SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 11703

Correlations for the Reservoir Fluid Properties of Alaskan

Crudes
by R.D. Ostermann, C.A. Ehlig-Economides, * and 0.0. Owolabi, * U. of Alaska
"Members SPE-AIME

Copyright 1983 Society of Petroleum Engineers of AI ME

This paper was presented at the 1983 California Regional Meeting held in Ventura, California, March 23-25, 1983. The material is subject to correction
by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Write SPE, 6200 North Central Expressway, Drawer 64706,
Dallas, TX 75206.

~BSTRACT of reservoir performance. Properties such as

bubble point pressure, formation volume
Reservoir fluid properties such as factor, solution gas/oil ratio and viscosity
bubble point pressure, forma tion volume form the basis for the calculation of
factor, solution gaS/Oil ratio, and viscosity recoverable reserves, producing capacity,
are required for the analysis of reservoir producing gaS/Oil ratio, and nearly all other
performance. Ideally, these properties would aspects of reservoir engineering
be determined experimentally, from laboratory calculations.
PVT analyses. Frequently, these properties
must be predicted in advance of PVT studies. Ideally, these properties can be
Since the crudes from different regions have measured through laboratory PVT analyses of
different propeties, it is prudent to assess bottom hole samples. However, it is
the accuracy of the available correlations frequently necessary to have property
and make an informed selection for each predictions in advance of PVT analyses. In
region or type of crude. these cases, the only data available may be
reservoir temperature and pressure, producing
PVT reports have been assembled from gas/oil ratio, stock tank oil gravity and gas
several Alaskan oil fields in the Cook Inlet gravity. Over a period of years,
Basin (CIB). The experimentally determined correlations have been published relating
values for bubble point pressure, oil reservoir fluid properties to the commonly
formation volume factor and live and dead oil measured surface variables. Moreover, even
Iviscosity have been compared to the values when PVT analyses are available, it is often
calculated from several popular necessary to extend the data to field
~orrelations. conditions through the use of correlations.

CIB crudes are characterized as low Of the PVT correlations currently in

sulfur crudes with a high nitrogen content. use, Standing's1 work probably enjoys the
~rudes from the Alaskan North Slope have high widest popularity. However, more rece~t
2
pitrogen and carbon dioxide contents. The correlations developed 4 by Lasater , Glaso ,
!presence of non-hydrocarbon gases has a and Vasquez and Beggs are also in commo~
marked influence on bubble point pressure. use. The correlation of Vasquez and Beggs
Correction factors must be applied. forms the basis for the PVT correlations used
in the Petroleum Fluids Pac for the Hewlett-
The available correlations and Packard 41-CV calculator.
corrections have been compared for
application to CIB crudes, and specific Historically, PVT correlations have been
ecommendations for their use are included in based on data from limited geographical
the conclusions. The appendices to the paper areas, as in the case of Standing's use of
also include a convenient compilation of the California crudes, or on large composite data
equations for the correlations. bases from a wide variety of locations
including crudes of widely 4 differing
properties (Vasquez and Beggs). Both
NTRODUCTION approaches have their own strengths and
weaknesses.
The accurate prediction of physical
properties and the volumetric behavior of The PVT behavior of crude oil is a
eservoir fluids as functions of temperature strong function of composition. The direct
and pressure is essential for the evaluation application of correlations which do not take

