LBC Viscosity Modeling of Gas Condensate To Heavy Oil, Tao Yang, SPE 109892, 2007

‫جامــعة بنـــغازي‬
‫مجلة العلوم والدراسات اإلنسانية – المرج‬

‫مجلة علمية الكترونية محكمة‬
ISSN : 2312 – 4962 4102 / 482 ‫رقم اإليداع بدار الكتب الوطنية‬
New (Bubble-point pressure and Gas solubility and Oil formation

volume factor at Bubble-point pressure) Correlations for Libyan
Crude Oil with most known PVT correlations Comparison
Hamid.H.Almanfi
(petroleum engineering)
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
ABSTRACT
A new correlations for estimating the bubble point pressure & gas solubility & oil
formation volume factor at bubble point pressure of Libyan crude oils using 35
experimentally obtained from different Libyan oil fields. The point of comparison to
evaluation the quality of new correlations. PVT correlations made to estimate the absent
crude oil properties and can save time & money, where this data very important for the
reservoir engineer. In this study we made correlations for Libyan crude oil to support
researching of Libyan petroleum industry.
1. Introduction
In most industries save time & money very important. Same in petroleum industry. After
oil field discover and begin to production the petroleum engineer (reservoir engineer)
starting making study abut all factors effect on oil production from reservoir to surface &
speculation future problems. One of big incident its bubble-point pressure (reservoir
pressure drop to bubble-point pressure). In this incident most oil properties chaining. Can
estimate bubble-point pressure by taking oil fluid sample from reservoir (bottom well) to
laboratory test (PVT tests), But that take more time & money. Than come academic
researchers like Standing give one of solutions type to save time & money by
correlations.
The basic form of different correlations for oil phase properties are derived from
Standing’s initial equation as Pb = f(Rs, γg, γo, T) Therefore, the required data for input
to all correlations are Rs, γg, γo, and T and a specified range of pressure. The first three
parameters, Rs, γg, and γo, are referred to either separator or stock tank conditions for all
correlations.
2. The calculations of correlations
2.1. Bubble-point pressure correlation calculation

The effect of this parameters (Rs , γg,API,T) on Pb was evident, Where API larger
standard error (SE) 0.379536 & lower is T 0.000557 .
0
‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

The experimentally determined bubblepoint pressures obtained from PVT analyses of 35

different Libyan fields.
The mathematical method was used its least squares (LS), where least squares is a
standard approach in regression analysis to the approximate solution of over determined
systems, perhaps first expressed by Roger Cotes in 1722.
𝑃𝑏 =275.3878578×𝑅𝑆0.600065268242 ×𝛾𝑔− 2.44603416074 ×
𝐴𝑃𝐼 − 1.0621409305 𝑒 0.00573453967684×𝑇 ………………………………………….. (1)
Where:-
Pb = bubble-point pressure (psia),
Rs = solution gas- oil ratio (scf / STB),
𝛾𝑔 = dissolved gas relative density (air = 1),
API = stock-tank oil gravity,
T = reservoir temperature (°F).
2.2. Gas Solubility Correlation calculation

The most researchers find the effect of this parameters (P, T, API, γg) on Rs , but we find
in Libyan crude Rs Affected by (Pb,Bob, γg,API,T), Where API larger standard error
(SE) 0.584410& lower is Pb 0.102114.
The experimentally determined Gas Solubility obtained from PVT analyses of 35
different Libyan fields.
The mathematical method was used its least squares (LS).
𝑅𝑆 =7.838733515×10−4 ×𝛾𝑔0.0313402153843 ×𝐴𝑃𝐼 2.27543022551 ×𝑇 − 0.202920351523 ×
𝑃𝑏0.799049256752 ×𝐵𝑜𝑏
1.11251541562
………………………………….. (2)
Where:-
Pb = bubble-point pressure (psia),
P = reservoir pressure (psia),
T = reservoir temperature (°F),
Bob = Oil formation volume factor at Bubble-point pressure.
3
2.3. Oil Formation Volume Factor Correlation calculation

The researchers find the effect of this parameters (Rs, 𝛾𝑔 , 𝛾𝑜 ,T) on Bob , but we find in
Libyan crude Bob Affected by (Rs, 𝛾𝑔 , 𝛾𝑜 ,T,API), Where 𝛾𝑔 larger standard error (SE)
0.067527& lower is T 0.000163.
The experimentally determined Oil Formation Volume Factor obtained from PVT
analyses of 35 different Libyan fields.
The mathematical method was used its least squares (LS).
𝐵𝑜𝑏 =0.00071895912202×Rs+0.42976276678×𝛾𝑔 +0.799227866121×𝛾𝑜 -
6.63211238086×10−122 ×𝑇 𝐴𝑃𝐼 ………………….. (3)
Where:-
Bob = Oil formation volume factor at Bubble-point pressure.
𝛾𝑜 = specific gravity of the stock-tank oil,
T = reservoir temperature (°F).
2.4. Statistical Error Analysis calculation

