 7 and 8 along with DAK equation for
determining liquid Z factors in the oil properties database is
summarized below
pseudocritical property relationships with Eqns. 7 and 8. The
gas condensate equations were developed to provide accurate
results over a range of gas gravity appropriate for gas
condensate systems. As illustrated in Fig. 18, their practical
limit is reached at a molecular weight of 55 (g = 1.9). Eqns. 7
and 8, developed exclusively from oil data, are well behaved
in their extrapolation into the gas region and provide a unified
relationship for pseudocritical properties for light gas, gas
condensates, volatile oils and black oils.

Oil Formation Volume Factor

No. of Data Points % AE Std Dev % AAE Std Dev
Methods to predict bubblepoint pressure were not evaluated
11,960 0.37 3.78 2.70 2.67
due the high level of nonhydrocarbon gases (hydrogen sulfide,
carbon dioxide and nitrogen) present in many of the samples.
The gas condensate database (obtained from prior work41) Their presence effects gas solubility and additional
consists of 4,024 measurements. Specifically this data set had
correlations are necessary to account for nonhydrocarbon
low concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide and effects. Methods to evaluate bubblepoint oil formation
nitrogen. The accuracy of the Z factors determined with volume factor are developed from the following parameters
optimized gas pseudocritical properties was reported in the
and is not subject to the problem with nonhydrocarbon gases.
previous study. The oil pseudocritical property equations can
be extrapolated into the gas region. Comparison of the two ( )
Bob = f pb , T , API , g , Rs ................................................ (9)
pseudocritical property methods for only the gas condensate
data follows: A total of 30 methods have been published in the literature. A
discussion of these methods and a summary of the equations
% Std % Std are found in Lake42. Using the methods presented to calculate
Method liquid Z factor, this quantity can be evaluated at bubblepoint
AE Dev AAE Dev
Sutton gas condensate -0.10 1.46 1.11 0.96 pressure and temperature. Liquid density is determined from
eqns41 Eqn. 5. Oil formation volume factor at the bubblepoint is then
Sutton oil eqns 7 & 8 0.14 1.53 1.20 0.96 evaluated from the following equation.
62.42796 o + 0.01363 g Rs
The results for this case are depicted graphically in Figs. 14 Bob = .................................(10)
and 15. These results demonstrate that proposed pseudocritical ob
property relationships developed for crude oil systems also The table below provides a statistical summary of this method
work for gas condensate systems as well.
compared with methods from the literature.
For gas systems, it is important to recognize the effects of
% Std % Std
nonhydrocarbons on the determination of pseudocritical Method
AE Dev AAE Dev
properties. The effect of nonhydrocarbons on crude oil
Standing37,38 2.77 4.20 3.24 3.84
pseudocritical properties is examined in Fig. 16. Data for
crude oil systems with low levels of nonhydrocarbons are Elam17 3.15 6.30 3.55 6.08
compared with systems containing higher levels of hydrogen Vazquez & Beggs44 0.15 4.36 3.23 2.94
sulfide, carbon dioxide or nitrogen. The effect on the Glas20 -0.11 3.66 2.56 2.62
pseudocritical properties is within the noise of the data except Labedi25 7.42 3.98 7.56 3.71
at low molecular weights approaching a gas condensate Owolabi CIB31 -1.67 4.48 3.02 3.70
system. Therefore, the effects of nonhydrocarbons on crude Owolabi ANS31 -2.74 5.08 3.73 4.40
oil systems do not need to be addressed as they must with gas Al-Marhoun 854 0.69 7.02 4.91 5.07
systems. The effect of crude oil character on the Obomanu & Okpobiri29 2.92 5.05 4.25 3.99
pseudocritical property relationships is examined in Fig. 17. Al-Marhoun 885 0.09 2.90 1.86 2.22
Oils with different ranges of Watson characterization factor Asgarpour
-1.35 4.09 3.30 2.76
are plotted to examine the effect of crude character. The Cardium/Viking11
effect is not quantifiable and is within the noise of the data. Asgarpour D-2/Nisku11 -1.14 9.55 5.23 8.07
The Watson characterization factor is important in that it Asgarpour D-3/Leduc11 3.13 4.40 4.16 3.44
affects the relationship between crude oil API gravity and Al-Najjar9 1.74 3.33 2.84 2.45
molecular weight. As this method depends on molecular Ahmed3 0.21 3.40 2.11 2.68
weight as a correlating parameter, an understanding of crude Abdul-Majeed & Salman1 -1.25 8.07 3.79 7.23
character is necessary in order to derive molecular weight Dokla & Osman15 0.17 5.58 4.15 3.73
from the commonly available properties such as API gravity, Petrosky32 1.20 3.58 2.32 2.98
gas gravity and gas-oil ratio. Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt21 1.26 2.65 2.01 2.14
4 SPE 103155

