SPE 120047

The Oil Compressibility Below Bubble Point Pressure Revisited–

Formulations and Estimations
Muhammad Ali Al-Marhoun1, SPE, King Fahd U. of Petroleum and Minerals
1
Now with Reservoir Technologies, Saudi Arabia

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and Conference held in the Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Kingdom of Bahrain, 15–18 March 2009.

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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Oil compressibility plays an important role in reservoir simulation, material balance calculations, design of high-pressure
surface-equipment and the interpretation of well test analysis, specifically for systems below the bubble point pressure.
Accurate information on the oil fluid compressibility above and below bubble point pressure is very important for reservoir
evaluation.
The conventional definition of the isothermal oil compressibility below bubble point pressure is being questioned on its
scientific merit and challenged against the basic compressibility definition and the general trend of physical behavior of
compressibility. This paper presents a new derivation based on the basic compressibility definition to calculate the oil
compressibility below bubble point pressure. The experimental data obtained from flash and differential liberation tests is
utilized to determine the isothermal oil compressibility values.
It is found that the oil and gas compressibilities below original oil bubble point pressure computed in the conventional
method may lead to errors in reserve estimation for saturated reservoirs and skin factor in well test analysis.

Introduction
By definition, the single phase isothermal compressibility or the reciprocal bulk modulus of elasticity is defined as the unit
change in volume with pressure. The compressibility can be calculated from the slope of relative volume versus pressure or
from differentiation of a fitted equation to the relative volume curve and is defined as:

1 ⎛ ∂V ⎞
c=− ⎜ ⎟ …………………………………………………………..………………………………..………… (1)
V ⎝ ∂P ⎠ T

Definition of Co above Pb
At pressures above the bubble point the volume of oil decreases with the increase in pressure. This is a normal physical
behavior for fluids. Typical relationship of isothermal oil compressibility co with pressure above the bubble point is shown in
Fig. 1. In equation form, the co is defined as a point function as:

1 ∂Vo 1 ∂Bo 1 ∂ρ o
co = − =− = …………………………..…………………………………………… (2)
Vo ∂P Bo ∂P ρ o ∂P

Conventional Definition of Co below Pb

At pressures below the bubble point the volume of oil decreases with reduction in pressure contrary to the behavior at
pressures above the bubble point. This behavior is clearly noticed in the differential liberation test. This is due to shrinkage
associated with the liberation of the solution gas with decreasing reservoir pressure or swelling of the oil with repressurizing
the reservoir and redissolving the solution gas. Also the density of oil increases with the decrease in pressure due to the
liberation of gases. Therefore the profile of volume and density of liquid oil are opposite to the normal trends in single-phase,
constant-composition fluids.
2 SPE 120047

A direct application of the general definition of isothermal compressibility on oil below the bubble point will lead to
negative compressibility. Therefore, the coefficient of isothermal oil compressibility at pressure below the bubble point
pressure was treated differently. Perrine1 introduces a definition for the compressibility of saturated oil that includes the
shrinkage effect of saturated oil and the expansion effect of gas coming out of solution as follows:

∂Bo , and
Shrinkage of saturated oil =
∂P

∂R s
Gas expansion = −B g
∂P

Therefore co at pressures below the bubble point pressure can be expressed according to Perrine definition as

1 ⎛ ∂ Bo ∂R s ⎞
co = − ⎜ − Bg ⎟ ……………………..…………………………………………………………………… (3)
Bo ⎝ ∂P ∂P ⎠

The typical relationship of co according to Eq. 3 for pressures below the bubble point pressure is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 - Typical oil compressibility curve in petroleum literature.

Equation 3 is the definition of co below the original bubble point pressure accepted by the petroleum engineers and stated
in text books and petroleum technical papers as a fact and not yet been challenged. Here Perrine definition is being questioned
on its scientific merit. The consistency of Eq. 3 is challenged against the basic compressibility definition and the general trend
of physical behavior of compressibility. The expansion effect of gas coming out of solution expressed in Eq. 3 is wrong,
because the gas formation volume factor, Bg, is also changing with pressure. The gas expansion term should be

∂R s ∂B g
Gas expansion = − B g + ( R sb − R s ) …………………………..…………………………………………… (4)
∂P ∂P

This is not the only problem related to Perrine definition, but there is a more serious one. The compressibility as stated in
Eq. 1 is defined for constant composition fluids only. Below bubble point pressure, the liquid oil composition is changing as
pressure decreases. There is no definition of compressibility for such fluid with changing composition. Below the bubble
point pressure, the solution gas is liberated with decreasing reservoir pressure or redissolved with increasing the pressure. The
changes of the oil volume as the result of changing the gas solubility must be considered when determining the isothermal
compressibility coefficient. The oil compressibility in this case is termed saturated isothermal compressibility coefficient.

Conventional Method of Determining Co below Pb

The coefficient of isothermal compressibility is not directly measured in the laboratory. It is usually obtained indirectly from
experimental data recorded in PVT reports. The relative volume from the flash test is used to calculate co at pressures above
the bubble point pressure.
SPE 120047 3

At pressures below the bubble point, the reservoir behavior is simulated by the differential liberation test. The solution
gas-oil ratio Rsd and the oil formation volume factor Bod from the differential liberation test are used in the calculation of co at
pressures below the bubble point pressure. Equation 3 is the basis of such calculations. This method of compressibility
determination is being questioned on its scientific merit and challenged against the basic compressibility definition and the
general trend of physical behavior of compressibility.

Correlations of Co below Pb
Very few publications have been made regarding correlations for co at pressures below the bubble point pressure. Ramey2
published empirical chart correlations for the compressibility of oil below the bubble point pressure based on Perrine1
definition and the work of Martin3 in well testing.
Three empirical models were developed by McCain, et al.4 using laboratory test data of black oils from 260 well locations
worldwide. The three models differ in the input parameters only. The best model as stated by authors is:

ln(co ) = −7.573 −1.450 ln( p ) − 0.383 ln(Pb )

……………………..……………………………………………… (5)
+1.402 ln(T ) + 0.256 ln (γ API ) + 0.449 ln(Rsb )

The prediction of co below the bubble point by equations of state or empirical correlations are compared against the
calculated values according to Perrine definition with data from differential test. Therefore, if there is a mistake in the
calculation of co, the conclusion of the accuracy of the method is misleading. This is what happened in published correlations
and industrial software based on equations of state. The correlations developed in literature are tested for accuracy against
Eq.3. If Eq. 3 is wrong, this is what the paper will prove, and then all the arguments related to the accuracy of correlations is
questionable.

Paradox of Perrine Definition

In Macias and Ramey paper5, they observed that for the cases they studied, the compressibility of a two-phase system was
always larger than the compressibility of the corresponding gaseous phase at the same conditions. Logically the two-phase
compressibility can not be greater than the gas compressibility under the same conditions. The two-phase compressibility is
the weighted average of the oil and gas compressibilities. The oil compressibility is always smaller than the corresponding gas
compressibility. Therefore it can be easily proven mathematically that the two-phase compressibility is smaller than the gas
compressibility under the same conditions. Macias and Ramey5 conclusion is very difficult to believe or be supported
analytically. The reason for such scientifically unsupported conclusion is the way the authors calculated the compressibility
using Perrine definition of Eq. 3.
Experimental data from differential liberation test shows that at pressures below the bubble point, the live oil density
increases as the pressure decreases. Using Perrine definition of compressibility to calculate co below the bubble point shows
that the co increases with the increase in density as shown in Fig. 2. Such behavior cannot happen in nature; the observed
physical behavior is that density and compressibility have opposite trend. The acceptance of petroleum engineers to Perrine
definition is always explained as due to gas released. This reasoning fails to explain the physical phenomenon that oil
compressibility always decreases with the increase of oil density. Therefore such explanation cannot be supported by any
scientific reasoning.

Fig. 2 - Oil compressibility below Pb increases with density according to Perrine definition!!
4 SPE 120047

Manifestation of Negative Compressibility

Experimental data from differential liberation test shows that at pressures below the bubble point, the volume of oil decreases
as the pressure decreases as shown in Fig. 3. Consequently, if the original definition of compressibility expressed in Eq. 1 is
used to calculate co below the bubble point, a negative value will be obtained. In Adepoju thesis6, this phenomenon of
negative value is observed and a removal of the negative sign was suggested, but this has no mathematical basis.

Fig. 3 - Oil formation volume factor below bubble point increases with the increase in pressure.

Most of claims that a fluid exhibits negative compressibility are not true. It is rather a change in fluid composition. The
compressibility is not defined for non constant composition. The phenomenon of negative compressibility is rarely witnessed
in other field without loss of material but change in direction of density due to repulsive and cohesive forces and electrons
activity that causes disorder of molecules7.
Compressibility is positive provided that all material stays as one phase, whenever part of the material is removed or
escaped forming another phase, the definition does not hold. Below bubble point, oil formation volume factor Bo decreases
with the decrease in pressure. The slope of Bo below Pb (dBo/dp) cannot be used to calculate co because there are two phases
with changing compositions. The oil compressibility can be calculated if and only if the fluid has a constant composition.
When mass is gained or lost, the fluid composition is not the same. The volume of one of the phases might have a negative
slope due to the loss of mass in that phase that leads to abnormally but well understood decrease of volume with decrease in
pressure.

Solution method of saturated Co

The following section will outline a new definition of isothermal oil compressibility below bubble point pressure and method
of solution to determine its values.

New Definition of Co below Pb

Below the original bubble point pressure, the oil and gas compressibilities are not defined because the mass of oil phase and
the gas phase are not fixed. Mass in either phase is either lost or gained in differential liberation. There is an exchange of
masses between the oil and gas phases. Equation 6 defines the relative masses of oil and gas.

mop = B op γ op
m gp = 2.18x 10−4 (γ gb R sb − γ gp R sp ) ……………………………………………..……………………. (6)
where

γ op = (γ o + 2.18x 10−4 R sp γ gp ) / B op …………………………………………….……..…..…………..…… (7)

Equations 6 and 7 show that the sum of oil and gas masses below Pb is constant as derived below:
SPE 120047 5

m 2φ = mop + m gp
= B op γ op
+ 2.18x 10−4 (γ gb R sb − γ gp R sp )
= (γ o + 2.18x 10−4 R sp γ gp )
+ 2.18x 10−4 (γ gb R sb − γ gp R sp ) ……………………………………………………….…………. (8)
= γ o + 2.18x 10−4 γ gb R sb
= B ob γ ob
where
γ ob = (γ o + 2.18x 10 −4 R sb γ g ) / B ob …………………………………………..…………………………… (9)

Figure 4 shows the masses of oil and gas and their sum of constant value.