357
z RESERVOIR PROPERTIES OF ALASKAN CRUDES 1170·
compositional effects into account should be high sulfur crude.
undertaken with caution. If a crude has a
particularly unusual composition, neither of Crudes for the three producing pools at
the above correlating approaches is likely to Prudhoe Bay have high nitrogen and carbon
be very accurate. It is common practice to, dioxide contents. The high nitrogen content
in effect, create new correlations for a causes the bubble point to be considerably
particular region, by applying Standing's higher than that predicted by Standing's
correlation method to the data form that correlation. Glaso's correlation is the only
egion, and shifting the parameters to obtain one currently available which implements non-
a "best-fit" line. The same aP14roach can be hydrocarbon corrections and should be used
aken with Vasquez and Beggs since the for Prudhoe crudes. Due to the lack of
orrelations are of similar form. availability of PVT reports for a large
number of reservoirs on the ANS, the
The properties of crudes which most remainder of this paper deals with crudes
nfluence PVT behavior but which are not from the Cook Inlet Basin.
aken into account in most correlations are
paraffinicity and non-hydro§arbon content Production in the CIB has primarily been
(N Z ' CO 2 , and H2S). Glaso has included from Tertiary formations at depths of around
orrection factors with his correlation to 10,000 feet. It is unusual to find
account for ..fhese factors. An earlier work productive Tertiary formations at this
by Jacobson, reported a correction to depth. CIB crudes are characterized as high
Standing'sl correlation to account for gravity crudes (35 0 API) with a low sulfur
nitrogen content. These corrections are content. 7 CIB crudes typically have high
simply multipliers to be applied to the nitrogen content (.15% wt) and produce
calculated bubble point. Hence either surface gases with as high as 15% mole
correction can be used with any bubble point nitrogen. Most crudes having high nitrogen
correlation. These corrections are content also have high sulfur content. CIB
substantial. Negelecting to use them can crudes are highly unusual in that the
esult in errors of 30% or more in the nitrogen content exceeds the sulfur
~stimation of the bubble point. content.

Before PVT correlations can be applied The high non-hydrocarbon contents of

o an oil producing region with confidence, both the ANS and CIB crude oils make the use
~t is necessary to characterize the crudes of corrections to standard PVT correlations
nvolved and make a careful selection of imperative.
correlations and appropriate correction
Factors. The purpose of this paper is to
present a brief characterization of Alaskan CORRELATIONS FOR PVT PROPERTIES
rudes, and demonstrate the most appropriate
orrelations and correction factors for The PVT properties dealt with in this
rudes found in the Cook Inlet Basin. study are:

(1) bubble point pressure, Pb;

HARACTERISTICS OF ALASKAN CRUDES (2) solution gas/oil ratio, Rs;
(3) oil formation volume factor at the
There are currently two major petroleum bubble point, Bob; and
producing provinces in the State of Alaska, (4) oil viscosity at the bubble point,
he Cook Inlet Basin (CIB), and the Alaskan Poob •
t'lorth Slope (ANS). . The ANS is the largest
producing field in North America. The CIB is Existing correlations for these properties
smaller, but a significant region with are based on reservoir temperature, reservoir
!recoverable reserves of over 3 billion pressure, stock tank oil gravity, producing
barrels. Additional discoveries are likely, gas/oil ratio and gas gravity. Since the
but no new fields are expected to be brought correlating parameters and correlated
nto production in the near future. properties are available in a standard PVT
report, it is possible to check the accuracy
A brief summary of the oil and gas of the correlations by comparison with the
Fields in the State of Alaska is gi ven in data in PVT reports.
a b Ie 1.
For this study, PVT reports for 4 fields
Two distinct types of oil predominate on in the Cook Inlet Basin were utilized. Two
he ANS, the Simpson-Umiat type found in the of the PVT reports included combined
r.ape Simpson and Umiat oil fields, and th% differential and flash separations which
Barrow-Prudhoe type found at Prudhoe Bay. effectively created four additional bubble
rhe Simpson-Umiat oils occur in rocks of the point fluids, thus expanding the sample to
~retaceous and Quaternary age and are eight fluids. The PVT data was compared with
haracterized as high gravity (37 0 API), low- estimates of Pb Bob' Poob' and Rs '
sulfur crudes. There is currently no calculated using the available
ommercial production of this type of oil. correlations. A listing of the pertinent
~arrow-Prudhoe oil occurs in rocks of the prope rties obtained from the PVT reports is
r.arboniferous to Cretaceous age and is presented in Table 2.
0
haracterized as medium gravity (27 API)
358
11703 OSTERMANN, EHLIG-ECONOMIDES AND OWOLABI 3

Bubble Point Pressure the measured gas gravity. The equations for
the Vasquez and Beggs correlation are listed
In this section, the four most in Appendix A. The Vasqu~z and Beggs
frequently used correlations for the bubble correlation has been adopted for use in the
point pressure are described briefly. In Hp 4I-C Petroleum Fluids Pac.
order to clearly contrast the differences in In 1980, Glas0 3 published a correlation
the various correlations, the sources of the based on laboratory data from North Sea
data for the correlations and the parameters crudes. The Glaso correlation is of the
needed to use each correlating equations are form:
indicated. The complete form of the
correlating equations for each of the four
correlations is presented in Appendix A.

