PROJECT # 1 IPG 516: Petroleum Production

Submitted to Jose Alvarez

Group Members:

Samaneh Sadeghi Richard Ugwu Nyamgerel Burenmend Niaz Hussain

SUMMARY OF THE WORKFLOW The objective for our project is to select different hydrocarbon properties for the correlations that have already been performed, select the datasets for heavy oil/bitumen and use the dataset for these properties to check the efficiency, applicability, reliability and drawbacks for different correlations. Search engine ONE PETRO from the library database of UAlberta was utilized to find the correlations. All the publications used in the study are from Society of Petroleum Engineers publications which includes both modern and old work. Key words used to access different papers of our interest are PVT Analysis, Viscosity Correlations, Formation Volume Factor Correlations, Bubble Point Pressure Correlations, Standings Correlations and heavy oil, bitumen correlations. After initially scrutinizing papers, checking the available data, quality of papers and discussion in group we decided to focus on four different parameters from hydrocarbon properties. Every property has been assessed by different correlations. The properties that our project focuses on are. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) PREDICTION OF HEAVY OIL VISCOSITY (Samaneh Sadeghi) CORRELATION OF VISCOSITY AND SOLUTION GOR FOR GAS-FREE ATHABASCA BITUMEN (Richard Ugwu) FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR (Nyamgerel burenmend) BUBBLE POINT PRESSURE CORREALTION(Niaz Hussain)

Datasets from different publications have been utilized to check the applicability and reliability of the correlations that we choose to work on. Comparisons of these correlations have been performed and mean values of different types of errors have been calculated to support the results. Graphs have also been sketched to get firsthand quick information about the results as well.

PREDICTION OF HEAVY OIL VISCOSITY Abstract The evaluation of viscosity of dead oil is an important step in the design of various operations in oilfield and refineries. Correlations can be used to estimate fluid viscosity and can provide a useful method to provide the reservoir engineer with preliminary values for reservoir calculations. Trevor Bennison in 1998 developed a new correlation to identify an alternative correlation of viscosity. There are number of correlations for the estimation of fluid viscosity based on measured fluid properties. These correlations can be divided into three categories: dead oil viscosity (od), bubble-point viscosity (ob) and undersaturated oil viscosity (o). Introduction In overall, the correlations use oil density and temperature to determine od. Beals correlation was developed in 1946 using data obtained from California crude oil [1, 2]. It is still widely used throughout the oil industry and is considered to be fairly accurate. Beggs and Robinson in 1975 Glas in1980 [3]; Labedi in 1992 [4]; Kartoamodjo & Schmidt in 1994 [5]; and Petrosky & Farshad in 1995 [6] developed their correlations for different types of crude oils. Egbogah-Jacks proposed different correlations with respect to the type of oil (Extra heavy, heavy oil) and without pour point [7, 8]. Several oil companies have identified heavy oil reservoirs in the North Sea and obtained measured viscosity data for them. Viscosity data has been provided through the offices of the DTI for oils from four reservoirs identified as Oil 1, Oil 2, Oil 3 and Oil 4. Details of these data are listed in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of Data Provided.

The API gravity of the dead oil has been assumed to remain near constant for the temperatures studied. In this work dead oil viscosities have been predicted using different forms of correlations. Mean absolute difference (MAD) is used to compare and evaluate the prediction ability of correlations, which is defined as below:

Also root mean square error (RMSE) and correlation coefficient (r) can be used to compare and evaluate the prediction ability of correlations too.
( ) (
(

)
)

Where n is the number of data points, is the viscosity obtained experimentally and predicted viscosity. Table 2 summarized comparison of predicted dead oil viscosities. Table 2: Comparison of Predicted Dead Oil Viscosities

is

Based on their comparison of all the predictions with the measured dead oil viscosity data, It have been concluded that Beals equation {2} and Egbogah-Jacks {6} are perhaps the best showing the smallest mean difference, though none of the correlations provide a reliable estimate of the dead oil viscosity (Table 2). We check the results and calculate the Beals and Modified Egbogah-Jacks (Heavy Oils) correlations that are shown in Table 3. Beals dead oil correlation

Modified Egbogah-Jacks (Heavy Oils)correlation

DEVELOPMENT OF NEW CORRELATION FOR od In this paper sixteen data points have been used to develop a new correlation for od. However, the data is fairly well spread, covering four different fluids with 3 or 5 temperatures per fluid. The supporting fluid property data available was not very extensive, therefore only the API gravity and temperature have been utilised. The best two correlations for od (Beal {2} and Modified Egbogah-Jacks (Heavy Oils) {6}) were used to generate a range of data between 10 and 20 API and 50 to 200F. This form of correlation has been used , , and . By plotting these two correlations (Figure 1), it can be found they are reasonably well fitted with below equation. The closeness of two fits is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Left side: Dependence of Viscosity (od) on API Gravity and TemperatureRight side: Curve Fitting to Obtain Coefficients a and b. Table 3: Comparison of predicted dead Oil Viscosities Fluid API Temp Exp. od Beals od Bennison od cp 2117.869 159.656 27.60292 444.8022 34.63595 6.784128 7615.002 Modified EgbogahJacks od cp 9280.324 180.3494 33.72113 259.5545 34.22506 13.57319 1349.964