Fig. 4 - Total mass of oil and gas is fixed below Pb.

The total mass of both oil and gas below Pb is fixed; therefore the two-phase compressibility with fixed mass is defined as
follows:

1 ∂V 2φ 1 ∂B t 1 ∂ρ 2φ
c 2φ = − =− = ………………………………………………………………………… (10)
V 2φ ∂P B t ∂P ρ 2φ ∂P

Below the original bubble point pressure, there is no single fluid with a fixed composition to calculate its compressibility.
The oil composition is changing as pressure changes. Therefore co below the original bubble point cannot be calculated. The
same goes for the gas, the gas composition is changing as pressure changes. Therefore cg below the original bubble point
pressure of oil cannot be calculated as well.
The compressibility at the Pb is not defined because the derivative of volume with respect to pressure at Pb is not defined.
There is a mathematical cusp at Pb that prevents the definition of volume derivative with respect to pressure to exist and
consequently compressibility as well. But the limit of volume derivative with respect to pressure as pressure approaches
bubble point pressure is defined. Therefore, the locus of co and cg below the original Pb could be estimated.
All points of co below the original Pb are defined as the limit of pressure approaches their new Pb. Equation 2 is valid for
single phase oil liquid above Pb as well as below Pb. The only condition required is that oil volume, density or formation
volume factor and their derivatives with respect to pressure have to be taken along constant composition curve. Above bubble
6 SPE 120047

point pressure, the curve of constant composition is obvious. Below bubble point pressure, the curve of constant composition
is not clear and it is not even drawn.
Any point below the original Pb is a new Pb for a new fluid of different composition as shown in Fig. 5. Figure 5 could be
obtained experimentally if a composite liberation test as described by Dodson, et al.8 is performed. Therefore the oil volume,
density and formation volume factor versus pressure curves are the locus of these properties at saturation pressures for
changing oil compositions.

Fig. 5 - Locus of bubble point oil formation volume factor – Green curve.

The oil compressibility at any bubble point pressure below the original Pb is the extrapolation of co curve of pressures
above that particular saturation or bubble point pressure. Therefore, the locus of co below original bubble point corresponds to
the locus of co at saturation pressures corresponding to the pressure curve for the oil formation volume factor below original
Pb as shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6 - Locus of oil compressibility below the original bubble point pressure – Green curve.

Estimation of Saturated Co
Standing9 pointed out that minor differences exist in the compressibility between liquids of the same density but different
composition, but are not regular enough to take into account. Calhoun10 stated that for a homologous series of compounds,
compressibility varies more or less regularly with the variation in molecular size. This gives rise to the general observation
that for oils of similar base, the compressibility decreases as the density of oil increases. Values of co rarely exceed 35 x 10−6
psi−1. Al-Marhoun11, 12 developed the following equation to estimate co for undersaturated oil.

ln co = a1 + a2 / γ ob + a3 (P − Pb ) / γ 3ob +a4 /(T + 460) …………....…………………………………………………… (11)

SPE 120047 7

where
a1 = 14.1042
a2 = 2.7314
a3 = 56.0605 x 10-6
a4 = 580.8778

The bubble point pressure and temperature are known parameters. The oil relative density at bubble point is calculated from
Eq. 9. The single phase isothermal oil compressibility, Cop, at pressure, p, below the original bubble point pressure is
calculated in terms of the oil density and compressibility at the original bubble point pressure. Equation 9 can be used for one
point estimation of co at saturation pressure and the same temperature with the observation of the correct evaluation of the oil
relative density at the saturated pressure of interest as follows:

ln cob = a5 + a2 / γ ob …………………………………………..…….………………………………………..…… (12)

and
lncop = a5 + a2 / γop …………………………………………………………………………………………..…… (13)
Where

a5 = a1 + a3 (P − Pb )/ γ 3ob +a4 /(T + 460) ………………………………………………………………..…………… (14)

Since any point below the original Pb is a new Pb for a new fluid, the term (P- Pb) in Eq. 14 is equal to zero for any
pressure below the original bubble point pressure. Equation 14 is rewritten as

a5 = a1 + a4 /(T + 460) …………………………………………………………………………………………… (15)

The oil relative density, solution gas oil ratio and oil formation volume factor are calculated at the pressure where co is to be
evaluated. Equation 13 is valid for differential data. For constant composition expansion test data where the two phases are
present, the same equation could be used only at the original bubble point pressure. By combining equations 12 and 13, the co
at any pressure below the original bubble point pressure can be calculated in term of co at the original bubble point pressure
and relative live oil densities at pressure of interest and the original bubble point pressure as follows:

1 1
ln cop = ln cob + a2 ( − ) ……………………………………………………………………………………… (16)
γop γob

Two Phase Compressibility

The two-phase coefficient of isothermal compressibility below the bubble point will be the combination of the coefficient of
isothermal gas compressibility and the coefficient of the isothermal oil compressibility below the bubble point pressure. This
combination is achieved by using the volume fraction of the gas to multiply the isothermal compressibility of the gas and the
volume fraction of the oil to multiply the isothermal compressibility of the oil. The derivation of this weighted average
combination follows.
Utilizing the basic definition of compressibility, the two phase isothermal compressibility or c2φ can be defined as:

1 ∂V 2φ 1 ∂B t 1 ∂ρ 2φ
c 2φ = − =− = ………………………………………………………………………… (17)
V 2φ ∂P B t ∂P ρ 2φ ∂P

But by definition, the two phase formation volume factor is:

B t = B o + B g ( R sb − R s ) / 5.6146 ……………………………………………………….………………………… (18)
Taking the derivative of both sides of the equation yields:
8 SPE 120047

dB t dB o d {B g (R sb − R s )}
= + / 5.6146 ……………………………………………….………………………… (19)
dP dP dP

The oil formation volume factor curve below the original Pb is a changing composition curve. Therefore, the slope of the Bo
below the original Pb at any pressure is negative if taken along Bo curve. The slope dBo/dp in Eq. 19 should be taken along a
constant composition curve at the pressure of interest as shown in Fig. 7. The pressure of interest where dBo/dp is to be
evaluated is a new bubble point pressure. The constant composition curve is Bo curve above the new bubble point pressure
with a trend similar to Bo curve above the original bubble point pressure.

Fig. 7 – The slope of dBo/dp below Pb is taken along constant composition curve at pressure of interest.

Further mathematical manipulations of Eq. 19 by dividing by (-Bt) gives

⎛ 1 dB t ⎞ B o ⎛ 1 dB o ⎞
⎜− ⎟= ⎜− ⎟
⎝ B t dP ⎠ B t ⎝ B o dP ⎠ ………………….….………….……….………………… (20)
B g (R sb − R s ) / 5.6146 ⎛ 1 d {B g (R sb − R s )} ⎞
+ ⎜− ⎟
Bt ⎜ B g ( R sb − R s ) dP ⎟
⎝ ⎠
The new definition of oil compressibility below Pb with dBo/dp evaluated along constant composition curve is
1 dB o
co = − ………………………….……………………….……………………….……………..…………… (21)
B o dP

The gas compressibility is the unit change of total gas released, Bg (Rsb-Rs), per pressure as follows:

1 d {B g (R sb − R s )}
cg = −
B g (R sb − R s ) dP
1 dR s 1 dB g ………………………………………….……….………….………………… (22)
= −
R sb − R s dP B g dP
1 dR s 1 1 dz
= + −
R sb − R s dP p z dp

Equation 22 is the correct equation to calculate the gas compressibility below oil Pb. Because this equation takes into
account the gas mass changes as a function of pressure. Equations 21 and 22 are incorporated in Eq. 20 to yields Eq.23
relating the three compressibilities with volume of oil and gas.

Bo B − Bo
c 2φ = co + t c g …………… ………………………….………………………….………………………… (23)
Bt Bt
SPE 120047 9

This clearly implies that the two-phase compressibility is the weighted average of the oil and gas compressibility values as
follows:

c 2φ = αco + (1 − α )c g …………………………………………….……………………….………………………… (24)

where

Bo
α= ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… (25)
Bt
The two phase compressibility could be calculated from the flash i.e. constant composition liberation test or could be
obtained from the estimated compressibility values of gas and oil phases from differential liberation test. The gas
compressibility can be calculated in terms of oil and the two phase compressibility as shown below:

c gp = (c 2φ − α c op ) /(1 − α ) ……..……………………..……………………………………….……….……… (26)

Total System Compressibility

Total system compressibility is important in the material balance calculations and interpretation of well test analysis,
specifically for systems below bubble point pressures. For oil and gas system, the total system compressibility is defined as

c t = S o co + S g c g + c f ……………….……………………………………………….……….………………… (27)

where
Vo B
So = = o = α …………………………………………………………….……………………………………… (28)
V 2φ B t

and

Vg B g ( R sb − R s ) / 5.6146
Sg = =
V 2φ Bt ……..…………………………….………………………..…………………… (29)
B − Bo
= t = 1−α
Bt
Conventionally, the oil compressibility is calculated with Eq. 3 and the gas compressibility is calculated from

1 1 dz
cg = − …………………..…………………………………….……….…………………………………… (30)
p z dp

Equation 30 is valid if and only if the gas mass is constant; this is not the case for pressures below Pb. Therefore Eq. 22 is the
correct equation to use. For more accurate result, the following equation in terms of c2φ could be used to avoid the inaccuracy
in the calculation of oil and gas saturations and the calculation of co and cg below original bubble point pressure provided that
c2φ is obtained from flash liberation test:

c t = c 2φ + c f …………………………………………………………….…………………….…………………… (31)

When water is present, the total system compressibility is

c t = S o c o + S g c g + S w cw + c f …………………..…………….……………….……………………………… (32)

Similarly for more accurate result, the following equation could be used to calculate the total system compressibility below
bubble point pressure:
10 SPE 120047

c t = (S o + S g )c 2φ + S w cw + c f
…………………..……………………………………..………………………… (33)
= (1 − S w )c 2φ + S w cw + c f

Sample Calculations
This example considers experimental data obtained from flash liberation and differential liberation tests conducted on a crude
oil sample at reservoir temperature of 222°F as shown in Tables 1 and 2.