The best known method for estimating

bubble point pressure was developed by where YAPI corr is a corrected value for
Standing. I ,8 Standing's correlation was the stOCK tanK oil gravity based on the
based on the analysis of PVT studies from a paraffinicity of the crude oil. The
series of 22 different California crude oil- calculation of Y c rr requires
API
natural gas mixtures. 8 He reported a general measurement of the gra'v'fty (YXEL)' and
relationship between bubble point pressure the viscosity (IJ. ) of the resiaual oil
and fluid properties in the form: resulting from a °dtfferential liberation at
reservoir temperature.

(1) Glas0 3 also reported correction factors

for nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen
sulfide compositions. The corrections are
where ::; refers to the average gas gravity multiplication factors to be applied to the
of the c§mbined surface gases from all stages bubble point pressure as:
of separation.

In 1958, Lasater 2 published a (4 )

correlation for bubble point pressure based
on experimentally determined bubble points
for 137 systems. Lasater's data base In an earlier publication, Jacobson 5
included crudes from Canada, the Western arid also presented a correction for the effect of
Mid-Continental United States, and South nitrogen on bubble point pressure.
America. Jacobson' s5 work was based on a series of
experiments with Canadian crude oils, and way
Lasater's2 correlation was presented in intended for use with Standing's
the form of a calculating chart and several correlation. Equations for the correction
graphs of correlating functions. In Appendix factors deve loped by Glaso and Jacobson are
A, equations which represent the graphs used provided in Appendix A.
in Lasater's correlation are provided. The
correlation requires the same input variables
as Standing's correlation (equation 1), but The previous correlations were used to
makes use of an "effective" molecular weight estimate the bubble point pressures of 8
calculated from the stock tank oil gravity. mixtures of Cook Inlet Basin crudes. The
nitrogen content, measured in the primary
Lasater's correlation has found separator gases for these samples ranged from
widespread use, and is more accurate than 2.5% to 14.8% (mole).
Standing's correlation for high gravity
crudes. Many engineers prefer to use Initially, no corrections were made for
Standing's correlation for crudes of API nitrogen content. The result of these
gravity below 20 0 and Lasater's correlation calculations are shown in Table 3. With a
for lighter crudes. few exceptions, the correlations predict
bubble point pressures which are too low.
In 1980, Vasquez and Beggs 4 published a This is to be expected, since nitrogen serves
correlation based on 5008 data points in the to increase the saturation pressure of
following form: hydrocarbon systems.

The correction factors calculated from

(2) Jacobson and Glaso are listed in Table 4.
Since the correction factors are
multiplicative, they can be used with any of
In the development of the correlation, the correlations, and are noJ: restricted to
the measured average gas gravity for each use with Standing i and Glaso. 3 Table 5 shows
sample was corrected to the gravity which the bubble point pressures calculated by all
would have been obtained if the separation four correlations and correc«sed for nitroge~
had been conducted at standard conditions of content by both Jacobson's and Glaso's
100 psig, and 60 0 F. This corrected gravity correlation. It is apparent that all of the
(Y s ), was calculated from a correlation correlations perform reasonably well afte§
baged on the actual separator conditions and correction. However, the Jacobson

359
4 RESERVOIR PROPERTIES OF ALASKAN CRUDES 1170'

correction is superior for the Cook Inlet viscosity below the bubble point:
crudes The correlations of Standing 1 and
Lasater• 2 coupled with the Jacobson 5
correction factor are of approximately equal flob = 10.715(R
sb
+ 100)-0.515 flOd B (7)
accuracy.

