Dimensionless PVT Behavior of
Gulf Coast Reservoir Oils
Chapman Cronquist, * SPE-AIME, Butler, Miller & Lents, Ltd.
Introduction
Often, for an oil reservoir where a PVT analysis is not
available, various aspects of depletion-drive behavior
must be estimated. Over the years various correla-
tions have been published z- s ; and reliable empirical
relations between bubble-point pressure, solution
GOR, formation volume factor, etc., are available.
Thus, for a given oil and reservoir conditions these
correlations may be used to estimate the properties
of the reservoir oil at initial (bubble point) conditions
and at any desired pressure below the bubble point.
An alternate approach to the use of empirical corre-
lations is the use of a PVT analysis for an oil with
properties and reservoir conditions similar to those
of the reservoir being investigated. With either
approach there usually is the question of whether
the data so derived are representative of the oil and
reservoir being investigated.
The purpose of this paper is to present a method
of comparing the PVT behavior of different reservoir
oils by reducing the PVT data from a large number
of oils to sets of dimensionless plots. The relations
so developed, which are somewhat easier to use than
previously published correlations, should provide
additional insight into the probable PVT behavior of
many Gulf Coast oils. These relations are not in-
tended as a substitute for a PVT analysis, should the
latter be available. They are designed to be used with
other, previously published correlations 2 - 6 and reser-
voir information for determining bubble-point pres-
sure, initial (bubble point) formation volume factor,
·Now with Scientific Software Corp., Houston.
The empirical correlations presented here show that for ((typical" Gulf Coast reservoir
oil, cumulative gas evolution and oil shrinkage are about proportional to pressure drop
below the bubble point, The correlations should be useful for the Gulf Coast, and the
correlation technique, with modifications, might also serve in other geologic provinces.
538
reservoir temperature, and formation volume factor
at atmospheric pressure and reservoir temperature.
Procedure
Sets of dimensionless ratios were calculated for each
PVT analysis. These ratios are "dimensionless pres-
sure," "dimensionless cumulative gas evolution," and
"dimensionless shrinkage." Dimensionless pressure is
defined as pressure divided by bubble-point pressure.
Dimensionless cumulative gas evolution is defined as
cumulative gas liberated to a pressure divided by total
gas liberated by a pressure drop from the bubble
point to atmospheric pressure. Dimensionless shrink-
age is defined as shrinkage to a pressure below the
bubble point divided by total shrinkage from the
bubble point to atmospheric pressure. (See Nomen-
clature.) Some of the PVT analyses did not report a
value for the formation volume factor at atmospheric
pressure and reservoir temperature (Boa); therefore,
for these analyses the correlation published by Katz 3
was used to estimate this parameter. An example of
the computer output showing the original data and
the corresponding dimensionless ratios for one of the
PVT analyses is shown in Table 1.
Dimensionless ratios were calculated from the PVT
data from 80 oils in 31 Gulf Coast fields. The range
of oil properties and reservoir temperatures is listed
in Table 2. The frequency distribution of each vari-
able is shown by the histograms in Figs. 1 through 5.
In these histograms each asterisk denotes one oil
sample or PVT analysis. The column of figures to the
left of the asterisks denotes the lower limit for each
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 TABLE I-DIMENSIONLESS PVT BEHAVIOR, group of data values. Thus, from Fig. 1 it may be
EXAMPLE CALCULATION
determined that the data included one oil sample with
API gravity 34.5 an API gravity between 18 and 20, one between 20
Reservoir temperature 230 and 22, three between 22 and 24, and so on.
Bubble'point pressure 5,324
Bubble·point GOR 871
Discussion of Results
-.E.... ~ R. RpD Bo BoD
Results of the individual calculations on all 80 of the
5,324 1.000 0 0 1.470 0
PVT analyses exemplified by Table 1 are presented
4,897 0.920 82 0.094 1.435 0.087
4,300 0.808 195 0.224 1.391 0.197
in Figs. 6 and 7. Fig. 6 is dimensionless cumulative
3,700 0.695 305 0.350 1.344 0.315 gas evolved vs dimensionless pressure. Fig. 7 is di-
3,100 0.582 400 0.459 1.306 0.410 mensionless shrinkage vs dimensionless pressure.
2,500 0.470 497 0.571 1.268 0.505 From examination of Figs. 6 and 7, it is apparent
1,900 0.357 592 0.680 1.232 . 0.595 that most of the points fall into a reasonably well
1,300 0.244 681 0.782 1.197 0.682 defined trend through which an "average" line has
700 0.131 764 0.877 1.165 0.762 been drawn. From examination of Beal's! Fig. 10,
200 0.038 840 0.964 1.118 0.880 the relation illustrated by Fig. 6 might be expected.
0 0 871 1.000 1.070 1.000 Scatter may be attributed either to experimental error
or to actual deviation of oil behavior from the aver-
TABLE 2-RANGE OF VARIABLES
age trend or to both. The larger scatter of Fig. 7 is
Variable (units) Minimum Maximum Average probably attributable to the variable effect that the
Oil gravity, ° API 19.6 43.8 33.4 changing composition of the evolving gas has upon
R", scf/STB 95 2,395 713 shrinkage. Properties of some of the oils with signifi-
p" psig 733 8,065 3,571 cant deviation from the average - oils labeled A
T t , of 136 327 199 through G on Figs. 6 and 7 - are listed in Table 3.
Bo', RB/STB 1.057 3.396 1.434 From inspection of the oil properties listed in Table
3 and the position of the curves on Figs. 6 and 7,
TABLE 3-PROPERTIES OF OILS EXHIBITING WIDE
DEVIATION FROM LINEAR TREND it may be concluded that these oils and their corre-
sponding dimensionless PVT behavior seem to fall
Initial Formation
Solution Bubble·Point Reservoir Volume into two broad classes. Initially (that is, at small pres-
Gravity GOR Pressure Temperature Factor sure drops below the bubble-point pressure) oils with
Oil (OAPI) (scfjSTB) (psig) n) (RBjSTB) low bubble-point pressures or high gravities tend to
A 41 820 1,590 252 1.738 evolve proportionately less gas and shrink propor-
B 34 294 1,447 252 1.281
C 44 508 1,960 174 1.368
D 27 99 733 254 1.155 Rsb
E 37 1,407 6,398 243 1.699
(Scf/STB)
F 35 2,107 5,565 207 2.165
G 37 1,380 8,065 240 3.396 0 **
100 *
200 *****
300 ******
400 ***************
500 *********
OIL 600
GRAV
********
700 ********
(OAPI) 800 *****
14.0 900 ***
16.0 1000 ********
18.0 * 1100 **
20.0 * 1200 ***
22.0 *** 1300 *
24.0 ***** 1400 **
26.0 ********* 1500
28.0 ***** 1600
30.0 ********* 1700
32.0 * 1800
34.0 ******** 1900
36.0 ***************** 2000
38.0 ************** 2100 *
40.0 **** 2200
42.0 *** 2300 *
44.0 2400
Fig. I-Distribution of oil gravities. Fig. 2-Distribution of initial solution ratios.