TABLE 1: FLASH LIBERATION DATA

Relative Relative
No. Pressure Volume
No. Pressure
Volume
1 3500 0.9793 19 1000 1.1807
2 3400 0.9802 20 950 1.2186
3 3200 0.9820 21 900 1.2618
4 3000 0.9839 22 850 1.3111
5 2800 0.9857 23 800 1.3678
6 2600 0.9877 24 750 1.4334
7 2400 0.9896 25 700 1.5099
8 2200 0.9916 26 650 1.5999
9 2000 0.9936 27 600 1.7068
10 1800 0.9957 28 550 1.8355
11 1600 0.9978 29 500 1.9929
12 1500 0.9989 30 450 2.1890
13 1410 1.0000 31 400 2.4390
14 1300 1.0292 32 350 2.7673
15 1200 1.0682 33 300 3.2151
16 1150 1.0915 34 250 3.8586
17 1100 1.1177 35 200 4.8536
18 1050 1.1473 36 150 6.5760

In Table 2, the 3rd column of relative volume is introduced by dividing every entry of Bo by Bo at differential bubble point
pressure i.e. 1.2986 for this example. This is done to synchronize the flash liberation and differential liberation tests at bubble
point relative volume of 1. This has no effect on compressibility calculations at all because compressibility is a unit change of
volume with respect to pressure. The data from separator test should not be used for such calculations because all
calculations are at the same temperature i.e. reservoir temperature.

TABLE 2: DIFFERENTIAL LIBERATION DATA

Relative
Pressure Bo
Volume
Rs γg
1410 1.2986 1.0000 428 1.0850
1152 1.2752 0.9820 373 1.1363
958 1.2559 0.9671 329 1.1812
749 1.2335 0.9498 280 1.2389
561 1.2105 0.9322 232 1.3042
347 1.1791 0.9080 171 1.4090
183 1.1459 0.8824 113 1.5466
125 1.1297 0.8700 88 1.6295
98 1.1201 0.8625 74 1.6834
15 1.0562 0.8133 0 2.1418
Oil gravity from differential liberation test = 29.3° API
Or oil relative density at standard conditions = 0.8800
Reservoir temperature = 222°F

Calculation of Oil Compressibility

The conventional calculation of the isothermal oil compressibility below the original bubble point pressure of the crude
sample uses Perrine1 definition of Eq. 3. To apply Eq. 3, the oil formation volume factor Bo, the gas formation volume factor
Bg, and their derivatives are calculated from the differential data. The gas formation volume factor is calculated in Table 3.
SPE 120047 11

The pseudo critical pressure and temperature of column 3 and 4 in Table 3 are estimated by Standing13 correlations:

Ppc = 706 − 51.7γ g − 11.1γ g 2 …………………..………...…………………………….………………………… (34)

Tpc = 187 + 330γ g − 71.5γ g 2 ……………………..……..…………………………….…………..……………… (35)

TABLE 3: CALCULATION OF GAS FORMATION VOLUME

FACTOR
P γg Ppc Tpc Ppr Tpr z Bg
1410 1.0850 638 467 2.21 1.46 0.7544 0.0103
1152 1.1363 635 481 1.82 1.42 0.7675 0.0128
958 1.1812 632 492 1.52 1.39 0.7868 0.0158
749 1.2389 628 507 1.19 1.34 0.8162 0.0210
561 1.3042 624 524 0.90 1.30 0.8495 0.0292
347 1.4090 618 551 0.56 1.24 0.8947 0.0497
183 1.5466 609 587 0.30 1.16 0.9355 0.0986
125 1.6295 604 608 0.21 1.12 0.9519 0.1468
98 1.6834 600 622 0.16 1.10 0.9601 0.1889
15 2.1418 571 682 0.03 1.00 0.9922 1.2752

The pseudo reduced pressure of column 5 is calculated by dividing the pressure of column 1 by the pseudo critical
pressure of column 3. Similarly the pseudo reduced temperature of column 6 is calculated by dividing the reservoir
temperature of 682 degrees Rankine by the pseudo critical temperature of column 4. The gas compressibility factor of column
7 is calculated by using Dranchuk and Abou-Kassem14 correlation. The gas formation volume factor of column 8 is calculated
from Eq. 36.

zT
B g = 0.02826923 …………………..……………………………………………….………………………… (36)
P
The conventional co is calculated in Table 4. The differential data are fitted with cubic spline functions where interpreted
values with their derivatives are retained at desired pressures. The oil formation volume factor Bo of column 2 is fitted with
cubic spline equation that retains the derivative in column 4. Similarly solution gas oil ratio Rs of column 3 is fitted with cubic
spline equation that retains the derivative in column 5. The gas formation volume factor of column 6 is obtained from Table 3.
In column 7, the co below bubble point is calculated according to Perrine definition of Eq. 3.

TABLE 4: CALCULATION OF Co BELOW BUBBLE

POINT- PERRINE DEFINITION
dBo/dp Con.
P Bo Rs 3 dr/dp Bg 6
x10 Cox10
1410 1.2986 428 0.0877 0.2103 0.0103 230
1152 1.2752 373 0.0948 0.2190 0.0128 319
958 1.2559 329 0.1022 0.2282 0.0158 431
749 1.2335 280 0.1141 0.2440 0.0210 648
561 1.2105 232 0.1310 0.2663 0.0292 1036
347 1.1791 171 0.1695 0.3151 0.0497 2222
183 1.1459 113 0.2494 0.4039 0.0986 5969
125 1.1297 88 0.3225 0.4771 0.1468 10758
98 1.1201 74 0.3823 0.5301 0.1889 15579
15 1.0562 0 1.4705 0.8179 1.2752 174498

In Table 5, the live oil density is calculated from Eq. 7 with oil relative density at standard conditions of 0.88 for this
example and reported in column 6. In column 7, the co below bubble point is calculated according to the new definition using
Eq. 13 or Eq. 16.
12 SPE 120047