While Glaso's3 correlation is superior, whe re:

the paraffinicity correction requires a
reservoir fluid study including a
differential liberation. If this data is not B = 5.44(R + 150)-0.338 (8)
available, the Standing 1 correlation can be sb
used with little loss of accuracy. If carbon
dioxi~e or hydrogen sulfide are present, the Live oil viscosity above the bubble
Glaso correction factors should be used. point is calculated as:

Oil Formation Volume Factor

The oil formation volume factor Bo ' is

the volume of reservoir liquid required to where:
produce one barrel of oil at stock tank
conditions. This factor is critical for the
calculation of reservoir material balances (10 )
and is used to estimate the shrinkage as oil
is produced from the reservoir, through the
separator to ihe stock tank. 4 The viscosity at the bubble point and
~tanding, Vasquez and Beggs, and dead oil viscosity were calculated for the 8
Glaso have all correlated the formation samples of CIB crudes, using the Beggs-
volume factor at the bubble point pressure Robinson 9 correlations. A comparison with
with gas gravity, stock tank oil experimental values is presented in Table
gravity,reservoir temperature and pressure, 7. The predicted dead oil viscosity had a
<lnd dissolved gas. Their correlating mean error of 13.3%, and standard deviation
~quations are reproduced in Appendix B. of 10.5%, which is well within the expected
range. The predicted live oil viscosity at
The three correlations were used to the bubble point was slightly less accurate,
predict the bubble point formation volume having a standard deviation of 12%.
factors for the 8 samples of CIB crudes. The
results were then compared to the
!experimentally determined values. A Gas in Solution
comparison of the results appears in Table 6.
The correlations for bubble point
All of the correlations proved pressure can be rearranged to give a
remarkably accurate. The Standing correlation for dissolved gas at pressures
correlation was slightly better than the below the original bubble point. This is
other two, with a mean error of -0.75% and possible because all conditions below the
standard deviation of 0.69%. All of the original bubble point represent saturation
correlations predicted values for Bob which conditions. Since a correction for nitrogen
were too low by 1-3%. content is required for the bubble point
correlations, a similar correction must be
applied to the dissolved gas/oil ratio
Oil Viscosity correlation.

Dead oil viscosity is reported in PVT Consider the Standing l correlation

reports as the viscosity of the residual oil solved for dissolved gas/oil ratio:
from a differential liberation at reservoir
temperature. Beggs and Robinson 9 published a
correlation for dead oil viscosity as a _ _ ( p + 25.5 )1.2048
function of reservoir temperature and stock Rs - .0303 Yg 10(0.00091T - .0125y
AP
!
tank oil gravity: (11 )

Since the forward form of this equation

flod
= lOA - 1 (5) (equations Al and A2) required a correction
for nitrogen content, the pressure term in
equation 11 must also be corrected. The
Iwhe re: resulting equation is:
(p/C ) + 25.5 1.2048
N
-1.163 (3.0324-0.02023YAPI) (6)
A = T 10 R =.030 3y ( 2 )
s g 10(0.00091T-.0125 YAPI )
(12 )
The Beggs-Robinson 9 correlation also
\provides a means of estimating live oil
360
11703 OSTERMANN 7 EHLIG~ECONOMIDES AND OWOLABI 5
The Vasquez-Beggs 4 corre l
at'l.on can also
NOMENCLATURE
be solved for Rs to give:

- 1.1870
R = .0178 Y (p/C )
s g N2 = oil formation volume factor,
resbbl/STB
ex p (23. ~~_~~APJ (13 )
= oil formation volume factor at the
(T+460) ]
bubble point pressure, resbbl/STB
With both of the above formulations, the
correction for non-hydrocarbon content is
C = bubble point pressure correction
factor for non-hydrocarbon gases
accomplished by using a corrected press~re in
the correlating equations. The Glaso and
Lasater 2 correlations are not explicit in Rs'
p = reservoir pressure, psia
but could be solved by an iterative method.
In each case p/C N should be used as the
= bubble point pressure, psia
corrected pressure. 2
= separator pressure, psia

CONCLUSIONS
= solution gas/oil ratio, SCF/STB

Alaska crude oils are characterized by

= solution gas/oil ratio at the bubble
point, SCF/STB
high nitrogen content, as in the case of Cook
Inlet crudes, and by high nitrogen and carbon T = reservoir temperature, of
dioxide content as in the case of Prudhoe Bay
crudes. The presence of non-hydrocarbons in = separator temperature, of
oils has a significant effect on the
prediction of bubble point pressures. In
yg = mole fraction of vapor phase of
this study, only the effect of nitrogen on
separator liquid
bubble point pressure was investigated.