Oil 1

Oil 2

Oil 3

19.5 19.5 19.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 11

39 87 150 106 200 300 90

cp 1904 272 38 383 29.6 6.4 8396

cp 498.004 133.3983 31.97634 511.4641 34.1475 3.582647 9626.538

Oil 4

11 120 1349 2115.756 1382.371 360.3787 11 150 357 532.6837 367.9808 152.7965 11 175 143 184.2041 147.4843 90.74137 11 200 66 68.21867 66.80052 60.22003 11.5 100 3369 3806.467 2952.28 703.7996 11.5 120 969 1515.731 1065.41 319.4698 11.5 150 338 422.0451 306.0333 137.7838 11.5 200 58.1 62.79988 61.28209 55.29189 11.5 250 20.1 11.69877 17.60294 30.37292 Table 4: Comparison of this work with some others correlation Bennison (1998) Beal (1946) 538.79 33.16% 0.982 Modified EgbogahJacks (1995) 2653.63 69.58% 0.245

RMSE MAD% r

231.50 11.74% 0.998

As we can see MAD% and RMSE of the developed correlation for the test data-set are 11.74% and 231.505, respectively, which are comparable with Beals and Modified Egbogah-Jacks results. That means, developed equation is a generalized correlation and is not over-fitted to the data-points and has lower mean absolute difference with experimental data. Figure 2 is shown the compares the scatter diagrams of this work(Bennison) with Beals, and Modified EgbogahJacks.

Peredictede Viscosity, cP

10000 1000 100 10 1 1

Beal's Correlation

10000 Predicted Viscosity, cP 1000 100 10 1

Modified Egbogah-Jacks( heavy oil)

od

od

100 10000 Experimental Viscosity, cP 10000 1000 100 10 1 1 10

10 100 1000 Experimental Viscosity, cP

10000

Peredicted Viscosity, cP

Bennison Correlation

od

100

1000

10000

Experimental Viscosity, cP

Figure 2: Scatter diagrams of experimental and predicted viscosities of dead oil at the top left: with beal's, at the top right: with modified Egbogah-Jacks, and at the bottom: with developed correlation (Bennison).

Comparing predicted viscosity with Beals correlation and predicted viscosity with proposed correlation is shown in Figure 3. Also a comparison of Scatter diagrams of experimental and predicted viscosities of dead oil with all three correlations is demonstrated in Figure 4.
10000 1000 100 10 1 1 10 100 1000 Predicted viscosity with Beal's corr. 10000 od

Beal's vs. Bennison

Figure 3: Scatter diagrams of predicted viscosities of dead oil with Beals correlation and predicted viscosities with Bennison correlation.

Predicted vicosity with Bennison corr.

Predicted Viscosity, cP

10000 1000 100 10 1 1 10 100 1000 Experimental Viscosity, cP 10000

Bennison Corr. Beal's Corr. Modified EgbogahJacks Corr.

Figure 4: Scatter diagrams of experimental and predicted viscosities of dead oil with all three correlations These curves show good agreement with the measured data and show that the results of Bennison correlation are accurate for the North Sea data tested. It is recommended that this is used to estimate dead oil viscosity of other heavy oils. Estimated dead oil viscosities were compared with experiment viscosity data at different temperatures for Bennison, Beals, Modified Egbogah-Jacks correlations by plotting them az a function of temprature and API. Figure 5 demonestrates for log od vs. temprature. Developed correlation is closed to the experimental data and other correlations are alittle under estimate or over estimate the heavy oil viscosity.
10000 1000 100 10 1 0 50 100 Temprature(F) 150 200 250 300 350 Experiment al od Bennison od Beal's od

Figure 5: Predicted data oil viscosity vs. temprature compared with experimenta data with their API. Testing proposed correlation with data bank The reliability of the correlations has been evaluated against a set of 53 crude oil samples collected from the Mediterranean Basin, Afrca, the Persian Gulf and the North Sea which is related to the Ghetto et al. (1994) [9]. To assess the results that discussed in previous part and based on the reservoir classification (Fluids) data with API<20 were selected. Table 6 is showing the comparison of experimental oil viscosity with predicted viscosity with Bennison, Beals,

Viscosity, cp

Modified Egbogah-Jacks correlations. Figure 6 is shown the compares the scatter diagrams of this work(Bennison) with Beals, Modified Egbogah-Jacks.
Beal's correlation-data bank
Predicted viscosity, cp 10000 1000 100 10 1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Experimental viscosity, cp od Predicteted viscosity, cp 100000 1000 100 10 1 1 10 100 1000 Experimental Viscosity, cP 10000 od

Modified Egbogah-Jacks data bank

Predicted Viscosity, cP

10000 1000 100 10 1 1

Bennison Correlation-Data bank

od

10 100 1000 Experimental Viscosity, cP

10000

Figure 6: Scatter diagrams of experimental and predicted viscosities of dead oil at the top left: with beal's, at the top right: with modified Egbogah-Jacks, and at the bottom: with developed correlation (Bennison).
Predicted Viscosity, cP with Bennison

10000 1000 100 10 1 1

Beal's vs. Bennison -data bank

od

10 100 1000 Predicteted Viscosity, cP with Beal's corr.

10000

Figure 7: Scatter diagrams of predicted viscosities of dead oil with Beals correlation and predicted viscosities with Bennison correlation. Table 5: Comparison of this work with some others correlation Bennison (1998) Beal (1946) Modified EgbogahJacks

RMSE MAD% r

117.71 68.47 0.882

394.63 91.92 0.853

(1995) 145.56 43.26 0.779

Table 5 reveals the superiority of the new model(Bennison), though, %MAD of Modified Egbogah-Jacks, is lower than Bennison model. However, purely attributed to the accuracy of the models in the entire range of oil gravity, since their RMSE and regression coefficients are not as good. The contradiction may be clarified by referring to Figure 8, which compares the scatter diagrams of this work with other two correlations. Using this data set Bennison correlation predicted more accurate viscosity.

10000 Predicted Viscosity, cP 1000 100 10 1 1 10 100 1000 Experimental Viscosity, cP 10000 Modified EgbogahJacks Corr. Bennison Corr. Beal's Corr.

Figure 8: Scatter diagrams of experimental and predicted viscosities of dead oil with all three correlations In this curve shows a good agreement with the measured data with Bennison correlation and experimental data. The results of Bennison correlation are accurate as well as previous part for 53 crude oil samples collected from the Mediterranean Basin, Afrca, the Persian Gulf and the North Sea.

NEW VISCOSITY CORRELATIONS FOR DEAD CRUDE OILS A new comprehensive correlation for prediction of viscosity of the Iranian heavy and light dead crude oils was developed with Sattarina et al. in 2007 [10]. They found absolute average deviation (%AAD) of 19.5% for the heavy (API=17~28). The new models correlate viscosity, API gravity and temperature for a quite wide range, i.e. 2-570 cP for viscosity and 17-45 for API gravity. Table 6 shows data used for dead crude oil viscosity correlation: A comprehensive dead oil viscosity correlations for off-shore and onshore Iranian crude oils with respect to their nature is proposed. For this correlation API are between 17 and 28 and temperature of 10 C, 20 C, and 40 C.

Coefficients a and b were regressed against temperature and the following equations were derived:

Figure 9 is showing the comparison of Beals correlation and developed correlation as a function of temperature and stockF F).

Absoulte viscosity of gas free cruid oil, cp

1000000

1000

T=68 F(new) T=105 F(new) T=68 F(Beal) T=105 F(Beal)

1 17 22 27 32 Cruid Oil API at 60 F and atmospheric pressure

Figure 9: comparison of Beals correlation and developed correlation as a function of temperature and API.

As it can be seen there is a fairly difference between the results of proposed correlation and Beals correlation. One reason could be that the Beals correlation is applicable to crude oil viscosity with temperatures between 100F.

References:
1. The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas, Crude Oil and Its Associated Gases at Oil Field Temperatures and Pressures. C Beal -SPE Reprint Series No 3. Oil and Gas Property Evaluation and Reserves Estimates. Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX (1970) pp114-127. 2. Volumetric and Phase Behaviour of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems M B Standing Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas, TX (1981). 3. Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems H D Beggs and J R Robinson JPT, September 1975, pp 11401141. 4. Improved Correlations for Predicting the Viscosity of Light Crudes R Labedi Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 8, (1992) pp221-234. 5. Large Data Bank Improves Crude Physical Property Correlations T Kartoatmodjo and Z Schmidt Oil & Gas Journal, July 4, 1994, pp51-55. 6. Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction M Vazquez and H D Beggs JPT, 1980, 6, pp 968-970. 7. An Improved Temperature-Viscosity Correlation for Crude Oil Systems E O Egbogah and J T Ng Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 5, (1990) pp197-200. 8. Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oils G De Ghetto, F Paone and M Villa. SPE 30316, International Heavy Oil Symposium, Calgary, Canada, 19-21 June 1995. 9. Reliability Analysis on PVT Correlations Giambattista De Ghetto, Francesco Paone, and Marco Villa, AGIP SpA. SPE 28904. European Petroleum Conference hefd In Londen, U.K., 25-27 Octcber 1994. 10. NEW VISCOSITY CORRELATIONS FOR DEAD CRUDE OILS, M. Sattarina, H. Modarresi*b, M. Bayata, M. Teymoria. Petroleum & Coal, ISSN 1335-3055, 2007.

Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of predicted dead Oil Viscosities- collected from the Mediterranean Basin, Afrca, the Persian Gulf and the North Sea.

API

Temp

Bennison od

Beals od

Modified EgbogahJack od

API

Temp

Bennison od

Beals od

Modified EgbogahJack od

7.5 7.9 7.9 8 8 8.2 8.3 8.6 8.9 9 9.6 10 10.5 10.9 11 11 11.2 11.4 12.4 12.4 12.6 12.8 13.5 14 14.6 14.9 15.1 15.2 15.4 15.6 16 16.5 16.8 17 17.6 18.8

F 153.5 208.9 165.2 215.6 210.2 215.6 212 217.4 212 210 217.4 154.5 152.6 154.2 167 152.6 154.8 153.1 210.2 152.6 208 215.6 211.6 183.2 205.9 207.9 207.7 214 203 131.4 211.3 188.1 140 250.7 194 244.4

cp
1133 236 443.7 264.9 230 233.2 262 186 219.2 160.7 117.2 116.3 112 115 438.1 125.2 105 110.6 98.7 133 88.1 42.2 53.9 47.4 158 152.7 152 107.3 163.6 161.3 37.4 43.7 112.6 10.1 23.4 11.7

cp
1216.55 74.24132 552.593 56.30582 69.77313 55.5478 63.28862 50.52902 59.89723 63.70196 46.76365 441.9512 398.6908 323.6381 194.6608 332.3215 284.6818 282.7405 40.58975 203.4579 41.42605 33.7233 32.92283 55.53885 30.22027 27.43616 26.47159 23.1823 27.13113 127.2503 20.71057 27.77419 69.9699 9.445837 19.27097 6.867783

cp 305.0043 92.17332 208.9664 81.83061 88.67387 78.88104 81.63340 71.51734 73.18674 74.00209 59.99864 169.6665 159.5841 141.4959 105.6907 143.7813 131.2942 130.9790 41.54031 108.5373 41.40425 36.48700 34.42939 46.79855 31.31141 29.24975 28.48214 26.10962 28.85518 95.72179 24.06450 29.70153 63.18363 14.51192 23.58938 12.34950