Al-Marhoun 926 0.81 2.63 1.71 2.15 DAK equation which is required for the solution of Z factor.
Farshad19 0.29 2.74 1.68 2.18 Therefore, isothermal compressibility can be readily
Macary28 12.67 9.52 12.68 9.51 determined along with Z factor.
Omar & Todd30 1.39 4.17 2.88 3.33
Almehaideb8 0.75 4.43 3.23 3.12 The measured instantaneous isothermal compressibility is
Elsharkawy18 3.13 3.13 3.54 2.67 determined by fitting an equation to the relative volume data
Khairy23 5.69 7.03 6.83 5.93 obtained from the CCE experiment. The equation can be
Al-Shammasi10 1.19 2.69 1.95 2.20 differentiated to obtain isothermal compressibility. Al-
Levitan & Murtha27 2.28 3.86 3.56 2.73 Marhoun7 summarizes four methods commonly used for
Velarde, Blasingame & fitting relative volume data: quadratic, hyperbolic,
0.21 2.76 1.67 2.21 exponential and logarithmic. All four forms were tested
McCain45
against the database. The quadratic method was discarded as
Dindoruk & Christman14 1.46 8.33 3.74 7.58
the quality of the fit degraded at the end points of the data.
Sutton 0.35 4.09 2.85 2.95
The logarithmic method was difficult to converge over the
wide range of fluids present in the database and was also
The methods by Al-Marhoun, Farshad, Al-Shammasi, and
discarded. The hyperbolic and exponential form equations
Velarde clearly out perform the new method; however, the provided essentially identical results; however, convergence
new method compares with or is more accurate than was not as robust with the exponential form equation so it was
traditional methods offered by Standing, Vazquez and Glas.
discarded in favor of the hyperbolic equation shown below.
Oil Isothermal Compressibility a1 + a2 p
V= ..................................................................... (16)
The coefficient of isothermal compressibility is determined 1 + a3 p
from the following equation which is valid for both gas and
liquid. The instantaneous isothermal compressibility is then
determined as follows:
1 V
c= ....................................................................(11) a2 a3
V p co = + ..................................................... (17)
a1 + a2 p 1 + a3 p
This equation can also be expressed as a function of Z factor
and pressure This method of calculation yields values consistent with gas
isothermal compressibility. The instantaneous isothermal
1 1 Z compressibility from the crude oil database is shown in Fig 19.
c= ...............................................................(12)
p Z p T
For the calculation of changing oil volume above bubblepoint,
These equations are typically used to determine a value of an average isothermal compressibility is used where Eqn. 11 is
instantaneous isothermal compressibility at a specific pressure. integrated over a pressure range above bubblepoint.
The value is not constant but declines with increasing
pressure. Bo = Bob e c o ( pb p ) ............................................................... (18)

Abou-Kassem et al2 provide a method for determining the Using data from the CCE experiment, the average isothermal
instantaneous isothermal compressibility using the DAK compressibility can be directly calculated from reported lab
equation. Reduced compressibility is determined from the data.
following equation
ln o
B lnVo
B V ln o
1 1 Z co = ob
= ob
= ob
.................... (19)
cr =
pr Z pr
..........................................................(13) ( pb p ) ( pb p ) ( p pb )
Tr
Other definitions of isothermal compressibility exist. For
where undersaturated oil material balance calculations, the oil
cr = c pc .............................................................................(14) compressibility is defined by the pressure and volume change
from initial reservoir pressure rather than bubble point
In terms of reduced density, the equation becomes pressure. A review of laboratory PVT report tables shows
isothermal compressibility data defined as the average
Z between two consecutive pressures or more recently as an

1 0.27 r Tr ............................(15)
instantaneous value at a pressure. The calculation method
cr = 2
p r Z Tr r Z used is lab dependent and the subsequent values can differ by
1 + Z r more than 20% for the same relative volume data set.
Tr Differences between average from bubblepoint, average from
initial reservoir pressure and instantaneous compressibilities
The term Z can be calculated by differentiating the
can be even larger. This issue illustrates the need to ensure the
r Tr proper value of isothermal compressibility is used for the
SPE 103155 5

intended calculation. For the purposes of this paper, Std % Std

Method % AE
instantaneous isothermal compressibility is defined by a Dev AAE Dev
hyperbolic fit of the relative volume data using Eqns. 16 and Calhoun -3.79 26.46 19.05 18.75
17. Average compressibility is defined using Eqn. 19. Trube -22.91 43.98 40.70 28.34
Standing -15.66 65.96 33.22 59.09
A total of 17 correlations are published in the literature. These Vazquez & Beggs -24.42 48.39 36.88 39.71
methods are reviewed in Lake42; however, a summary table is Labedi -22.85 25.24 25.93 22.06
provided in Table A-1 because of updates due to recently Ahmed 52.46 130.31 94.44 103.98
published correlations. Al-Marhoun defined measured Petrosky -17.39 26.85 22.88 22.36
isothermal compressibility by fitting the laboratory data with a Kartoatmodjo &
quadratic equation and determining an instantaneous -33.04 35.81 41.55 25.45
Schmidt
compressibility. Spivey et al36 offered methods for Al-Marhoun 92 -0.73 61.01 31.53 52.23
calculating both instantaneous and average isothermal
Farshad 3.13 20.53 14.45 14.92
compressibility. The remaining correlation methods either did
De Ghetto -19.27 55.37 33.42 48.17
not address the calculation differences or implied an average
De Ghetto Agip -26.53 52.17 40.24 42.51
compressibility was used in the development of the method. If
compressibilities were correlated directly from laboratory Almehaideb -32.28 37.31 34.79 34.98
reported data, then an assortment of compressibilities derived Elsharkawy -35.23 55.35 47.29 45.47
using different calculation methods could have been used in Dindoruk &
2.61 21.73 13.95 16.86
the development of the method. The table below provides a Christman
statistical comparison of methods against instantaneous Al-Marhoun 03 -6.52 29.44 20.93 21.71
isothermal compressibility for 11,960 measurements. Spivey, Valk &
0.61 19.04 10.43 15.95
McCain
Std % Std Sutton -3.14 17.88 12.05 13.58
Method % AE
Dev AAE Dev
Calhoun12 5.64 34.68 25.09 24.60 Examining the results shown in these tables, the proposed
Trube43 -10.13 45.35 37.18 27.87 method for instantaneous isothermal compressibility clearly
Standing49 -2.12 83.00 30.28 77.31 exhibits lower error and standard deviation than existing
Vazquez & Beggs44 -10.72 75.47 34.61 67.92 methods. Graphical results of error distributions over the
Labedi25 -11.75 25.70 19.09 20.85 range of wellstream molecular weights present in the database
Ahmed3 71.53 139.07 105.43 115.50 are shown in Figs. 20-37. It can be seen that methods
described by Calhoun, Vazquez and Beggs, Labedi, Al-
Petrosky32 -4.91 26.43 18.66 19.35
Marhoun (1992), De Ghetto, Agip, Almehaideb, and
Kartoatmodjo &
-18.86 44.77 37.45 30.94 Elsharkawy have errors less than -100% which implies that a
Schmidt21
negative compressibility is calculated. Al-Marhoun confirmed
Al-Marhoun 926 14.18 81.19 33.73 75.21
this observation with Vazquez and Beggs. A review of this
Farshad19 14.56 26.88 21.98 21.24 method (equation in Table A-1) shows that negative
De Ghetto13 -8.35 87.44 35.90 80.17 compressibilities are likely for low gas-oil ratio, high gas
De Ghetto Agip13 -12.81 82.33 38.38 73.96 gravity fluid systems. The De Ghetto and Almehaideb
Almehaideb8 -22.98 40.59 29.51 36.12 equations use the Vazquez and Beggs equation form with
Elsharkawy18 -21.63 95.16 44.74 86.73 updated coefficients. Elsharkawy uses an abbreviated form of
Dindoruk & the Vazquez and Beggs equation and provides invalid results
13.21 36.90 22.83 31.86
Christman14 for low gas-oil ratio, low temperature scenarios. Calhouns
Al-Marhoun 037 6.81 28.40 19.57 21.67 method, represented by a quadratic equation, provides a
Spivey, Valk & negative solution for bubblepoint densities greater than 0.938
6.11 24.90 13.83 21.59
McCain36 g/cm3. Labedi evaluates negative compressibility for high
Sutton -0.68 16.15 11.70 11.15 shrinkage volatile oils with conditions of high temperature or
high pressure differential. Figs. 38-55 provide a comparison of
The instantaneous isothermal compressibility is determined calculated isothermal compressibility and measured isothermal
from fitting an equation to the laboratory data which smoothes compressibility.
the results while the average compressibility directly uses
reported measurements. Due to measurement precision, the For average isothermal compressibility, Spivey et al offers
errors in average isothermal compressibility can be quite large lower error than the proposed method; however, the standard
at low pressure differentials. An error analysis led to the deviation or variability of their method is larger. Results for
exclusion of measurements for pressure differentials less than top four methods (lowest average absolute error) are depicted
150 psi above the bubblepoint for comparison with graphically in Figs. 56-63.
correlations. A total of 9,642 measurements were included in
the final statistical analysis. A comparison of the results for Application
average isothermal compressibility is provided below. The use of the proposed method requires only the wellstream
molecular weight, pressure and temperature to calculate
6 SPE 103155

density and isothermal compressibility. Often molecular to calculate single phase density at or above
weight is unknown. It can be estimated from API gravity bubblepoint pressure.
provided the chemical nature of the crude is defined. The 2. The accuracy of published bubblepoint oil FVF
Watson46,47 characterization factor, as re-expressed by equations is documented. Using the relationship that
Whitson34,48, provides a method to characterize oils. As relates crude oil specific gravity, gas gravity, solution
defined, the Watson characterization factor is a function of gas-oil ratio, and density to bubblepoint oil FVF, this
boiling point temperature and specific gravity. quantity is determined for 1,321 measurements using
density derived from the new method. While results
Tb1 / 3 show methods by Velarde or Farshad are more
Kw = ...........................................................................(20)
o accurate, the new method provides results comparably
accurate to Glas or Standing (which are standard
It has also been recast as a function of molecular weight and correlations for this variable).
specific gravity. 3. The new method in conjunction with the DAK
equation can be adapted to calculate isothermal oil
K w = 4.5579 M o0.15178 o0.84573 ...........................................(21)
compressibility. A statistical comparison of 17
Watson characterization factors are useful since they remain correlations published in the literature for both
reasonably constant for chemically similar hydrocarbons. A instantaneous and average isothermal compressibility is
characterization factor of 12.5 or greater indicates a depicted in Figs. 66 and 67 for a wide range of
hydrocarbon compound predominately paraffinic in nature. conditions. For instantaneous compressibility (which
Lower values of this factor indicate hydrocarbons with more is typically reported by labs), the new method is more
naphthenic or aromatic components. Highly aromatic accurate than currently available methods. For average
hydrocarbons exhibit values of 10.0 or less. Therefore, the isothermal compressibility, the new method is
Watson characterization factor provides a means of comparable to Spiveys recently published correlation.
determining the paraffinicity or character of a crude oil. Both methods are significantly more accurate than the
other correlations. Several of the existing correlations
Rearranging Eqn. 21, the molecular weight of the crude oil is were found to determine negative compressibility in
obtained. many situations. These methods should be avoided.
6.58848
K 0.84573 Acknowledgment
M o = w o ...................................................(22) The author would like to thank the management of Marathon
4.5579
Oil Company for permission to publish this paper.
Furthermore the author would like to thank Tom Blasingame
The mole fraction of oil in the wellstream is obtained
at Texas A&M U. for his insights and encouragement.
1 Finally, the author would like to thank his wife, Nancy.
7.521 x 10 6 Rs M o
xo = 1 + .........................................(23) Without her patience and understanding, this would have
o never been written.
and the molecular weight of the wellstream can be calculated Statistical Quantities
M o = xo M o + 28.964 (1 xo ) g ..........................................(24) AE = average error, %
N
X icalc X imeas

100
Fig. 64 depicts Watson characterization factors as a function AE =
N i =1 X i meas
of crude oil API gravity using data from the database and
Lake. In the absence of known crude character, this chart may AAE = average absolute error, %
be used. It should be pointed out though that the Watson N
X icalc X i meas

100
characterization factor, defined by the chemical nature of the AAE =
crude oil, is an important quantity. Significant errors in the N i =1
X imeas
determination of the wellstream molecular can result when the S = standard deviation
crude is mischaracterized as illustrated in Fig. 65. This graph N
was developed for a crude oil with a Watson factor of 11.75
and a range of gas-oil ratios. The determination of wellstream
(X
i =1
i X )2
S=
molecular weight is more sensitive for low gas-oil ratio N 1
systems. Improper crude oil characterization can lead to X = generic dependent variable
significant errors in wellstream molecular weight which
N = number of observations
propagate though the calculations with resulting errors in
calculated density and isothermal compressibility.
Nomenclature
Bo = oil FVF, bbl/STB
Conclusions Bob = oil FVF at bubblepoint pressure, bbl/STB
1. A new method is presented which uses the DAK c = isothermal compressibility, 1/psi
representation of the Standing-Katz Z factor chart to
co = instantaneous isothermal compressibility, 1/psi
calculate crude oil density. This method may be used
SPE 103155 7

co = average isothermal compressibility, 1/psi presented at the 13th SPE Middle East Oil Show and
cr = reduced compressibility Conference, Bahrain (Apr. 5-8, 2003).
Kw = Watson characterization factor 8. Almehaideb, R.A.: Improved PVT Correlations for
M = molecular weight, lb-mole UAE Crude Oils, paper SPE 37691 presented at the
M = stock tank oil molecular weight, lb-mole 1997 Middle East Oil Conference and Exhibition in
Mo = wellstream oil molecular weight, lb-mole Manama, Bahrain (Mar. 17-20, 1997).
p = pressure, psia 9. Al-Najjar, H.S., Al-Soof, N.B.A. and Al-Khalisy, K.M.:
pc = critical pressure, psia Correlations For Bubble-Point Pressures, Gas Oil Ratios
ppc = pseudocritical pressure, psia And Formation Volume Factors For Iraqi Crude Oils, J.
pr = reduced pressure Pet. Res. (June, 1988) 13-35.
ppr = pseudoreduced pressure 10. Al-Shammasi, A.A.: A Review of Bubblepoint
R = universal gas constant (10.73147 psi-ft3/R-lbm mol) Pressure and Oil Formation Volume Factor
Rs = solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB Correlations, SPERE (April, 2001) 146-160.
T = temperature, F 11. Asgarpour, S., McLaughlin, L., Wong, D. and Cheung,
Tabs = temperature, R V.: Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations For
Tb = normal boiling point temperature at 1 atm, R Western Canadian Gases And Oils, J. Cdn. Pet. Tech.
Tc = critical temperature, R (July-Aug, 1989) 103-11.
Tpc = pseudocritical temperature, R 12. Calhoun, J.C., Jr.: Fundamentals of Reservoir
Tr = reduced temperature Engineering, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman,
Tpr = pseudoreduced temperature OK (1947) 35.
V = volume, ft3 13. De Ghetto, G., Paone, F. and Villa, M.: Reliability
Vo = volume at indicated pressure and temperature, ft3 Analysis on PVT Correlations, paper SPE 28904
Vob = volume at bubblepoint conditions, ft3 presented at the European Petroleum Conference in
xo = oil mole fraction London U.K. (Oct.25-27, 1994).
Z = compressibility factor 14. Dindoruk, B. and Christman, P.G.: PVT Properties and
ZL = liquid phase compressibility factor Viscosity Correlations for Gulf of Mexico Oils, paper
SPE 71633 presented at the 2001 SPE ATCE in New
API = oil gravity, API
Orleans, LA (Sept 30-Oct 3, 2001).
g = gas gravity (air=1)
15. Dokla, M.E. and Osman, M.E.: Correlation of PVT
gsp = separator gas gravity (air=1) Properties For UAE (United Arab Emirates) Crudes,
gc = gas specific gravity adjusted for separator conditions SPEFE (March, 1992) 41-46.
(air=1) 16. Dranchuk, P.M. and Abou-Kassem, J.H.: Calculation
o = oil specific gravity of Z Factors For Natural Gases Using Equations of
o = oil density, lbm/ft3 State, J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept., 1975) 34-36.
ob = bubblepoint oil density, lbm/ft3 17. Elam, F.M.: Prediction of Bubble Point Pressures and
r = reduced density Formation Volume Factors from Field Data, M.S.
Thesis, University of Texas (June, 1957).
18. Elsharkawy, A.M. and Alikhan, A.A.: Correlations For
References Predicting Solution Gas/oil Ratio, Oil Formation Volume
1. Abdul-Majeed, G.H. and Salman, N.H.: An Empirical Factor, And Undersaturated Oil Compressibility, J. Pet.
Correlation For Oil FVF (Formation Volume Factor) Sci. Eng. (May, 1997) 291-302.
Prediction, J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Nov-Dec, 1988) 118- 19. Farshad, F.F., Leblanc, J.L., Garber, J.D. and Osorio,
122. J.G.: Empirical PVT Correlations For Colombian
2. Abou-Kassem, J.H., Mattar, L., and Dranchuk, P.M.: Crude Oils, unsolicited paper SPE 24538 (June, 1992).
Computer Calculations of Compressibility of Natural 20. Glas, .: Generalized Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Gas, J. Cdn. Pet. Tech. (Sep-Oct, 1990) 105-108. Correlations, J. Pet. Tech. (May, 1980) 785-795.
3. Ahmed, T.H.: Hydrocarbon Phase Behavior, Gulf 21. Kartoatmodjo, R.S.T. and Schmidt, Z.: New
Publishing, Houston, TX (1989). Correlations For Crude Oil Physical Properties,
4. Al-Marhoun, M.A.: Pressure-Volume-Temperature Unsolicited Paper SPE 23556 (Sept, 1991).
Correlations for Saudi Crude Oils, SPE Paper 13718 22. Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H.,
presented at the 1985 Middle East Oil Technical Vary, J.A., Elenbaas, J.R., and Weinaug, C.F.:
Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain (Mar. 11-14, 1985). Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill
5. Al-Marhoun, M.A.: PVT Correlations For Middle East Book Co., NY (1959).
Crude Oils, J. Pet. Tech. (May, 1988) 650-666. 23. Khairy, M., El-Tayeb, S. and Hamdallah, M.: PVT
6. Al-Marhoun, M.A.: New Correlations For Formation Correlations Developed for Egyptian Crudes, Oil and
Volume Factors of Oil And Gas Mixtures, J. Cdn. Pet. Gas J. (May 4, 1998) 114-16.
Tech. (Mar., 1992) 22-26. 24. Kumar, A.: Correlations for the Prediction of PVT
7. Al-Marhoun, M.A.: The Coefficient of Isothermal Behavior During Depletion of Dissolved Gas/Oil
Compressibility of Black Oils, paper SPE 81432 Reservoirs, M.S. Thesis, The University of Alaska
Fairbanks (1991).
8 SPE 103155