PVT reports were used to analyze the Y API = stock tank oil gravity, °API
accuracy of existing correlations for bubble
point pressure, oil formation volume factor Y!PI = residual oil gravity, °API
at the bubble point, dead oil viscosity, and
live oil viscosity. The following Yst = specific gravity of stock tank
oil, (water = 1)
conclusions were reached:

1. The Glas0 3 bubble point pressure

= average gas gravity of combined
surface gases, (air = 1)
correlation u~ed in conjuction with
the Jacobson nitrogen correction
factor provided the most accurate Y gs = average gas gravity of combined
surface gases corrected to a
prediction of bubble poini
separator temperature and
pressure. However, the Standing
pressure of 60 0 F and 100 psig
and Lasater 2 correlations were also
adequate.
fl-o = live oil viscosity, cpo
2. Standing'sl correlation for oil
fl-ob = live oil viscosity at the bubble
formation volume factor at the point pressure, cp.
bubble point was the most accurate
for CIB crudes. No nitrogen
fl-od = dead oil viscosity; cpo
correction is ne ce ssa ry in the oil
formation volume factor. -Pst = effective molar dens i ty of stock
tank oil, lbmole/STB
3. The Beggs-Robinson 9
viscosity
correlation provides adequate
prediction of both dead oil and live
oil viscosity. Acknowledgements
4. If the dissolved gas/oil ratio for a
system containing a large amount of
The authors wish to thank the technical
nitrogen is to be estimated from the
personnel and the management of Shell Oil
bubble point pressure corre la tions,
Company, Union Oil Company of California,
a nitrogen correction factor should
ARCO Alaska, Inc., and Marathon Oil Company
be used. Failure to do so may
for providing assistance and the PVT reports
result in errors of over 20% in
on which this paper is based. This work was
calculated Rs'
performed under a grant from the Alaskan
Council of Science and Technology.

361
6 RESERVOIR PROPERTIES OF ALASKAN CRUDES 11703
REFERENCES (T+459.6)
= Pf - (A3)
Yg
1• Standing, M.B.: Volumetric and Phase where:
Behavior of Oil Field Hydrocarbon
Systems, Millet the Printer, Inc.,
Dallas (1977), 70-95. = 2.303 + 2.5877 U + 0.62102 U2
2. Lasater, J .A.: "Bubble Point Pressure 3
+ 0.07037 U (A4)
Correlation", Trans., AIME (1958) 213,
379-81.
with U = In y
g
•
3. Glaso, 0.: "Generalized Pressure-
Volume-Tempe ra ture Correlations", ~ yg' the mole fraction of separator fluid in
Pet. Tech. (May 1980) 785-795. tne vapor phase is calculated as:
4. Vasquez, M. and Beggs, H. D.:
"Correlations for Fluid Physical y = (AS)
Property Prediction", J. Pet. Tech. g R /379.3 + P
(June 1980) 968-970. sst
P is the effective molar density of the
5. Jacobson, H.A.: "The Effect of Nitrogen st~~k tank oil in lbmole/STB given by:
as Reservoir Fluid Saturation Pressure",
J. Can. Pet. Tech. (July-Sept. 1967) 30.93 Y;t
_ _ _._._ ___ .:::....::c_ _ _ __
101-105. (A6 )
Pst =
Y~t - 1.289 Yst - 0.4198
6. Magoon, L.B. and Claypool, G.E.: "Two
Oil Types on North Slope of Alaska -
Implications for Explorations", AAPG Equation (A6) is based on Lasater's
Bulletin, V. 65, No.4. (April 1981) correlation for the effective molecular
644-652. weight of the stock tank oil with respect to
stock tank oil gravity.
7. Blasko, D.P., Wenger, W.J. and Dorris,
J.C.: "Oilfields and Crude Oil 3. The correlation of Vasquez and Beggs 4
Characteristics - Cook Inlet Basin, uses separate correlating equations for crude
Alaska", U.S. Bu. Mines, RI 7688 (1972). oils with specific gravity above and below
30 0 API.
8. Standing, M.B.: "A Pressure-Volume-
Temperature Correlation for Mixtures, For YAPI < 0
30 API:
California Oil and Gases", Drill. and
Prod. Prac., API (1947) 275-286.
R )0.9143 -23.5202
9. Beggs, H.D. and Robinson, J.R.: p = 20.788 ___s_ exp
"Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil b ( Y gs [ T+460
Systems", J. Pet. Tech. (Sept. 1975)
1140-41. (A7)

APPENDIX A

Correlating Equations for

Bubble Point Pressure ~)O' 8425 -20.161 YAPIl
Pb .. 29.782 exp
( Y gs [ T+460 ]
1• The correlation by Standing 1 ,8 is given
as: (A8)

(AI) Ygs is the average gas gravity corrected for

separator conditions other than 100 psig,
60 0 F, given by:
where:

(0.00091T-0.0125y )
API
A = 10 (A2)

(A9)
2. Lasater's2 correlation, or~ginally
published in graphical form, can be
represented by the following equations:

362
11703 OSTERMANN, EHLIG~ECONOMIDES AND OWOLABI 7
4. The Glas0 3 correlation is given by the
following equations:

log Pb Z 1.7669 + 1.7447log Pb* (A15)

* 2
- 0.30128(10g Pb) (A10)
For carbon dioxide:

where:
1.0 - 693.8 T- 1 • 553 (A16)
YCO 2
p*
b (~)
-
Yg
0.816 (TO.172
0.989
YAP1,corr
) (All )
For hydrogen sulfide:

The Glas0 3 correlation was based on North Sea CH2S = 1.0 - (0.9035 + 0.0015YAPI) YH 2 S
crudes with a UOP paraffinicity factor of
KUOp = 11.9. To allow the correlation to be 2
used with crudes of different paraffinicity, + 0.019(45 - YAPI)(YH S) (Al7)
a correction factor based on the viscosity 2
and API gravity of the residual oil from a
differential liberation, must be applied to 2. Jacobson 5 reported the following
the measured stock tank oil gra vi ty. The correction for nitrogen content to be used
corrected gravity is calculated by: with Standing's correlation:

YAPI, cor~ ~
(YhI corr
YAPI
1 YAPI (A12) 15.85 + 286YN
2
- 0.107T (A18)

where:

APPENDIX B
(A13)
Y!PI, corr
Correlating Equations for the
Oil Formation Volume Factor
with:

1• Standing'sl,B correlation is given by:

B (10.213 log T - 36.447)-1 (A14)

- ) 0.5 1 2
Y!PI and ~od are the gravity and the 0.9759 + 12.10-5 R ( ~ + 1.25T •
v1scosity, respectively, of the residual oil s YAPI
from a differential flash at reservoir (B1)
temperature.

2. The Glas0 3 corre la tion is given by the

Correction Factors for Non-Hydrocarbon following:
Components in Crude Oils

log (Bob-I) *
= -6.58511 + 2.91329(10g Bob)
1. Glas0 3 reported the following equations
for corrections in the bubble point pressure
when carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or hydrogen -0.27683(10g B* )2 (B2)
ob
sulfide are present.

where:
For nitrogen:
:y ,,)0.526+
C = 1.0 + r2.65 10-4 YAPI R ~ 0.968T (B3)
N2 s ( YAPI

+ 5.5.10- 3 T

+ (.0931 YAP I - 0.8295)] y N2

3. The correlation by Vasquez and Beggs 4 is
divided into two ranges dependent on the
+ [1 • 954' 10- 1 1YAPI 4 • 699 T stock tank oil gravity.

363
8 RESERVOIR PROPERTIES OF ALASKAN CRUDES 11703

(B4)

o
For YAPI > 30 API,

(BS)

364
 TABLE 1

~
""'" hlcARTHURRIVEFI
MIDOLEGFIOUND UNN ... MED PfWDHOEBAY UNNAMED UNNAMED

"'.
OllFIE;lDS BEAVEFlCFlEEK GFIANITEPOINT KATALLA FlEDOUBTSHOAl TFIAOINOBAV
TRADING BAYUHIT (POINT THOMSON PRUDtlOE !lAY!JN1T UMIA"!" (A.N.S.) FlAXMAN ISLAND KUPAFlUKRlVEFlS.S.
(C.I.B.) (C.I.B.) (GUlF OF AlASlO.j SHOAL (C.I.B.) (.... N.S.) (CI.B.) (KENAIPENIN.) (C.I.B.)
FlESERVOII'I (C.I.B~ UNIT (A N.S.) AFlEA(AN.S.) "UGNU·' RtVEFI"'I'IEA (A.N.S)

I'ftODUCtNGFOFlMATIOH
OIL ZONE

JUNE 10. 1962 DEC. 26, 1946 APRlL1,1989

FlEFEFIENCEOATUM
FEET BELOW SEA lEVEL
•.no 9,350 8,850
'." 10,300 4,1XXI ~,628 12,500

OFI/G\N ... LPFlESSUFlE

....' '." 5,550 4,470
'.'" '.'"
...
po"

SATUFIATIONPFIESSURE
p.,a
'."
1,181 1,921

TE~PEFIATURE

OILGI'IAVITY
"..
"'"
OFlIGINALGASK»LRATIO
1,110
-31>.2

SCF1STa
OAS/OlLRATIOI2i3118O
SCFISTB

FVFATSATURATION
PFlESSURERBlSTB
OtlVISCOSlTYAT
ORlGtNALPFIESSUREcp
OIL VISCOSITY AT
SAfURATIONPRESSUREcp

~
u'"
O... SFIELD ALBERTKALO ... EASTUMI ... T FALLS CREEK IVANRIVEI'I KAVIK KEMIK KEN ...I
BEAVERCREEK BEI.U(l ... RtVER BIRCH HILL LEWlSRIVER
RESERVOIR (CI.B) (C.I.B.) (C.1.8.) (C.I.B.) (A.N.Sl (CU.) (C.I.8) (A.N.S) (AN.S.) (Col 8.) (C.I.B.)
DATA

I"'·"I;;::~
REFERENCEO ... TUM
FEET 8ELOWSEA lEVEL
JAN. 4. 1968 DEC. 111,1962

1.635 2,215
'.000 1,929
JUNE 25,1961

7,0-45
OCT.B,I'i56

4,130
'."
,,,.,
NOV. 5, 19&9

'." ....,
1,350 1,645

~
u"" MC ... RTHURRIVER
GAS FIELD MOOUAWKIE NORTH MIDDLE
TI'IADtNGBAVUNIT NICOLAI CREEK NORTH COOK NORTHFORK SOUTH BARROW STERLING SWANSON RIVER TRAOINGBAV WEST FOReLAND WEST FORK
RESERVOIR (C.18) (CU.) INLET (C.I.B) (C.I.B.) GROI.INOSHOAL (A.N.S.)
(C.I.B.I (CU.) (C.l8., (C.I.B.) (CIB.) (CU.) (C.I.B.)

"'''
PROOUCING FORMATION
GAS POOL

DEC. 2. 1966 ... AY 1, 19611 SEPT. 1,1962 DEC.20,11III!i AUG. 24, 1957 OCT.5,19N SEPT.26,1$60
REFERENCEOATUM
FEET Bf:LOWSEA LEVEL
'." 5,100 ,,., ,...
2,870-

PRESSURE 12130180
2,305
' .... '.000 ....
1,335-
2,037

". ,.000

O"'S SPECIFIC GRAVITV

TABLE 2
TABLE 3
PVT PROPERTIES OF COOK INLET BASIN CRUDE OILS
BUBBLE POINTS PREDICTED FROM PVT CORRELATIONS
-not corrected for nitrogen content-

.
'APr
YN

(separator)
2
R, Pb
Bob
(res.BBL) ]Job "cd Experimental
Predicted Bubble Point

4 i 2
Sample (oAPI) (%) (SCF/STB) (psia) ~(cp) (cp) Bubble Point
Vasquez-Beggs Standing Lasater
(psia) Pb %error Pb %error Pb %error Pb %error
60 165 .9107 35,0 32.9 14.8 288
60 165 .9548 35.3 32.9 ,., 152
152 224
1637
1159
1.185
1.160
1.05
1.13
2.48
2.48
1637 1180
908
-27.9
-21.7
1060 -35.2 1177 -28.1 1059 -35.3
1159 815 -29.7 8W -25.8 783 -32.4
60 165 1.0943 34.9 32.9 4.7 152 140 515 1.129 1.32 2,48
515 552 7.2 488 - 5.2 450 -12.6 436 -15.3
60 165 .8530 35.2 32.7 13.4 180 306 1782 1.199 0.90 2.10
1782 1372 -23,0 1246 -30.1 1401 -21.4 1247 -30.0
60 165 ,8880 34.9 32.7 10.4 180 236 1263 1.179 1.00 2.10
1263 1067 -14.8 947 -22.9 1054 -16.5 937 -25.8
60 165 1.0197 32.7 32.7 4.8 180 140 565 1.144 1.33 2,10
565 629 11.3 562 - 0.5 534 - 5.5 497 -12.0
60 56 .8899 37.1 46.6 2.5 122 435 1447 1.236 0.44* 0.83*
60 104 .8780
t 25,4 33.1 30,
1447 1571 8,6 1352 - 6,6 1247 -13.8 1440 - 0.5
15.1 180 1802 1.205 0.96 2.05
1802 1370 -24,0 1218 -32.4 1357 -24.7 1217 -32.5
-10.5 -20,3 -18.6 -23.0
* probably in error
standard deviation 16.6 14.0 7.8 12.4
t stock tank gas gravity calculated from
separator liquid flash
* paraffinicity correction included
 TABLE 4 TABLE 5

CORRECTION FACTORS FOR NITROGEN CONTENT PREDICTED BUBBLE POINTS - CORRECTED FOR NITROGEN CONTENT

Bubble Point Corrected Bubble Point Corrected

N2 Correction (C ) with G1aso Correlation with Jacobson Correlation
N
2
Sample Jacobson G1aso Experimental
Bubble Point Vas quez Vas quez
1
1 1.418 1. 244 Sample (psia) -Beggs 4 Standing G1aso 3 Lasater 2 -Beggs 4 Standing
1
G1aso 3 Lasater
2
2 1. 280 1.172
1 1637 1468 1314 1470 1317 1673 1504 1669 1501
3 1.129 1.083
2 1159 1064 955 1011 918 1162 1043 1100 1003
4 1. 350 1.210
3 515 598 529 488 473 623 551 508 493
5 1.265 1.168
4 1782 1661 1507 1695 1509 1851 1582 1891 1684
6 1.103 1.079
5 1263 1256 1138 1229 1095 1360 1232 1333 1186
7 1.100 1.066
6 565 679 606 576 537 693 620 589 549
8 1. 398 1. 236
7 1447 1653 1422 1329 1516 1729 1488 1371 1585
8 1802 1694 1505 1645 1504 1914 1704 1922 1701
mean error -2.3 -8.9 -6.2 -11. 7 10.4 -3.3 1.6 -4.6
standard deviation 12.4 10.3 4.6 8.6 9.1 6.5 4.9 6.5

TABLE 6 TABLE 7

EXPERIMENTAL AND PREDICTED OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR EXPERIHENTAL AND PREDICTED OIL VISCOSITY

Live Oil Viscosity at the Bubble Point Dead Oil Viscosity

Bob Predicted Volume Factor Experimental Predicted Experimental Predicted
Standing 1 Sample U (cp) U (cp) U (cp) U (cp)
Sample (Res.BBL/STB) Vasguez-Beggs 4 G1aso 3 ob ob od od
1 1.185 1.178 1.174 1.155 1 1.05 1.09 2.48 3.10
2 1.160 1.148 1.142 1.125 2 1.13 1.23 2.48 3.01
3 1.129 1.111 1.098 1.089 3 1. 32 1.58 2.48 3.12
·4 1.199 1.200 1.198 1.173 4 0.90 0.82 2.10 2.15
5 1.179 1.167 1.163 1.140 5 1.00 0.95 2.10 2.20
6 1.144 1.125 1.110 1.098 6 1. 33 1.24 2.10 2.31
7 1. 236 1.235 1.234 1.225 7 0.44 1.05 0.83 4.21
8 1.205 1.204 1.200 1.117 8 0.96 0.81 2.05. 2.12
'-
"'- mean error -.750 1.110 -2.710 mean error -.56 13.26

"
standard deviation 0.690 1. 290 0.960 standard deviation 12.00 10.50
0-
(j.)