F 19 19 19 19.2 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.9

cp
238.3 163.4 217.4 165.2 158 154.4 172.4 240.8 177.8 178.7 167 231.8 170.6 244 163.4 150.8 231.8

cp
11.6 50.9 23.9 43.4 49.3 55.5 41 7.7 33 43.1 28.1 11.1 44.5 14.7 47.2 55.5 9.7

cp
7.079417 23.67739 9.49622 21.76352 25.10569 26.38457 18.06742 6.006589 15.96035 15.7028 19.53123 6.611848 17.36222 5.30259 19.48883 25.28835 6.093824

cp
12.68408 29.26593 15.28809 27.67736 30.90602 32.27559 24.28765 11.73246 22.29178 22.03369 25.83573 12.49585 23.88396 11.05767 26.09685 31.80865 12.07108

Summary/Correlation of Viscosity and Solution GOR for gas-free Athabasca bitumen

A paper written by M.A.B. Khan, A.K.Mehrotra and W.Y.Svrcek in 1984 & and a paper on PressureVolume-Temperature Correlations for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oils Giambattista De Ghetto*, Francesco Paone, and Marco ViIla*, AGIP S.p.A. * SPE MemberSPE 30316 The viscosity models for the correlation of bitumen, example gas-free Athabasca bitumen is different from the correlation models applied to conventional oils. This is as a result of the complex nature of the chemical composition of bitumen.The molecular formular for Athabsca bitumen is C36.7 H55.6 N0.19 S0.82 O0.51. Athabsca bitumen consists of about 20% asphaltenes, distributed in about 80% of a dispersing medium known as the maltenes and the maltenes itself is subdivided into two components: the light phase ( saturates and aromatics) and the heavy phase known as the resins. This shows that bitumen has different structural, molecular and physical properties from normal crude oil. Of all the correlation models employed at correlating the bitumen, only two models produced reasonable correlations within allowable error margin. They are the linear and the non-linear viscosity models that employ doublelogarithmic viscosity functions. The linear produced results with an average deviation of 8.2% while the non-linear produced results with an average deviation of 7.1%. Hoever, the two models are applied within temperature range of 200C to1300C. Prior to the development of the linear and the non-linear viscosity models, there were two equations by Eyring viscosity model and Hildebrands viscosity Molar-Volume relationship that were employed at correlating the viscosity of Athabasca gas-free bitumen. Eyring viscosity model: This model prposes that for a molecule in a viscous liquid to flow, its neighbours must give way or that a hole must be created. The molecule must be activated to enable it to move.This energy he called it free energy for activation, F. The free energy is related to the amount of energy which a molecule must possess, H and the degree of disorder, S created as a result of the rearrangement due to the movement. Eyring stated that F, H and S are different from the Gibbs free energy, enthalpy and entropy. Eyring gave the equation for correlating viscosity of Athbasca gas-free bitumen as, ( ) ( )

Khan et al noted that this equation is only applicable for liquids that behave like monoatomic ideal gas. So Athabasca gas free bitumen highly deviate from this type of liquid in the following respects:Large molecules with high molecular weight; at temperatures below 600C, slight associative effects may exist

between molecules thus causing extremely high viscosities and the bitumen is highly varied in size and shape, Khan et al. To account for all these deviations, Eyrings equation as stated above is a modified form from the original equation. h= Planks constant, N=Avogadros number, M=Molecular weight, g/gmol, R=Universal gas constant, =viscosity in mPa.s, T= absolute temperature in Kelvin and d=density, g/cm3. With the average molecular weight of bitumen taken as 617g/gmol, and substituting the numerical values for the various constants, . To use this equation to correlate the viscosity of

Athabasca bitumen at various temperatures, the density and the activation free energy would be known. Khan et al. noted that for simple liquids with spherical molecules in cubic packing, F is one -third the heat of vapourization and for a number of normal liquids, Fvapourization/F is about 2.46. However, for bitumen, there is no data on the value of F, making the correlations more complicated. However, F was calculated using ( ) ( ), and then correlation was attempted for F using: F=f(density,

B.P.) and F=f(Temperature). To estimate the density of bitumen at temperature range of 20 to 1300C, the correlation of Goldhammer was used,

and then the correlation of F with the density and the boiling

point. Overall, using this correlation did not produce worthwhile viscosity values for the gas free Athabasca bitumen. To obtain and predict the viscosity of gas free Athabasca bitumen, double logarithmic function model of viscosity was developed, ie a plot of the double-log of viscosity (in mP.s) versus temperature in logarithmic scale. The equation is stated as n n() = { } , b1 and b2 are

constants. The linear model, n n() =C1 nT+C2, where C1 and C2 are constants. The two equations provide satisfactory correlations for the viscosity of Athabasca gas free bitumen with error margin of between 3.6% to 10.7%. In the equations, temperature is in kelvin. The correlation of the viscosity of gas free Athabasca bitumen could be achieved graphically or by using equation. For example, at 347K, the viscosity of the bitumen is read from the graph as { n n() = 2}. See graph below. Converting to mPa.s yields 1618mPa.s or 1618cP. However, if you use correlating equation such as the linear equation, n n() =C1 nT+C2 with parameters C1=-3.62722 and C2 =23.22, T=347K, you get the same result.