25. Labedi, R.M.: Use of Production Data To Estimate 42. Sutton, R.P.: Petroleum Engineering Handbook,
Volume Factor, Density And Compressibility of General Engineering, Vol. 1, J. Fanchi and L.W. Lake
Reservoir Fluids, J. Pet. Sci. Eng. (Sept, 1990) 375-390. (eds.) Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX
26. Lemmon, E.W., McLinden, M.O. and Friend, D.G.: (2006) 257-331.
"Thermophysical Properties of Fluid Systems" in NIST 43. Trube, A.S.: Compressibility of Undersaturated
Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Hydrocarbon Reservoir Fluids, Trans. AIME (1957)
Database Number 69, Eds. Linstrom, P.J. and Mallard, 210, 341-344.
W.G., June 2005, National Institute of Standards and 44. Vazquez, M.E. and Beggs, H.D.: Correlations for Fluid
Technology, Gaithersburg MD, 20899 Physical Property Prediction, J. Pet. Tech. (June, 1980)
(http://webbook.nist.gov). 968-970.
27. Levitan, L.L. and Murtha, M.: New Correlations 45. Velarde, J., Blasingame, T.A. and McCain Jr., W.D.:
Estimate Pb, FVF, Oil and Gas J. (Mar 8, 1999) 70-76. Correlation of Black Oil Properties At Pressures Below
28. Macary, S.M. and El-Batanoney, M.H.: Derivation of Bubble Point Pressure A New Approach, paper 97-93
PVT Correlations for the Gulf of Suez Crude Oils, presented at 48th Ann. CIM Pet. Soc. Tech. Mtg. Calgary,
EGPC 11th Petroleum Exploration and Production Canada (June 8-11, 1997).
Conference (1992) 374-82. 46. Watson, K.M. and Nelson, E.F.: Improved Methods for
29. Obomanu, D.A. and Okpobiri, G.A.: Correlating The Approximating Critical and Thermal Properties of
PVT Properties of Nigerian Crudes, J. Energy Res. Petroleum, Ind. Chem. Eng. (1933) 880.
Tech. Trans. ASME (Dec., 1987) 214-217. 47. Watson, K.M. Nelson, E.F. and Murphy, G.B.:
30. Omar, M.I. and Todd, A.C.: Development of New Characterization of Petroleum Fractions, Ind. and Eng.
Modified Black Oil Correlations For Malaysian Crudes, Chem. (1935) 1460-64.
SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conf, Singapore (Feb 8-10, 48. Whitson, C.H.: Characterizing Hydrocarbon Plus
1993) 211-219. Fractions, SPEJ (Aug., 1983) 683-693.
31. Owolabi, O.O.: Reservoir Fluid Properties of Alaskan 49. Whitson, C.H. and Brul, M.R.: Phase Behavior, 1st ed,
Crudes, M.S. Thesis, University of Alaska (May, 1984). Society of Petroleum Engineers, Richardson, TX (2000)
32. Petrosky, G.E., Jr. and Farshad, F.F.: Pressure-Volume- Chap. 3 & 4.
Temperature Correlations For Gulf of Mexico Crude
Oils, SPERE (Oct., 1998) 416-420.
33. Poettmann, F.H. and Carpenter, P.G.: The Multiphase SI Metric Conversion Factors
Flow of Gas, Oil, and Water Through Vertical Flow 141.4/(131.5+API) = g/cm3
Strings with Application to the Design of Gas Lift bbl 0.1589873 = m3
Installations, Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1952) ft 0.02831685
3
= m3
257-317. (F32)/1.8 = C
34. Riazi, M.R. and Daubert, T.E.: Simplify Property psi 6.894757 = kPa
Predictions, Hyd. Proc. (Mar., 1980) 115-16. R 5/9 = K
35. Reservoir Fluid Database (RFDbase), GeoMark
Research, Inc., Houston, TX (2006).
36. Spivey, J.P., Valk, P.P. and McCain, W.D.:
Applications of the Coefficient of Isothermal
Compressibility to Various Reservoir Situations With
New Correlations for Each Situation, paper SPE 96415
presented at the 2005 ATCE, Dallas, TX (Oct. 9-12,
2005).
37. Standing, M.B.: A Pressure-Volume-Temperature
Correlation For Mixtures of California Oils and Gases,
Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1947) 275-287.
38. Standing, M.B,: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil
Hydrocarbon Systems, 9th Printing, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX (1981).
39. Standing, M.B., Katz, D.L.: Density of Natural Gases,
Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 140.
40. Sutton, R.P.: Compressibility Factors for
High-Molecular-Weight Reservoir Gases, paper SPE
14265 presented at the 60th Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Las Vegas, NV (Sept. 22-25, 1985).
41. Sutton, R.P.: Fundamental PVT Calculations for
Associated and Gas Condensate Natural Gas Systems,
paper SPE 97099 presented at the 2005 ATCE, Dallas,
TX (Oct.9-12, 2005).
9 SPE 103155