2.4.1. Average Absolute Error (AAE) Absolute error and relative error are two types of
experimental error for correlation quality, where average absolute error its average sum
of absolute relative error, relative error its different between actual value & measured
value per actual value.
𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒− 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
Relative error = ………………….. (4)
𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
1 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒− 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

AAE = 𝑛 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 | | ………………….. (5)
𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
Where n values number & i = 1, 2,……n

2.4.2. R-squared The correlation coefficient, denoted R2 or r2 and pronounced R
squared, is a coefficient that illustrates a quantitative measure of some type of correlation
and dependence, meaning statistical relationships between two or more random variables
or observed data values.
∑𝑛
1 (𝑋𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 −𝑋𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 )
2 1
𝑅 2 = 1-[ 𝑛
∑1 (𝑋𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 −𝑋̅ )2
] ………… (6), 𝑋̅ = ∑𝑛1(𝑋𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 )𝑖
𝑛
…………….. (7)
2
3. Comparison results
we chose grope of most known PVT correlations to compare by our correlations, The
point from comparison results its evaluation the quality of correlation ,the principle of the
chose adopted on international compare & near region compare(middle east ),The
Statistical Error Analysis compare show quality & error ratios between correlations,
where we chose R-squared & AAE fit this type of correlations. Cross-plot is synonym for
scatter plots used primarily to describe a specialized chart that compares multiple
measurements made at a single time or location along two or more axes. The cross-plot
compare other type correlation quality estimator, showing error percentage range of data
& percentage deviation of data correlation line.
3.1. Bubble-point pressure correlations compare
Statistical Error Analysis table compare The table 1.1 show the seven chosen
correlations, Standing, Glaso, Marhoun, Vasquez-Beggs, Petrosky-Farshad, Dokla-
Osman, AI-Shammasi, compare with this study. The second column contain R^2 for all
correlations, notice Petrosky-Farshad correlation was highest value after this study& AI-
Shammasi lower, where when R^2 close from 1 value that mean correlation error very
low. And show AAE% column notice Standing correlation was lowest after this study&
Petrosky-Farshad highest, where AAE% close to zero value that mean correlation error
very low.
Cross-plot graphics compare The figures (2.1 to 2.8) show cross-plot graphics where the
vertical axis for correlation data (calculated data) & horizontal axis for experimentally
data (measured data). Notice Petrosky-Farshad graph was data coordinates closer to cross
axes line (after this study) that mean the actual data more homogeneous with Petrosky-
Farshad correlation & AI-Shammasi farthest.
4
‫‪ISSN : 2312 – 4962‬‬ ‫رقم اإليداع بدار الكتب الوطنية ‪4102 / 482‬‬
‫‪Table 1.1 Statistical Error Analysis compare of Bubble-point pressure correlations‬‬
‫العدد الواحد والعشرون ‪ /02 -‬نوفمبر ‪0202‬م‬
‫‪5‬‬
figure 2.1 cross-plot of Standing correlation data V.S measured data of Bubble-point
pressure correlation
figure 2.2 cross-plot of Glaso correlation data V.S measured data of Bubble-point
figure 2.3 cross-plot of Marhoun correlation data V.S measured data of Bubble-point
6
figure 2.4 cross-plot of Vasquez-Beggs correlation data V.S measured data of Bubble-
point pressure correlation
figure 2.5 cross-plot of Petrosky-Farshad correlation data V.S measured data of Bubble-
point pressure correlation
figure 2.6 cross-plot of Dokla-Osman correlation data V.S measured data of Bubble-point
7

4102 / 482 ‫رقم اإليداع بدار الكتب الوطنية‬
figure 2.7 cross-plot of AI-Shammasi correlation data V.S measured data of Bubble-point
Table 1.2 Statistical Error Analysis compare of Gas Solubility

correlations
MA Pb gas
CORRELA MiN
AAE X RANG gravity
TION AAE
% AAE E
NAME 𝑹𝟐 % γg
% (psia)
179- 0.676-
This Study 0.924 13.95 0.293 0.002
3332 1.062
Hemmati & 0.693 86.78 348- 0.523-

0.939 0.794
Kharrat 4 5 5156 1.415
Petrosky- 0.763 75.28 1574- 0.578-
0.888 0.164
Farshad 5 4 6523 0.852
Vasquez- 0.754 56.74
0.777 0.383
Beggs 4 4
ISSN : 2312 – 4962
0.024 272.4 39.64 121- 0.725-

Marhoun 0.098
9 73 2 6557 1.367
0.077 139.5 17.80 150- 0.65-
Glaso 0.015
6 08 6 6641 1.276
0.709 26.01 130- 0.59-
Standing 0.606 0.01
2 2 7000 0.95
8
16.3-45
RANG
31.93-
48.34
44.34
16.5-
22.3-
19.4-
18.8-
63.8
48.1
44.6
API
E
RANG
80-280
74-240
309.7
E (F)
77.5-
100-
114-
117-
258
288
290
T
RAN
BOB
2.17
GE
1-
figure 2.8 cross-plot of this study correlation data V.S measured data of Bubble-point
3.2.Gas Solubility correlations compare

Statistical Error Analysis table compare The table 1.2 show the six chosen correlations,
Standing, Glaso, Marhoun, Vasquez-Beggs, Petrosky-Farshad, Hemmati-Kharrat,
compare with this study. The second column contain R^2 for all correlations, notice
Petrosky-Farshad correlation was highest value after this study& Marhoun lower. And
show AAE% column notice Standing correlation was lowest after this study& Marhoun
highest.
cross-plot graphics compare The figures (1.9 to 1.15) show cross-plot graphics where
the vertical axis for correlation data (calculated data) & horizontal axis for experimentally
data (measured data). Notice Petrosky-Farshad graph was data coordinates closer to cross
axes line (after this study) & Marhoun farthest.
9
figure 2.9 cross-plot of Standing correlation data V.S measured data of Gas Solubility
correlation
figure 2.10 cross-plot of Glaso correlation data V.S measured data of Gas Solubility
correlation
figure 2.11 cross-plot of Marhoun correlation data V.S measured data of Gas Solubility
correlation
01
figure 2.12 cross-plot of Vasquez-Beggs correlation data V.S measured data of Gas
Solubility correlation
figure 2.13 cross-plot of Petrosky-Farshad correlation data V.S measured data of Gas
figure 2.14 cross-plot of Hemmati-Kharrat correlation data V.S measured data of Gas
00
figure 2.15 cross-plot of this study correlation data V.S measured data of Gas Solubility
correlation
3.4. Oil Formation Volume Factor at bubble point pressure compare

Statistical Error Analysis table compare The table 1.3 show the six chosen
correlations, Standing, Glaso, Marhoun, Vasquez-Beggs, Petrosky-Farshad, Hemmati-
Kharrat, compare with this study. The second column contain R^2 for all correlations,
notice Standing & Vasquez-Beggs correlations was highest values after this study&
Petrosky-Farshad lower. And show AAE%
column notice Hemmati-Kharrat correlation was lowest after this study& Glaso highest.
cross-plot graphics compare The figures (1.16 to 1.22) show cross-plot graphics where
the vertical axis for correlation data (calculated data) & horizontal axis for experimentally
data (measured data). Notice Standing graph was data coordinates closer to cross axes
line (after this study) & Petrosky-Farshad farthest.
03

4102 / 482 ‫رقم اإليداع بدار الكتب الوطنية‬
Table 1.3 Statistical Error Analysis compare of Oil Formation Volume Factor correlations SGO
MA Rs S.G.G T
MIN API RANG
CORRELAT AA X RANGE RANGE RAN
𝑹𝟐 AAE RANG E
ION NAME E% AA (SCF/ST GE
% 𝜸 𝒈
E
E% B) (F) 𝜸𝒐
0.995 1.68 0.05 9.80E- 12.9- 0.676- 25.9- 117- 0.573-
This Study
9 3 3 14 3231 0.942 50.7 310 0.898
Hemmati & 0.324 0.16 12.5- 0.523- 18.8- 77.5-
4.47 0.001
Kharrat 5 4 2189.25 1.415 48.34 290
Petrosky- 0.126 6.49 0.49 0.578- 114-
0.0001 217-1406 16.3-45
Farshad 8 5 7 0.851 288
Vasquez- 0.969 5.60 0.23
0.0003
Beggs 3 1 2
ISSN : 2312 – 4962
0.873 5.86 0.34 0.752- 19.4-