Different bitumen samples use different parameters for correlation. Sample 1 is the bitumen sample used by Jacobs et al. See table 3. Sample 2 is a bitumen sample before N2 and synthetic combustion gas run. Sample 3 is the bitumen before C02 gas run while sample 4 is the bitumen sample before NH4 gas run.

SOLUTION GOR CORRELATION FOR EXTRA HEAVY OIL

DATA BANK FROM WHERE PVT VALUES WERE TAKEN AND PLUGGED INTO CORRELATION EQUATIONS FOR GOR CORRELATION. Values are taken from 1-10, i.e. for extra heavy oil

RESULTS MODIFIED STANDING CORRELATION

Table 1: PVT values including calculated GOR

Calculated GOR 114.025321 158.7156767 52.30514548 13.76117823 107.5941728 27.40897904 122.8925751 48.00737652 56.08715113 51.9682492 =752.7658

Measured GOR 224.74 295.42 84.83 14.43 202.37 16.1 202.31 46.03 90.05 69.57 = 245.85

API 6 6.3 6.5 7.3 7.5 7.9 7.9 8 8 8.2

T (0F) 147.9 165.2 210.2 221.7 153.5 208.9 165.2 215.6 210.2 215.6

P (Psia) 2503.39 4021.96 697.64 249.47 2082.77 342.29 2902.25 619.32 668.63 725.2

gg 0.679 0.624 1.403 1.044 0.738 1.403 0.623 1.389 1.471 1.273

plot of measured vs calculated GOR for heavy oil. API<<10

350 300 Measured GOR 250 200 150 100 50 0 -50 0 50 100 150 200 Calculated GOR, using modified standing correlation Measured GOR Linear (Measured GOR) R = 0.9775

Figure 2: comparing calculated vs measured solution GOR using modified Standing Correlation

STANDING CORRELATIOM ( =0.00091(T)-0.0125API )

Table 2: PVT values including calculated GOR Calculated GOR 304.8562926 512.5830831 155.5680029 33.6047645 255.6572701 62.67645165 326.8717601 128.4222164 147.1269118 141.3453343 =2068.7 2 Measured GOR 224.74 295.42 84.83 14.43 202.37 16.1 202.31 46.03 90.05 69.57 = 245.85 T (0F) 147.9 165.2 210.2 221.7 153.5 208.9 165.2 215.6 210.2 215.6

API 6 6.3 6.5 7.3 7.5 7.9 7.9 8 8 8.2

P (Psia) 2503.39 4021.96 697.64 249.47 2082.77 342.29 2902.25 619.32 668.63 725.2

gg 0.679 0.624 1.403 1.044 0.738 1.403 0.623 1.389 1.471 1.273

plot of calculated and measured GOR 350 300 Measured GOR 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 200 400 600 calculated GOR using standing correlation equation Meassured GOR Linear (Meassured GOR) R = 0.938

Figure 3: comparing calculated vs measured solution GOR using modified Standing Correlation

Comparing modified Standing and Standing correlation Modified Standing correlation 3.95 0.9775 Standing correlation -6.6 0.938

%MAD R2

DISCUSSIONS The use of double logarithm model to correlate the viscosity of heavy oil has some limitations. The main limitation lies in the fact that correlation is not done on any type of heavy oil, the sample type would have to be defined so that the various parameters to be applied would be known. Correlation of viscosity for conventional oil takes into account the following factors: temperature, RS, pressure, bubblepoint pressure, see figure 5, meanwhile, to correlate

Figure 4: Graphical viscosity correlation as proposed by Jacobs et al., 1984

Figure 5: conventional oil viscosity correlation (Beals)

bitumen viscosity using double logarithmic function model, one needs to know the sample type and the temperature in absolute kelvin, see figure 4. So viscosity correlation for conventional oil is different from the correlation of bitumen viscosity. By using both standing and the modified form of standing equation for solubility GOR correlation, I calculated GOR values which I plotted against measured values in each case. In the two correlations, the

modified form of standing correlations yielded a better result with R2=0.9775 (see table 1 & fig. 2) while the un-modified standing correlation yielded result with R2=0.938, (see table 2 & fig 3).

In summary, the best solubility GOR correlation for extra heavy oil is provided by modified standing correlation. The use of doudle logarithm model for the correlation of extra heavy oil seems to have less applicability because the parameters would need to be defined for it to be applied.

References
Khan, M. A. B., Mehrotra, A. X., & Svrcek, W. Y. (1984, May 1). Viscosity Models For Gas-Free Athabasca Bitumen. Petroleum Society of Canada. doi:10.2118/84-03-05

De Ghetto, G., Paone, F., & Villa, M. (1995, January 1). Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlations for Heavy and Extra Heavy Oils. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/30316-MS

TECHNICAL NOTE 2009 SPE 957-G (MAY 1958) BUBBLE POINT PRESSIRECORRELATION J.A.LASTER (MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. DALLAS TEXAS)

1. ABSTRACT 158 bubble point pressures were measured from 137 independent systems across North to South America. Correlation of bubble point pressure for black oil systems is based on set of standard physical and chemical equations. (Laster et.al, 1958)

1.1

INTRODUCTION In absence of actual data from reservoir, a correlation parameter was required to

estimate the reservoir properties. Previously Standing came up with the correlation for bubble point pressure, which had a short come that it was solely based upon data from the Californian Crude oils. The correlation in this paper is based on data from whole across the North to South America. (Laster et.al, 1958)

1.2

DEVELOPMENT OF CORRELATION Working principle for the correlation is same as Standings which states that (Laster et.al,

1958). Pb = f( R, rg, t, T) .. ( 1 ) According to Henrys Law some parameters were combined to come up with the relationship (Laster et.al, 1958). Pb = Yg H (2) Equation 2 defines single phase system and H is a function of gas phase compo sition and temperature (Laster et.al, 1958). Correlation suggests that bubble point is a direct function of absolute temperature since the ratios for bubble point pressure to absolute pressure ( R) obtained from the experiment

were identical. The correlation doesnt work well for the temperatures close to the critical temperatures (Laster et.al, 1958). Increase in molecular weight results in an increase in solubility of hydrocarbon components in gas phase and therefore saturation pressure is inversely proportional to gas gravity (Laster et.al, 1958). .(3) Variables on left side are considered as bubble point pressure factor (Laster et.al, 1958).

(4)

Number of moles for tank oil relates to molecular weight of the tank oil. Correlation assumes a unique molecular weight, known as Effective Molecular Weight (M) despite the fact that stock tank of oil is a complex mixture. M correlation with oil gravity is as follows (Laster et.al, 1958). M = f (T) .. (5) Smooth curves for both, the correlation and effective molecular weight are developed with help of empirical relationship by assuming values of M. Figure 1 represents the relationship between oil gravity and effective molecular weight (Laster et.al, 1958). Due to higher values of effective molecular weight compared with C 7+ fractions, we get high differences of effective molecular weight for low gravity systems. These values correspond closely for crude oils with UOP characterization (Laster et.al, 1958). Figure 2 shows relationship developed from the experimental data between bubble point pressure factor and gas mole fraction and the values for curve are shown in table 1. H is not a constant due to non-linear relationship between values. Due to non-development of a mathematical relationship, we need to obtain values of Pf and Yg from figure 2 (Laster et.al, 1958).

We can calculate bubble point pressure from fig. 1, 2 while effective molecular weight from fig. 1 when we are having a for gas oil system. Gas mole fraction can be calculated from (Laster et.al, 1958).

To obtain bubble point pressure factor, we apply the obtained value of Yg is in fig.2. Than bubble point pressure is calculated from the following equation (Laster et.al, 1958).

Values measured from correlation when compared with experimentally obtained values displayed an algebraic deviation of 3.8 %. A deviation of less than 0.5 % and 6.5 % is observed for 21 % and 80% data points respectively. Maximum obtained error was 14.7 % (Laster et.al, 1958). The correlation deals with systems free of non-hydrocarbon component which includes gases such as N2, Co2, HS2. Presence of these gases results in lowering of the value of bubble point. Error associated with presence of the gases is shown in Table 2 (Laster et.al, 1958). A correlation chart has also been prepared with graphical evaluation to calculate the bubble point shown in fig.3 (Laster et.al, 1958). 1.3 CONCLUSION The correlation has applicability to large number of producing fields and is a quick method to estimate bubble point pressure for crude oil with an appropriate accuracy (Laster et.al, 1958).

NOMENCLATURE f = function

rg = total gas gravity (Air = 1.0) r = tank oil specific gravity H = General Henrys Law H = Specific Henrys Law constant (Independent of gas composition and temperature) M = Effective Molecular Weight of Tank Oil ng = moles of gas n = moles of tank oil yg = mole fraction of gas Pb = bubble point pressure (psia) Pf = bubble point pressure factor R = total flash separation gas oil ration ( cu ft/bbl ) ( Measured at 60 F ) r = tank oil gravity API ( corrected at 60 F) t = temperature F T = absolute temperature, R

Table -1 Smoothed Bubble Point Factor Function. (Laster et.al, 1958)

Gas Mole Fraction 0.05 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.3500 0.400 0.450 0.500 0.550 0.600 0.650 0.700 0.750 0.800 0.850 Bubble Point Pressure Factor 0.17 0.30 0.43 0.58 0.75 0.94 1.19 1.47 1.74 2.10 2.70 3.29 3.80 4.30 4.90 5.70 6.70

Table 2 Guide to effect of presence of non-hydrocarbon materials. (Laster et.al, 1958)

Component Carbon Dioxide Hydrogen Sulfide Carbon dioxide Nitrogen Carbon Dioxide

% Gas 9.1 3.1 3.1 2.5 0.3

Error in predicted Pb 5.0 1.1 1.1 2.7 2.7

Figure 1. Effective molecular weight related to tank oil gravity (Laster et.al, 1958).

Correlation of Bubble Point Pressure Factor

6.4 6 5.6 5.2 4.8 Bubble Point Pressure Factor 4.4 4 3.6 3.2 2.8 2.4 2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Gas Mole Fraction Correlation of Bubble Point Pressure Factor Poly. (Correlation of Bubble Point Pressure Factor)

Figure.2. Correlation of bubble point pressure factor (Laster et.al, 1958).