No. of co
T
Author Correlation Origin Data Range Rs Range API AE SD AAE
-6 -1 Range
Points (10 psi ) (scf/STB) Range g Range (%) (%)
(F)

Calhoun co =
(68.399 99.967 ob + 28.852 ob
2
) na na na na na na na na na
1 106 na
(1947)

ob + 4.347 10 3 ( p p b ) 79.1
Standing
na na na na na na na na na
7.14110 4 ( p p b ) 12.938 na
(1974) co = 10 6 e

5 Rs +17.2 T 1180 gc +12.61 API 1433

co =
Vazquez and 105 p
15.3 to 0.511 to
Beggs where Worldwide 4,486 na na 9 to 2,199 na na na
59.5 1.351
(1976)
(
gc = g 1 + 5.912105 API Tsp log ) psp


114.7

c ob = 10 7.902 Bob API T

1.3221 1.0503 0.5369

Labedi Libya, Nigeria, 5.81 to 128 to

at pressures above bubblepoint 267 na na na 0.036 8.36 na
and Angola 57.04 306
(1982)
c o = c ob 10 ( 8.202 2.9650 1.2194
Bob T ) p
1 b
p

e (1.847310 p )
4

Ahmed co = 245 na na na na na na na na
24841.0822 + 14.07428745 Rs na
(1988)

Petrosky 1.705 10 7 R s0.69357 g0.1885 API

0.3272 0.6729
T 3.507 to 114 to 217 to 16.3 to 0.578 to
Gulf of Mexico 304 0.17 11.32 6.66
co = 24.65 288 1,406 45.0 0.852
(1990) p 0.5906

10
[0.83415 + 0.5002 log (Rs ) + 0.3613 log ( API ) + 0.7606 log (T ) 0.35505 log ( gc )]
co = Indonesia,
Kartoatmodjo 10 6 p North
America, 2.701 to 75 to 14.4 to
and Schmidt where 3,588 0 to 2,890 na 0.301 na 23.67
Middle East, 127.4 320 59.0
(1991) 0.4078 p sp and Latin
gc = g 1 + 0.1595 API
0.2466
log
America
Tsp 114.7

X = 1.3668 10 5 Rs 1.95682 10 8 Rs2 +

2.408026 10 2 g 9.26019 10 8 (T + 459.67 )2 Middle East
Al-Mahoun 75 to 10.4 to 0.657 to
and North 3,711 na 1 to 3,113 na na na
p 240 49.2 1.588
(1992) X ln America
co = pb
( pb p )

Table A-1 Summary of published oil isothermal compressibility methods

10 SPE 103155

No. of co
T
Author Correlation Origin Data Range Rs Range API AE SD AAE
-6 -1 Range
Points (10 psi ) (scf/STB) Range g Range (%) (%)
(F)
X = Rs0.1982 T 0.6685 g0.21435 1API
.0116 0.1616
p 95 to 13.7 to 0.59 to
Farshad 726 2 to 34 6 to 1,758 6.86 32.5 20.21
co = 10 (5.4531 + 5.03 10 )
4
X 3.5 10 8 X 2 Columbia 260 46.5 1.731
(1992)

Extra heavy oil (API 10)