Marhoun 0.001 26-1602 74-240
6 2 6 1.367 44.6
0.959 6.78 0.14 0.65- 22.3-
Glaso 0.021 90-2637 80-280
9 3 1 1.276 48.1
0.19 16.5- 100-
Standing 0.969 4.66 0.009 20-1425 0.59-0.95
2 63.8 258
9
02
figure 1.16 cross-plot of Standing correlation data V.S measured data of Oil Formation
Volume Factor at bubble point pressure
figure 1.17 cross-plot of Glaso correlation data V.S measured data of Oil Formation
figure 1.18 cross-plot of Marhoun correlation data V.S measured data of Oil Formation
figure 1.19 cross-plot of Vasquez-Beggs correlation data V.S measured data of Oil
Formation Volume Factor at bubble point pressure
04
figure 1.20 cross-plot of Petrosky-Farshad correlation data V.S measured data of Oil
figure 1.21 cross-plot of Hemmati-Kharrat correlation data V.S measured data of Oil
figure 1.22 cross-plot of this study correlation data V.S measured data of Oil Formation
05
Conclusions
1.The correlation more accuracy in this study its oil formation volume factor at bubble-
point pressure, after that come bubble-point pressure correlation & gas solubility
correlation.
2. The gas solubility of Libyan crude affected clearly by (Pb,Bob, γg,API,T) parameters.
3. The oil formation volume factor bubble-point pressure of Libyan crude affected clearly
by (Rs, γ_g, γ_o,T,API) parameters.
4. The effect of Libyan crude API on correlations was evident.
Nomenclature
°F Fahrenheit degree
AAE Average Absolute Error
API American Petroleum Institute (stock-tank oil
gravity)
MAX maximum
MIN minimum
PVT pressure volume temperature
R correlation coefficient
scf standard cubic feet
STB stock tank barrel
V.S versus
Bo Oil formation volume factor
Bob Oil formation volume factor at bubble-point pressure
Pb bubble-point pressure
Rs Gas solubility
T reservoir temperature
γg gas specific gravity
γo stock-tank oil specific gravity
06
REFERENCES
1.Ahmed AI-Zahaby and Ahmed EI-Banbi and Mohamed H. Sayyouh,Guidelines for
Selecting Appropriate PVT Correlations for Black Oils,the North Africa
TechnicalConference and Exhibition,SPE 150650,Cairo,Egypt,20-22 February 2012,1-
16.
2. Ahmed, Tarek. H.(2010).Reservoir engineering handbook,fourth edition,USA:Gulf
Professional Publishing
3. B. Moradi,(2010),Bubble Point Pressure Empirical Correlation,the Trinidad and
Tobago Energy Resources Conference,SPE 132756,Spain,Trinidad,27-30 June 2010,1-
11.
4. Curtis H. Whitson,(1998),Fluid Sampling & Laboratory Data.in:NORSK
HYDRO,Field Development & Technology Reservoir Technology.
5. H. DaleBeggs,Oil System Correlations,in PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
HANDBOOK.
6. M.N. Hemmati and R. Kharrat,(2007),Evaluation of Empirically Derived PVT
Properties for Middle East Crude Oils,Scientia Iranica,No. 4,Sharif University of
Technology, August 2007,358-368.
7. Muhammad All AI.Marhoun,PYT Correlations for Middle East Crude Oils,SPE
Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition,SPE 13718,Bahrain, March 11-
14.1985,1-17.
8. R. Wu, and L. Rosenegger,(1999),Comparison of PVT Properties from Equation of
State Analysis and PVT Correlations for Reservoir Studies,Petroleum Society Joint
Convention,Alberta. Canada. June 14 – 18, 1999,99-38.
07

LBC Viscosity Modeling of Gas Condensate To Heavy Oil, Tao Yang, SPE 109892, 2007

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LBC Viscosity Modeling of Gas Condensate To Heavy Oil, Tao Yang, SPE 109892, 2007

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

‫جامــعة بنـــغازي‬

‫مجلة العلوم والدراسات اإلنسانية – المرج‬

New (Bubble-point pressure and Gas solubility and Oil formation

2.1. Bubble-point pressure correlation calculation

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

The experimentally determined bubblepoint pressures obtained from PVT analyses of 35

2.2. Gas Solubility Correlation calculation

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

2.3. Oil Formation Volume Factor Correlation calculation

2.4. Statistical Error Analysis calculation

1 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒− 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

Where n values number & i = 1, 2,……n

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

‫‪Table 1.1 Statistical Error Analysis compare of Bubble-point pressure correlations‬‬

‫العدد الواحد والعشرون ‪ /02 -‬نوفمبر ‪0202‬م‬

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

Table 1.2 Statistical Error Analysis compare of Gas Solubility

Hemmati & 0.693 86.78 348- 0.523-

0.024 272.4 39.64 121- 0.725-

3.2.Gas Solubility correlations compare

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

3.4. Oil Formation Volume Factor at bubble point pressure compare

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

0.873 5.86 0.34 0.752- 19.4-

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

‫م‬0202 ‫ نوفمبر‬/02 - ‫العدد الواحد والعشرون‬

Вам также может понравиться