TABLE 5: CALCULATION OF Co BELOW BUBBLE

POINT- NEW DEFINITION
Rel. live New
P Bo Rs γg γo C 6
Vol. ox10

1410 1.0000 1.2986 428 1.0850 0.7556 11.26

1152 0.9820 1.2752 373 1.1363 0.7625 10.89
958 0.9671 1.2559 329 1.1812 0.7681 10.61
749 0.9498 1.2335 280 1.2389 0.7747 10.29
561 0.9322 1.2105 232 1.3042 0.7814 9.99
347 0.9080 1.1791 171 1.4090 0.7908 9.58
183 0.8824 1.1459 113 1.5466 0.8012 9.16
125 0.8700 1.1297 88 1.6295 0.8066 8.96
98 0.8625 1.1201 74 1.6834 0.8099 8.83
15 0.8133 1.0562 0 2.1418 0.8332 8.04

Comparison of Co Values below Pb

Table 6 and Fig. 8 present a comparison between compressibility values calculated according to Perrine1 definition of Eq. 3
and the new definition of Eq. 16. The absolute relative error is extremely large.

Fig. 8 - Oil compressibility below original bubble point pressure.

TABLE 6: COMPARISON OF Co BELOW BUBBLE POINT

Conventional New Relative
Pressure
Cox106 Cox106 Error, Er
1410 230 11.26 1,944
1152 319 10.89 2,825
958 431 10.61 3,963
749 648 10.29 6,193
561 1036 9.99 10,269
347 2222 9.58 23,095
183 5969 9.16 65,034
125 10758 8.96 120,023
98 15579 8.83 176,260
15 174498 8.04 2,170,350

Comparison of Cg Values below Pb

Table 7 and Fig. 9 present a comparison between the three gas compressibility values discussed. The first one is calculated
according to the new definition expressed by Eq. 22 where differential liberation data are used. The second one is according
to the new definition expressed by Eq. 26 where flash liberation data are used. The third one is according to conventional
definition of Eq. 30. Equations 22 and 26 have the same trend and the difference between them is due to the way the gas z-
factor estimation is done. Equation 30 should not be used for gases with changing composition.
SPE 120047 13

TABLE 7: GAS COMPRESSIBILITY VALUES

BELOW OIL BUBBLE POINT PRESSURE
Eq. 22 Eq. 26 Eq. 30
Pressure
Cg x106 Cg x106 Cg x106
1410 65535 65535 861
1152 5085 4259 1103
958 3635 3133 1329
749 3307 2878 1658
561 3486 3083 2127
347 4474 4091 3248
183 7143 6874 5861
125 9824 9710 8420
98 12140 12201 10642
15 69108 76911 67197

Fig. 9 - Gas compressibility Values below the original oil bubble point pressure.

Comparison of Compressibilities below Pb

The conventional calculation of the two-phase compressibilities below the original bubble point pressure is calculated from
the weighted average of oil and gas compressibilities using Eq. 24. The oil compressibility is calculated from Eq. 3 and the
gas compressibility is calculated from Eq. 30. Table 8 and Fig. 10 show the three compressibilities below original bubble
point pressure. For the example studied in this work, it is observed that co may be higher than cg at low pressures. This is due
to the application of Perrine definition of Eq.3.

TABLE 8: COMPRESSIBILITY VALUES BELOW

BUBBLE POINT- PERRINE DEFINITION

Pressure Cox106 Cg x106 C2φ x106

1410 230 861 268

1152 319 1103 450
958 431 1329 653
749 648 1658 988
561 1036 2127 1503
347 2222 3248 2769
183 5969 5861 5741
125 10758 8420 8660
98 15579 10642 11197
15 174498 67197 76191
14 SPE 120047

Fig. 10 - Compressibilities below bubble point pressure using Perrine definition.

Utilizing the data in Table 1 and the definition of Eq. 17 in terms of two phase relative volume, the two-phase
compressibility is calculated in column 4 of Table 9. Utilizing, Eqs. 16 and 26, the gas compressibility below the original oil
bubble point pressure is calculated as shown in Table 9. Figure 11 shows the three compressibilities below original bubble
point pressure. The gas compressibility is always greater than the two-phase compressibility. The oil compressibility has the
smallest values.

TABLE 9: COMPRESSIBILITY VALUES BELOW

BUBBLE POINT-NEW DEFINITION

Pressure Cox106 Cg x106 C2φ x106 α=Bo/Bt

1410 11.26 65535 268 1.0000

1152 10.89 4259 450 0.8965
958 10.61 3133 653 0.7943
749 10.29 2878 988 0.6591
561 9.99 3083 1503 0.5142
347 9.58 4091 2769 0.3240
183 9.16 6874 5741 0.1649
125 8.96 9710 8660 0.1083
98 8.83 12201 11197 0.0823
15 8.04 76911 76191 0.0094

Fig. 11 - Compressibilities below bubble point pressure using the new definition.
SPE 120047 15

Comparison of Co versus Live Oil Density

In Table 10, co and the live oil density are calculated for pressures above the original bubble point pressure using Eq.7 with oil
relative density at standard conditions of 0.88 for this example. The oil formation volume factor of column 3 is calculated by
multiplying the relative volume of column 2 with the Bo at bubble point. The solution gas oil ratio and relative densities of oil
and gas are those of differential bubble point values. The oil relative volume of column 2 is fitted with cubic spline equation
that returns the derivative that is recorded in column 5. The oil compressibility above bubble point is calculated using Eq. 1,
i.e. negative of column 5 divided by column 2.

TABLE 10: CALCULATION OF Co ABOVE BUBBLE

POINT PRESSURE
Rel. live d rel. vol./ 6
P Bo Cox10
Vol. γo dp*x106
3500 0.9793 1.2717 0.7716 -9.0776 9.27
3400 0.9802 1.2729 0.7709 -9.1246 9.31
3200 0.9820 1.2752 0.7694 -9.2264 9.40
3000 0.9839 1.2776 0.7680 -9.3400 9.49
2800 0.9857 1.2801 0.7665 -9.4679 9.60
2600 0.9877 1.2826 0.7650 -9.6135 9.73
2400 0.9896 1.2851 0.7635 -9.7812 9.88
2200 0.9916 1.2877 0.7620 -9.9769 10.06
2000 0.9936 1.2903 0.7605 -10.2090 10.27
1800 0.9957 1.2930 0.7589 -10.4897 10.54
1600 0.9978 1.2957 0.7573 -10.8372 10.86
1500 0.9989 1.2971 0.7564 -11.0443 11.06
1410 1.0000 1.2986 0.7556 -11.2563 11.26

Figures 12 and 13 show the oil compressibility versus pressure and live oil relative density respectively. Columns 1, 4 and
9 of Table 10 and column 1, 6 and 7 of Table 5 are used to construct Figs. 12 and 13.

Fig. 12 - Oil compressibility is continuous and differentiable everywhere except at the Pb cusp.

Figure 12 clearly shows that the oil compressibility above and below bubble point according to the new definition is
continuous and differentiable except at original bubble point pressure cusp. Figure 13 clearly shows that the oil
compressibility increases with the decrease of density below as well as above bubble point pressure.
16 SPE 120047

Fig. 13 - Oil compressibility everywhere decreases with the increase in density.

Discussion of the New Definition of Co below Pb

The new definition and calculation of co below original bubble point pressure will resolve all conflicting abnormalities and
unexplained observations due to the conventional Perrine definition of Eq. 3.
With the new definition of co below the original bubble point and the conventional definition of co above the original
bubble point; the compressibility of oil is continuous from atmospheric pressure to infinity. Also the oil compressibility
function is differentiable everywhere except at bubble point where it forms a cusp as shown in Fig. 12. Also the oil
compressibility is consistent with the observed physical behavior. The oil compressibility increases with the decrease of
density below as well as above bubble point pressure as shown in Fig. 13.
In contrast to the paradox of Fig. 10 where co may be greater than c2φ which in turn greater than cg, the oil compressibility
below bubble point according to the new definition is always less than the two phase compressibility which in turn less than
the gas compressibility at the same conditions as shown in Fig. 11.
It is noticed here that the isothermal gas compressibility below the original oil bubble point pressure decreases with
pressure at low pressures behaving like an ideal gas. At moderately high pressures the gas compressibility increases with
pressure due to fact that gas density of liberated gas decreases as pressure increases as shown in Fig. 14. The composition of
gas mixture is not important for ideal gases since all ideal gases behave similarly while the composition is important at
moderately higher pressure.
It is found that the oil compressibility below bubble point pressure computed in the conventional method using Eq. 27 and
32 may lead to errors in reserve estimation for saturated reservoirs and errors in skin factor in well test analysis through the
total compressibility term. These equations can be replaced by Eqs. 31 and 33 to avoid inaccuracy associated with Perrine
definition of Eq. 3.

Fig. 14 - Gas gravity versus pressure below original bubble point.

The new definition of co below Pb is always positive while in co as expressed by Perrine definition of Eq. 3 is not the case.
The oil compressibility must be checked against the following consistency criterion to guarantee that co is positive:
SPE 120047 17

∂B o ∂R s
< Bg ……………………..……………………………………………………………………….…..…… (37)
∂P ∂P
This consistency error occurs at higher pressures as shown by Eq. 36 where, Bg, is inversely proportional to pressure. Such
consistency check is a must in reservoir simulation with Perrine definition of co below Pb.

Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from this study.
1. The conventional definition of the oil compressibility below bubble point pressure is being questioned and found to be
inconsistent with physical behavior manifested by the increase of oil compressibility with the increase of density.
2. Below bubble point, the oil formation volume factor decreases with the decrease in pressure giving rise to apparent
negative compressibility below original bubble point pressure. This phenomenon of apparent negative compressibility is
discussed and it is shown to be due to composition changes.
3. A new definition for the coefficient of saturated isothermal oil compressibility is formulated and its calculation is
outlined. Equation 16 is found to be an excellent approximation. The new formulation is consistent with physical
behavior as a function of density and pressure.
4. The determination of the saturated isothermal oil compressibility is obtained from the estimation of oil compressibility at
bubble point pressure and the oil relative densities at original bubble point pressure and pressure of interest.
5. In contrast to the paradox of Perrine definition of Eq. 3, the oil compressibility below original bubble point according to
the new definition is always less than the two phase compressibility which in turn less than the gas compressibility at the
same conditions.
6. The oil compressibility above and below bubble point according to the new definition is continuous and differentiable
except at original bubble point pressure cusp.
7. The compressibility computed in the conventional method may lead to errors in reserve estimation for saturated
reservoirs and skin factor in well test analysis.
8. The conventional calculation of gas compressibility below the original oil bubble point pressure (Eq. 30) is wrong due to
changing gas composition. Equation 22 is mathematically found to be the right replacement to Eq. 30.