889 .6 + 3.1374 Rs + 20 T 627 .3 gc 81 .4476 API
co =
10 5 p
Heavy oil (10 < API 22.3)
2.9646 Rs + 25 .5439 T 1230 .5 gc + 41 .91 API 2841 .8
co =
10 5 p
Medium oil (22.3 < API 31.1) xh 8.5 xh 5.0
2.2246 Rs + 26 .0644 T 2080 .823 gc 9.6807 API 705 .288 h 15.6 h 10.7
co = Mediterranean m 12.5 m 11.8
De Ghetto 10 5 p Basin, Africa, 81 to 6.0 to
195 3.02 to 43 8 to 2,986 na light light na
Persian Gulf, 342 56.8
(1994) Light oil (API > 31.1) 8.5 6.8
and North Sea agip agip
API T
1.8789 0.3646 0.1966
Bob p B 3.9392 T 1.349
co = 1 b ob 8.98 17.5 13.9
10 6.1646
p 10
Agip Model
4.133 Rs + 22 .12 T 1323 .8 gc + 10 .5 API 1682 .8
co =
10 5 p
where

( )
gc = g 1 + 5.912 10 5 API Tsp log
p sp


114 .7

70603.2 + 98.404 Rs + 378.266T 6102.03 g + 755.345 API 190 to 128 to 30.9 to 0.746 to
Almehaideb co = United Arab 244 na na 13.33 9.88
106 ( p + 3755.53) Emirates 306 3,871 48.6 1.116
(1997)

Elsharkawy 27321 + 33.784 Rs + 238.81T 423

3.62 to 120 to 367 to 24.5 to 0.807 to
5.36 22.74 15.23
co = Kuwait 29.18 243 1,568 39.8 1.234
(1997) 106 p

Table A-1 (continued) Summary of published oil isothermal compressibility methods

SPE 103155 11

No. of co
T
Author Correlation Origin Data Range Rs Range API AE SD AAE
-6 -1 Range
Points (10 psi ) (scf/STB) Range g Range (%) (%)
(F)

R s0.980922372 g0.021003077
X1 = + 20 .00006358 (T 60 )0.300001059
o0.338486128
0 .876813622 Rs
Dindoruk and 5.02 to 117 to 133 to 14.7 to 0.6017 to
Christman X 11.759732076 Gulf of 99 0.85 8.95 6.21
X2 = 2 Mexico 31.91 276 3,050 40.0 1.027
(2001) 1.713572145
2 .749114986 + 2 Rs (T 60 )
g9.999932841

co (
= 10 6 4 .487462368 + 0.005197040 X 2 + 1 .258 10 5 X 22 )
2.7314 56.060510 6 ( p pb ) 580.8778
Al-Marhoun 14.1042 + 3.45 to 71 to 17.5 to 0.75 to
(2003) ob ob
3 (T + 460 ) Middle East 3,412
31.11 240
24 to 1,453
44.6 1.59
-0.25 7.06 5.46
co = e

co = 10 6 e (2.434 + 0.475 a + 0.048 a )

2

6
a= a
n =1
n

an = C0, n + C1, n xn + C2, n x 2

Spivey, Valko, p 0.1 7.1
and McCain 0.608 + 0.1822 ln
pb
70 to 11.6 to 0.561 to (Avg) (Avg)
(2005) co = co 1 + ( p pb )(0.475 + 0.096 a ) Worldwide 3,537 3.6 to 49.3
320
12 to 1,808
57.7 1.798 1.1
na
7.8
p
(Inst) (Inst)

n x C0,n C1,n C2,n
1 ln API 3.011 -2.6254 0.497
2 ln gSP -0.0835 -0.259 0.382
3 ln pb 3.51 -0.0289 -0.0584
4 ln p/pb 0.327 -0.608 0.0911
5 ln Rs -1.918 -0.642 0.154
6 ln T 2.52 -2.73 0.429

Table A-1 (continued) Summary of published oil isothermal compressibility methods

12 SPE 103155

Fig. 1 - Database oil API gravity Fig. 2 Database bubblepoint solution gas-oil ratio

Fig. 3 Database bubblepoint pressure Fig 4 Database hydrogen sulfide content

Fig. 5 Database carbon dioxide content Fig. 6 Database nitrogen content

SPE 103155 13

Fig. 7 Database change in density with pressure Fig. 8 DAK method error for n-decane compressibility
factor

Fig. 9 PR EOS Method Error for n-Decane Compressibility Fig. 10 Oil pseudocritical property relationships from
Factor regression

Fig. 11 Pseudocritical property relationships for oil and gas Fig. 12 Distribution of Tpr inferred from regression
condensate systems
14 SPE 103155

Fig. 13 Distribution of Ppr inferred from regression Fig. 14 Error in calculated Z factor using new pseudocritical
property relationships (Eqns. 7 and 8)

Fig. 15 Accuracy of DAK Z factor equation using new Fig. 16 Oil pseudocritical property relationships effect of
pseudocritical property methods for gas and oil dissolved nonhydrocarbon gases

Fig. 17 Oil pseudocritical property relationships effect of Fig. 18 - Comparison of oil and gas condensate pseudocritical
Watson Characterization Factor property relationships
SPE 103155 15

Fig. 19 Database instantaneous isothermal compressibility Fig. 20 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal
compressibility from Calhoun method

Fig. 21 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal Fig. 22 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal
compressibility from Trube method compressibility from Standing method

Fig. 23 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal Fig. 24 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal
compressibility from Vazquez & Beggs method compressibility from Labedi method
16 SPE 103155

Fig. 25 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal Fig. 26 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal
compressibility from Ahmed method compressibility from Petrosky method

Fig. 27 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal Fig. 28 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal
compressibility from Kartoatmodjo & Schmidt compressibility from Al-Marhoun 92 method
method

Fig. 29 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal Fig. 30 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal
compressibility from Farshad method compressibility from De Ghetto method
SPE 103155 17

Fig. 31 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal Fig. 32 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal
compressibility from De Ghetto-Agip method compressibility from Almehaideb method

Fig. 33 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal Fig. 34 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal
compressibility from Elsharkawy method compressibility from Dindoruk & Christman
method

Fig. 35 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal Fig. 36 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal
compressibility from Al-Marhoun 03 method compressibility from Spivey, Valko & McCain
method
18 SPE 103155

Fig. 37 Error in calculated instantaneous isothermal Fig. 38 Accuracy of Calhoun method for instantaneous
compressibility from Sutton method isothermal compressibility

Fig. 39 Accuracy of Trube method for instantaneous Fig. 40 Accuracy of Standing method for instantaneous
isothermal compressibility isothermal compressibility

Fig. 41 Accuracy of Vazquez & Beggs method for Fig. 42 Accuracy of Labedi method for instantaneous
instantaneous isothermal compressibility isothermal compressibility
SPE 103155 19

Fig. 43 Accuracy of Ahmed method for instantaneous Fig. 44 Accuracy of Petrosky method for instantaneous
isothermal compressibility isothermal compressibility

Fig. 45 Accuracy of Kartoatmodjo and Schmidt Fig. 46 Accuracy of Al-Marhoun 92 method for
method for instantaneous isothermal instantaneous isothermal compressibility
compressibility

Fig. 47 Accuracy of Farshad method for instantaneous Fig. 48 Accuracy of De Ghetto method for
isothermal compressibility instantaneous isothermal compressibility
20 SPE 103155

Fig. 49 Accuracy of De Ghetto-Agip method for Fig. 50 Accuracy of Almehaideb method for
instantaneous isothermal compressibility instantaneous isothermal compressibility

Fig. 51 Accuracy of Elsharkawy method for Fig. 52 Accuracy of Dindoruk & Christman method for
instantaneous isothermal compressibility instantaneous isothermal compressibility

Fig. 53 Accuracy of Al-Marhoun 03 method for Fig. 54 Accuracy of Spivey, Valko & McCain method
instantaneous isothermal compressibility for instantaneous isothermal compressibility
SPE 103155 21

Fig. 55 Accuracy of Sutton method for Fig. 56 Error in calculated average isothermal
instantaneous isothermal compressibility compressibility from Farshad method

Fig. 57 Error in calculated average isothermal Fig. 58 Error in calculated average isothermal
compressibility from Dindoruk & Christman compressibility from Spivey, Valko & McCain
method method

Fig. 59 Error in calculated average isothermal Fig. 60 Accuracy of Farshad method for
compressibility from Sutton method average isothermal compressibility
22 SPE 103155

Fig. 61 Accuracy of Dindoruk & Christman method for Fig. 62 Accuracy of Spivey, Valko & McCain method
average isothermal compressibility for average isothermal compressibility

Fig. 63 Accuracy of Sutton method for Fig. 64 Watson characterization factor relationship with
average isothermal compressibility crude oil API gravity

Fig. 65 Change in calculated wellstream molecular weight

with Watson K Factor
23 SPE 103155

All Data
BPP < 5000 psia
Instantaneous Isothermal Oil Compressibility BPP > 5000 psia
Pdif < 5000 psi
Pdif > 5000 psi
100
GOR < 500 scf/STB
90 GOR 500-1000 scf/STB
GOR 1000-2000 scf/STB
80 GOR > 2000 scf/STB
Average Absolute Error, %

API < 20
70
API 20-30
60 API 30-40
API > 40
50

40

30

20

10

92

03
n

an
y

n
e

tto

n
p
ed
gs

ky

ad
ng

jo

eb
di

w
ou

ai
ub

gi

tto
od
be

19

20
tm
s

he
g

m
di

ka
id

cC
-A
tro
h

Su
Tr

Be

rs
an

Ah

tm

a
La

ris
al

ar
un

un

M
Fa

eh
Pe

tto
C

St

a
&

sh

Ch
e
ho

ho

&
rto

m
D

he
z

El
Al
ar

ar

o
ue

&
Ka

lk
-M

-M
uk
zq

Va
e
Al

Al
or
D
Va

y,
d

ive
in
D

Sp
Fig. 66 Correlation comparison for evaluation of instantaneous isothermal compressibility

All Data
BPP < 5000 psia
Average Isothermal Oil Compressibility BPP > 5000 psia
Pdif < 5000 psi
Pdif > 5000 psi
100
GOR < 500 scf/STB
90 GOR 500-1000 scf/STB
GOR 1000-2000 scf/STB
80 GOR > 2000 scf/STB
Average Absolute Error, %

API < 20
70
API 20-30
60 API 30-40
API > 40
50

40

30

20

10

0
92

03
an

n
n

y
tto
e

n
gs

ed

d
ng

jo

b
di

w
ou

ai
gi
sk
ub

tto
ha

de
od

19

20
tm
be
g

he
m
di

ka

cC
-A
tro
h

Su
Be
Tr

rs

ai
tm
an

Ah

ris
La
al

ar
un

M
Fa

eh
Pe

tto

ou
C

St

&

Ch
sh
e
ho

&
rto

m
D

he

rh
z

El
Al

o
ar
ue

&
Ka

a
G

lk
-M

-M
k
zq

Va
e

ru
Al

Al
D
Va

do

y,
ive
in
D

Sp

Fig. 67 Correlation comparison for evaluation of average isothermal compressibility