Figure.3 Chart for calculation of bubble point pressure (Laster et.al, 1958).

DATA, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Different datasets have been utilized to check the reliability of correlation provided by the Lasater. The 1st data set was used was based on optimum range. A valid range of parameters was selected, applied on Lasater Correlation, graphs were generated and figure 1 and figure 2 were used and computed results are shown in table.1. Results show a good validation of the data computed. The results obtained from the correlation had values greater than the Standing Correlation when applied to the standing Correlations Graphs. Table.1 Dataset used for the computation of bubble point pressure using Lasaters Correlation.
R 20 100 1000 1400 T (F) 130 180 230 258 (R) 590 640 690 718

rg
0.79 0.82 0.85 0.89

r
17.9 21.9 29.9 39.9

ro
0.95 0.92 0.88 0.83

Mo 457 423 345 240

Yg 0.07 0.26 0.75 0.75

Pf
0.37 0.77 4.55 4.55

Pb
276.3 600.98 3693.5 3670.7

Figure.1 Computation of Mole fraction from tank oil gravity.

Figure.2 Computation of Bubble point pressure factor.

The second dataset which has been utilized for Lasaters correlation is from the paper SPE 28904 Reliability Analysis on PVT Analysis Correlation by Giambattista De Ghetto. First the correlation was performed on a set of values below 30 API as shown in table 2 and compared with the already calculated experimental values. The data shows huge deviation from the experimentally measured values contrary to the claim owned by the paper that the correlation can be utilized for large number of data sets. This 1st set of values includes data for bitumen and heavy oil which doesnt bear good results because of the reason that Lasaters correlation has been developed for the crude oil which does not give some good results for the data employed for the heavy oil. Table 2 shows the set of values measured for the Lasters Correlations compared with the end results. We also come to the conclusion that there are different parameters which needs to be considered for developing a correlation and a statistical variation needs to be calculated and adjusted according to the

required parameters being used for getting more reliable results and making this correlation as a useful correlation.

Table.1 Data set and the measured values for the Lasters Correlation T 147.9 165.2 210.2 221.7 153.5 208.9 165.2 215.6 210.2 215.6 212 217.4 212 210 217.4 154.8 152.6 154.2 167 152.6 154.8 153.1 210.2 152.6 208 215.6 211.6 183.2 205.9 207.9 207.7 214 203 131.4 Rs 231.46 323.62 93.77 18.82 208.7 25.48 250.5 51.13 103.1 84.06 89.27 86.55 69.57 89.83 108.54 486.9 260 31.34 234.18 586.67 316.51 305.8 152.18 169.99 186.16 17.21 201.53 40.97 41.92 25.04 25.21 54.13 21.49 102.82

rg
0.696 0.675 1.429 1.134 0.756 1.477 0.768 1.415 1.491 1.334 1.47 1.479

API 6 6.3 6.5 7.3 7.5 7.9 7.9 8 8 8.2 8.3 8.6 8.9 9 9.6 10 10.5 10.9 11 11 11.2 11.4 12.4 12.4 12.6 12.8 13.5 14 14.6 14.9 15.1 15.2 15.4 15.6

p 3428.75 5391.14 4808.08 4732.66 3563.63 4148.14 5518.77 4494.79 4708 4851.59 4883.5 4996.63 4908.15 4908.08 4895.1 2850.04 2916.75 2893.55 5739.23 2916.75 2850.04 2858.74 4813.88 2916.75 4805.18 4519.45 4410.67 2552.7 3684.02 3727.53 3727.53 3784.09 3665.16 1038.49

a1 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64

a2 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937

a3 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172

rgs
0.056459 0.072772 0.196236 0.18368 0.080463 0.235307 0.104457 0.240875 0.250582 0.237611 0.261059 0.280787 0 0 0.237961 0.165384 0.11369 0.118234 0.142136 0.183113 0.121689 0.117181 0 0.117624 0 0.36088 0 0.277251 0.330552 0.3792 0.394789 0.325556 0.3718 0.095747

Pb Measured 135.241 151.0594 192.2046 202.7209 140.3642 191.0187 151.0626 197.1449 192.2075 197.1453 193.8539 198.7919

1.129 1.236 0.815 0.81 0.735 1.253 0.812 0.776 0.714 1.323 1.295 1.178 1.307 1.344 1.064 1.276 0.788

198.7939 141.5578 139.5472 141.011 152.7146 139.5482 141.5602 140.0062 139.551 197.1545 167.5326 188.2891 190.1183 189.9358 195.6963 185.6391 120.1736

Pb (Exper) 2503.39 4021.96 697.64 249.47 2082.77 342.29 2902.25 619.32 668.63 725.2 639.63 626.57 597.56 654.13 967.42 2665.84 2076.97 2802.7 2588.96 2916.75 2546.9 2622.32 1763.69 2432.32 2233.62 227.71 1736.13 1180.63 337.94 208.86 227.71 570.01 355.35 754.21

211.3 188.1 140 250.7 194 244.4 238.3 163.4 217.4 165.2 158 154.4 172.4 240.8 177.8 178.7 167 231.8 170.6 244 163.4 150.8 231.8 185.5 183.2 190.4 188.8 179.6 134.6 112.3 267.8 176

338 97.32 320.34 146.4 429.16 111.76 113.7 188.82 330.12 166.33 109.93 175.44 177.83 115.98 145.18 332.61 25.37 140.52 186.54 135.47 167.89 147.96 121.64 500.23 404.01 27.76 142.35 100.93 640.25 141.02 396.41 120.09

0.784 1.188 1.517 1.232 0.934 1.206 1.172 1.292 0.914 1.402 1.412 1.406 1.411 1.059 1.417 1.169 1.105 1.092 1.336 1.347 1.133 1.256 1.005 0.965 1.062 1.421 1.035 1.263 0.83 1.218 0.864

16 16.5 16.8 17 17.6 18.8 19 19 19 19.2 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.9 21 21.2 21.2 21.3 21.3 22 23.1 23.3 23.7

4281.58 3328.67 1153.07 7411.54 4873.34 7411.54 7047.49 1806.47 6557.26 1792.26 1593.12 1877.54 1649.98 7211.3 1934.4 5305.56 4238.07 6927.11 1877.54 7137.42 1806.47 1749.47 6856.04 4873.34 3721.73 1209.63 3598.44 6272.98 1749.18 1315.51 3740.58 4216.31

27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64

1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937 1.0937

11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172 11.172

0.258131 0.334109 0.221543 0.588866 0.321682 0.621454 0.587934 0.297509 0.410971 0.328886 0.303222 0.315108 0.33852 0.554022 0.373436 0.420216 0.349455 0.547387 0.337692 0.723238 0.271881 0.274921 0.510201 0.37919 0.386139 0.36354 0 0.42628 0.274155 0.141327 0.712528 0.349488

193.2292 172.0178 128.0392 229.2557 177.4145 223.499 217.922 149.4389 198.8126 151.0851 144.5019 141.2105 157.6686 220.2088 162.6062 163.4291 152.7315 211.9801 156.0234 223.1353 149.4405 137.9199 211.9807 169.6495 167.5469 174.1301 164.2556 123.1122 102.7249 244.9032 160.9687

3769.59 697.64 1074.74 1082 2236.52 999.33 1047.19 952.91 2319.99 796.27 469.93 796.27 825.28 1038.49 796.27 1322.76 256.72 1209.63 967.42 1124.06 896.35 839.78 1067.49 2369.95 2432 213.12 1009.48 654.13 1749.18 796.27 2674.54 768.71

Once the correlation was tested, than I picked a third set of data points of variable API i.e. from 17 - 51 API. This time four different correlations were performed to measure the continuity and reliability of different correlations and how do they behave when compared with the experimental results. For thsis purpose I have used 4 correlations i.e. Standings Correlation 974, Laster Correlation 958, Vasaquez and Beggs correlation 989, and Al-Shamsi Correlation 1999. Dataset used for the correlations and the computed values of bubble point are shown in table 3. A comparison has been performed in a graphical

form for different correlations in figure 4.

Table.3 Computed values of bubble point for different correlations. API

Tr 185.2 276.8 117.5 141.4 219.2 154.4 158 150.1 276.8 183.9

Rs

rg
0.965 1.218 0.933 0.949 1.051 1.27 1.349 1.113 0.85 1.408

Standing (1974)

Lasater (1958)

Vazquez & Beggs (1989)

AlShamsi (1999)

Exper Results

Oil1 Oil2 Oil3

Oil4

21 23.3 25 30.7 33 35.1 40 42.5 45 50.9

500.23 396.41 133.8 289.14 477.24 120.7 217.47 641.47 1664.63 376.48

2596.915 2001.167 691.2805 1152.883 1768.747 396.9049 538.4979 1418.989 4752.657 632.262

1308.95 2583.038 1120.676 1175.824 1677.505 2424.739 2735.575 1714.441 1081.227 3102.114

2426.779 2277.103 426.0426 1089.271 2516.266 371.0268 593.4317 2015.656 25610.66 1145.696

2616.888 1796.656 797.7916 1301.324 1853.321 458.8392 617.6286 1668.015 4628.555 761.3168

23639.95 2674.54 739.7 1419.94 2483.08 526.5 511.99 1517.12 5697.17 661.38

Comparison of the Results for Used Correlations

50000 Correlations Used 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Experimental Al-Shamsi V&B Lasters Standing

Figure.2 Comparison of the results measured from different correlations.

On comparison of all the correlations from the data set used Standing Correlation developed in 1974 works best for the computed results and shows minimum error amongst all the correlation and shows a close approximation to the experimentally values. Different errors computed for this purpose are shown in table 5

Table 4. Comparison of different errors for the correlation. Standing Correlation r RMSE MAD 3.623 0.66352 0.44026 Laster Correlation 2.307 7061.68 -36.9037 V azquez & Beggs (1980) 1.91 6078.19 6078.19 AlShamsi (1999) 3.62 6648.08 -1.511

REFERENCES
EL-SEBAKHY, E., & MEDAI, I. (2009). DATA MINING IN FORECASTING PVT CORRELATIONS OF CRUDE OIL SYSTEMS BASED ON TYPE 1 FUZZY LOGIC INFERENCE SYSTEMS. Computers & Geosciences, 35(9), 1817-1826.

Lasateret, J.A. (1958). Bubble Point pressure correlation Moradi.B. (2010) Bubble Point Pressure Empirical Correlations, Islamic Azad University, Omidieh, SPE, Petroleum university of Technology