Nomenclature
ai = ith coefficient of Eq. 11
Bg = gas FVF , rcf/scf (m3/m3)
Bo = oil FVF, rb/stb (m3/m3)
Bob = oil FVF at Pb, rb/stb (m3/m3)
Bod = differential oil FVF, rb/stb (m3/m3)
Bop = oil FVF at pressure p, rb/stb (m3/m3)
Bt = two-phase FVF, rb/stb (m3/m3)
c = compressibility, psi-1 (kPa-1)
c2φ = two-phase compressibility, psi-1 (kPa-1)
cf = formation compressibility, psi-1 (kPa-1)
cg = gas compressibility, psi-1 (kPa-1)
co = oil compressibility, psi-1 (kPa-1)
cob = oil compressibility at Pb, psi-1 (kPa-1)
cop = oil compressibility at p, psi-1 (kPa-1)
ct = total system compressibility, psi-1 (kPa-1)
cw = water compressibility, psi-1 (kPa-1)
Er = percent relative error of co below Pb
= 100. (co current- co new)/ co new
m2φ = two-phase relative mass
mgp = gas relative mass
mop = oil relative mass
P = pressure, psi (kPa)
Pb = bubble point pressure, psi (kPa)
Ppc = pseudo critical pressure, psi (kPa)
Ppr = pseudo reduced pressure
18 SPE 120047

Rs = solution gas oil ratio, scf/stb (m3/m3)

Rsb = solution gas oil ratio at Pb, scf/stb (m3/m3)
Rsd = differential solution gas oil ratio, scf/stb (m3/m3)
Rsp = solution gas oil ratio at p , scf/stb (m3/m3)
Sg = gas saturation, fraction
So = oil saturation, fraction
Sw = water saturation, fraction
T = temperature, °F (K)
Tpc = pseudo critical temperature, °R (K)
Tpr = pseudo reduced temperature
V = volume, scf (m3)
V2φ = two-phase volume, scf (m3)
Vo = oil volume, stb (m3)
z = gas compressibility factor
α = oil volume/two-phase volume, fraction= Bo/Bt
γAPI = stock-tank oil gravity, ºAPI =141.5/γo -131.5
γg = gas relative density (air = 1)
γgb = gas relative density at Pb (air = 1)
γgp = gas relative density at pressure p (air = 1)
γo = oil relative density (water= 1)
γod = differential oil relative density (water= 1)
γob = bubble point oil relative density (water= 1)
γop = oil relative density at p (water= 1)
ρ2φ = two-phase density, lbm/ft3 (kg/m3)
ρo = oil density, lbm/ft3 (kg/m3)

References
1. Perrine, R. L.: "Analysis of Pressure Buildup Curves," Drilling and Production Practice, 482, 1956.
2. Ramey, H. J. Jr.: "Rapid Methods for Estimating Reservoir Compressibilities" JPT (April 1964) 447; Trans. AIME, 231.
3. Martin, J. C.: “Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup
Analyses”, Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 309.
4. McCain. W.D. Jr., Rollins, J.B., and Villena. A.J.: “The Coefficient of Isothermal Compressibility of Black Oils at Pressures below the
Bubble point,” SPEFE (Sept. 1988) 659-62; Trans., AIME. 285.
5. Macias, L., and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Multiphase Multicomponent Compressibility in Petroleum Reservoir Engineering," SPE 15538,
paper presented at the 6lst Annual SPE Fall Meeting, New Orleans, 5-8 October 1986.
6. Adepoju, O. O.: Coefficient of Isothermal Oil Compressibility for Reservoir Fluids by Cubic Equation-of-State, M.S. Thesis, Petroleum
Engineering, Texas Tech University, 2006.
7. Kornblatt, J. A.: “Materials with Negative Compressibilities,” Science, Vol. 281. No. 5374, (10 July 1998), 143.
8. Dodson, C.R., Goodwill, D., and Mayer, E.H.: "Application of Laboratory PVT Data to Reservoir Engineering Problems," Trans.,
AIME (1953) 198, 287-298.
9. Standing, M. B., Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems; 9th Printing, SPE, Dallas, Texas, 1981.
10. Calhoun, J.C., Jr.: Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, U. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 35, (1947).
11. Al-Marhoun, M.A.: “The Coefficient of Isothermal Compressibility of Black Oils,” paper SPE 81432 presented at 13th SPE Middle
East Oil Show & Conference, Bahrain, 9-12 June 2003.
12. Al-Marhoun, M.A.: “A New Correlation for Undersaturated Isothermal Oil Compressibility,” paper SPE 81432-SUM, SPE Reservoir
Evaluation & Engineering Online, Volume 9, Number 4, August 2006.
13. Standing, M. B.: Volumetric and Phase Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon Systems, Millet Print Inc., Dallas, Texas, 81,(1977).
14. Dranchuk, P. M., and Abou-Kassem, J. H.: “Calculation of Z-Factors for Natural Gases Using Equations of State,” J. Cdn. Pet. Tech.,
14, 34 (1975).

SI metric conversion factors

bbl x 0.1589873 = m3
ft3 x 0.02831685 = m3
°F (°F +40) / 1.8 - 40 = °C
psi x 6.894757 = kPa
scf/bbl x 0.1801175 = std m3/m3