MAY, 1973 539

tionately less rapidly than "average" Gulf Coast oils. Formation temperature, OF 180
Oils that have high bubble-point pressures and large Initial solution ratio, scf/STB 1,150
bubble-point formation volume factors tend at first Initial pressure, psig 3,965
to evolve proportionately more gas and shrink pro- Current pressure, psig 3,075
portionately more rapidly than "average" Gulf Coast Oil gravity, °API 34
oils. It appears that when investigating oils and reser-
voir conditions that fall into either of these classes, From geologic and performance information it is
one must take care to select a "representative" PVT known that the accumulation initially had a gas cap;
analysis, if an analysis of the oil in question is not thus
available. _ 3,075 _
It would have been desirable to develop a correlat- PD - 3,965 - 0.776.
ing parameter using some combination of bubble-
point pressure, reservoir temperature, API gravity, The oil and reservoir conditions may be considered
and bubble-point shrinkage so as to relate the shape "average," and the average trend-line correlation may
of the plots more closely to oil properties and reser- be used to approximate the current solution ratio and
voir conditions. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by formation volume factor of the oil. From Fig. 6, at
Figs. 1 through 5, there were insufficient data avail- PD = 0.776, R pD = 0.218. The initial solution ratio
able in the higher and lower ranges of these variables determined from early well tests was 1,150 scf/STB.
to develop a reliable correlation. Estimated current solution ratio is thus expressed as
follows:
Example of Use
As an example, consider a reservoir with the follow- Rs = (1 - 0.218) X 1,150 = 899 scf/STB.
ing conditions: From Fig. 7, at PD = 0.776, BOD = 0.210. From
Katz,3 Boa is estimated to be 1.057, and from Stand-
P ing,6 Bob is estimated to be 1.670. The estimated
b current formation volume factor is determined as
(psig) follows:

°°
500 1.670 - Bo
750 * BOD = .2 1 = 1.670 - 1.057
1000 * Bo = 1.541.
1250 *
1500 **
****
1750 Bob
2000 **
*** (RB/STB)
2250
2500 *
***lI<
1.00
1.10 *
2750
***********
** Tf 1.20 *********************
3000 ********* (OF) 1.30
3250 ******************
******** 130
** 1.40 ********
3500 ****** 140 **** 1.50
3750
******
***** 150 ***** 1.60 *******
4000 ********* 160 ********* 1.70
4250 **** 170 ********* 1.80 *
***'
4500
4750
******* 180 ************ 1.90 *
**** 190 ****** 2.00
5000
5250
200 ******* 2.10 *
5500 * 210 ****** 2.20
*** 220 2.30
5750 230 ** 2.40
6006 240 ***
6250 * 250 ********
2.50
6500 * 260 ****
2.60
2.70
6750 270 * 2.80
7000 280 * 2.90
7250 290 3.00
7500 300 3.10 *
7750 310 3.20
8000
8250 * 320 * 3.30 *
330 3.40
Fig. 3-Distribution of Fig. 4-Distribution of Fig. 5-Distribution of initial formation
bubble·point pressures. reservoir temperatures. volume factors.
540 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 o~----~----~----~----~----~----~~----~----~----~----~

1.0 L._ _.L..._ _L-_--JI.-_......II.-_......L_ _....L_ _--L_ _.....L._ _.....L._ _ ~

o .I .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
PD
Fig. 6--Dimensionless gas evolution vs dimensionless pressure.

or both, tend at first to evolve proportionately less

Conclusions
On the basis of the data examined, the following
conclusions appear reasonable.
1. Relative gas evolution and oil shrinkage be-
havior of different reservoir oils below the bubble
point may be compared by reducing the PVT data
to sets of dimensionless ratios, as defined here.
2. For "typical" Gulf Coast oils (those low in
intermediates, having stock-tank gravities between
about 25° and 35° API, and bubble-point pressures
between about 3,000 and 4,000 psig) cumulative gas
evolved and oil shrinkage are approximately propor-
tional to pressure drop below the bubble point.
3. Large deviations from an approximately linear
trend appear to be related to some combination of
stock-tank oil gravity, bubble-point pressure, and in-
termediate content (reflected by Bob). Also (a) oils
that have low bubble-point pressures or high gravities,
gas and shrink proportionately less rapidly than
"average" Gulf Coast oils; and (b) oils that have high
bubble-point pressures and large bubble-point for-
mation volume factors tend at first to evolve pro-
portionately more gas and shrink proportionately
more rapidly than "average" Gulf Coast oils.
4. The relations presented here should facilitate
the analysis of depletion-drive oil reservoirs for which
no PVT analysis is available by providing guidelines
for selection of a representative PVT sample for a
similar oil and similar reservoir conditions, or by
being used d~rect1y to estimate solution GOR's and
formation volume factors at any stage of depletion,
provided the oil in question can be considered
average.
Nomenclature
Bo = oil formation volume factor, RBjSTB

MAY, 1973 541

 O~----~-----r----~------r-----~----~----~----~------~--~ •
•1 ~-----+------~------~-----+------+-----~-------r--~

.2

.3 I - - - - - f - - - _ + _ -

.4 I----~--

~ .5
CO

.6

.7

.8

.9

1.0 II:;..._ _....I..._ _-I-_ _.....L..._ _--L._ _ _.....I._ _---I._ _ _L..-_ _ ~ _ _.L...._ ___I

o .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0
PD
Fig. 7-Dimensionless shrinkage vs dimensionless pressure.

Boa = oil formation volume factor at

atmospheric pressure and reservoir
temperature, RB/STB
Bob = oil formation volume factor at bubble-
point-conditions, RB/STB
BOD = dimens~onless shrinkage = (Bob - Bo)/
(Bob - Boa)
P = reservoir pressure, psig
Pb = bubble-point pressure, psig
PD = dimensionless reserVoir pressure = P/ Pb
Rp = cumulative GOR, scf/STB
Rsb = bubble-point solution GOR, scf/STB
R pD = dimensionless cumulative gas evolved
= Rp/Rsb
References
1. Beal, C.: "The Viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas,
Crude Oil and Its Associated Gases at Oil Field Tempera-
tures and Pressures," Trans., AIME (1946) 165, 94-115.
2. Borden, G., Jr., and Rzasa, M. J.: "Correlation of Bottom
Hole Sample Data," Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 345-348.
3. Katz, D. L.: "Prediction of the Shrinkage of Crude Oils,"
Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1942) 137-147.
4. Knopp, C. R. and Ramsey, L. A.: "Correlation of Oil
Formation Volume Factor and Solution Gas-Oil Ratio,"
J. Pet. Tech. (Aug., 1960) 27-29.
5. Lasater, J. A.: "Bubble Point Pressure Correlation,"
Trans., AIME (1958) 213,379-381.
6. Standing, M. B.: "A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Cor-
relation for Mixtures of California Oils and Gases,"
Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1947) 275-287. JPT

Acknowledgment Paper (SPE 4100) was presented at SPE·AIME 47th Annual Fall
I appreciate the support provided by Butler, Miller & Meeting, held in San Antonio, Tex., Oct. 8·11, 1972. © Copyright
1973 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum
Lents, Ltd. Engineers, Inc.

542 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY