Oil Formation Volume Factor - An Overview - ScienceDirect Topics PDF
Oil Formation Volume Factor - An Overview - ScienceDirect Topics PDF
Related terms:
Crude Oil, Solubility, Viscosity, Separators, Formation Volume Factor, Reservoir
Pressure, Bubble Point Pressure, Bubblepoint
Reservoir-Fluid Properties
Tarek Ahmed, in Reservoir Engineering Handbook (Fourth Edition), 2010
where
Bo = oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
(Vo)p,T = volume of oil under reservoir pressure p and temperature T, bbl
(Vo)sc = volume of oil is measured under standard conditions, STB
A typical oil formation factor curve, as a function of pressure for an undersaturated
crude oil (pi > pb), is shown in Figure 2-8. As the pressure is reduced below the
initial reservoir pressure pi, the oil volume increases due to the oil expansion. This
behavior results in an increase in the oil formation volume factor and will continue
until the bubble-point pressure is reached. At pb, the oil reaches its maximum
expansion and consequently attains a maximum value of Bob for the oil formation
volume factor. As the pressure is reduced below pb, volume of the oil and Bo are
decreased as the solution gas is liberated. When the pressure is reduced to
atmospheric pressure and the temperature to 60°F, the value of Bo is equal to one.
Figure 2-8. Oil formation volume factor versus pressure.
Six different methods of predicting the oil formation volume factor are presented
below:
• Standing's correlation
• The Vasquez-Beggs correlation
• Glaso's correlation
• Marhoun's correlation
• The Petrosky-Farshad correlation
• Other correlations
It should be noted that all the correlations could be used for any pressure equal to
or below the bubble-point pressure.
where Sgn is the normalised gas gravity, Eq.(2.24), and the values of the coefficients
are:
C1 4.677×10−4 4.670×10−4
C2 1.751×10−5 1.100×10−5
C3 −1.81l×l0−8 1.337×10−9
The oil formation volume factor can be estimated with a deviation less than 5%
from the above correlations [37,38].
The Arps correlation [50] can be used to roughly estimate the oil formation volume
factor when the properties of gas and oil are not known.
2.27
or
2.29
where
Bop is the oil formation volume factor at the pressure p, and Co is the average oil
isothermal compressibility coefficient over the pressure range of Pb to P.
The value of the isothermal compressibility coefficient, Co, can be estimated from
[41],
2.30
where the pressure gradient, dp/dh, is in psi/ft, and Po is the oil density at the
prevailing pressure and temperature in lbm/ft3.
The oil formation volume factor, then, can be determined by the material balance
equation for one stock tank barrel of oil, resulting in,
2.32
Reservoir-Fluid Properties
Tarek Ahmed, in Reservoir Engineering Handbook (Fifth Edition), 2019
Where:
Bo = oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
(Vo)p,T = volume of oil under reservoir pressure p and temperature T, bbl
(Vo)sc = volume of oil is measured under standard conditions, STB
A typical oil formation factor curve, as a function of pressure for an undersaturated
crude oil (pi > pb), is shown in Figure 2-8. As the pressure is reduced below the
initial reservoir pressure pi, the oil volume increases due to the oil expansion. This
behavior results in an increase in the oil formation volume factor and will continue
until the bubble–point pressure is reached. At pb, the oil reaches its maximum
expansion and consequently attains a maximum value of Bob for the oil formation
volume factor. As the pressure is reduced below pb, volume of the oil and Bo are
decreased as the solution gas is liberated. When the pressure is reduced to
atmospheric pressure and the temperature to 60°F, the value of Bo is equal to one.
Six different methods of predicting the oil formation volume factor are presented
below:
Standing’s correlation
○ ○ The Vasquez-Beggs correlation
○ Glaso’s correlation
○ Marhoun’s correlation
○ The Petrosky-Farshad correlation
○ Other correlations
It should be noted that all the correlations could be used for any pressure equal to
or below the bubble-point pressure.
Standing’s Correlation
Standing (1947) presented a graphical correlation for estimating the oil formation
volume factor with the gas solubility, gas gravity, oil gravity, and reservoir
temperature as the correlating parameters. This graphical correlation originated
from examining a total of 105 experimental data points on 22 different California
hydrocarbon systems. An average error of 1.2% was reported for the correlation.
Standing (1981) showed that the oil formation volume factor can be expressed
more conveniently in a mathematical form by the following equation:
(2-84)
where
T = temperature, °R
γo = specific gravity of the stock–tank oil
γg = specific gravity of the solution gas
The Vasquez-Beggs Correlation
Vasquez and Beggs (1980) developed a relationship for determining Bo as a
function of Rs, γo, γg, and T. The proposed correlation was based on 6,000
measurements of Bo at various pressures. Using the regression analysis technique,
Vasquez and Beggs found the following equation to be the best form to reproduce
the measured data:
(2-85)
Where:
R = gas solubility, scf/STB
T = temperature, °R
γgs = gas specific gravity as defined by Equation 2-72, i.e.:
Vasquez and Beggs reported an average error of 4.7% for the proposed correlation.
Glaso’s Correlation
Glaso (1980) proposed the following expressions for calculating the oil formation
volume factor:
(2-86)
where
(2-87)
Where:
T = temperature, °R
γo = specific gravity of the stock-tank oil
The above correlations were originated from studying PVT data on 45 oil samples.
The average error of the correlation was reported at –0.43% with a standard
deviation of 2.18%.
Sutton and Farshad (1984) concluded that Glaso’s correlation offers the best
accuracy when compared with the Standing and Vasquez–Beggs correlations. In
general, Glaso’s correlation underpredicts formation volume factor. Standing’s
expression tends to overpredict oil formation volume factors greater than 1.2
bbl/STB. The Vasquez–Beggs correlation typically overpredicts the oil formation
volume factor.
Marhoun’s Correlation
Marhoun (1988) developed a correlation for determining the oil formation volume
factor as a function of the gas solubility, stock–tank oil gravity, gas gravity, and
temperature. The empirical equation was developed by use of the nonlinear
multiple regression analysis on 160 experimental data points. The experimental
data were obtained from 69 Middle Eastern oil reserves. The author proposed the
following expression:
(2-89)
Where:
T = temperature, °R
γo = specific gravity of the stock–tank oil
Material Balance Equation
Following the definition of Bo as expressed mathematically by Equation 2-84, it can
be shown that:
(2-92)
where ρo = density of the oil at the specified pressure and temperature, lb/ft3.
The error in calculating Bo by using Equation 2-93 will depend only on the
accuracy of the input variables (Rs, γg, and γo) and the method of calculating ρo.
Example 2-30
The following experimental PVT data on six different crude oil systems are
available. Results are based on two–stage surface separation.
Oil
T Pb Rs Bo ρo co at p > pb psep Tsep API γg
#
22.14 × 10–6 at
1 250 2377 751 1.528 38.13 2689 150 60 47.1 0.851
18.75 × 10–6 at
2 220 2620 768 1.474 40.95 2810 100 75 40.7 0.855
22.69 × 10–6 at
3 260 2051 693 1.529 37.37 2526 100 72 48.6 0.911
21.51 × 10–6 at
4 237 2884 968 1.619 38.92 2942 60 120 40.5 0.898
24.16 × 10–6 at
5 218 3065 943 1.570 37.70 3273 200 60 44.2 0.781
11.65 × 10–6 at
6 180 4239 807 1.385 46.79 85 173 27.3 0.848
4370
Calculate the oil formation volume factor at the bubble-point pressure by using the
six different correlations. Compare the results with the experimental values and
calculate the absolute average error (AAE).
Solution
Designate:
Method 1: Standing’s correlation
Step 11
Calculate the oil formation volume factor from the relationship
Combining equations (5-38) and (5-42) with the preceding expression gives
(5-44)
where
Bo = oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
Ma = apparent molecular weight of the feed
(Ma)st = apparent molecular weight of the stock-tank oil
ρo = density of crude oil at reservoir conditions, lb/ft3
The separator pressure can be optimized by calculating the API gravity, GOR, and
Bo in the manner just outlined at different assumed pressures. The optimum
pressure corresponds to a maximum in the API gravity and a minimum in gas/oil
ratio and oil formation volume factor.
Oil is slightly compressible. Hence, the oil formation volume factor increases
slightly with decline in reservoir pressure due to expansion of the liquid phase as
long as the reservoir produces above the bubble point. However, as the bubble
point is reached and the reservoir begins producing below the bubble point,
reduction in oil volume is observed due to the evolution of the gas phase.
Consequently, the oil formation volume factor increases with the decrease of
reservoir pressure.
It is further noted that the formation volume factor can be calculated above the
bubble point if the oil compressibility and certain other fluid properties are known.
The equation is as follows:
(4.13)
where
Bo = oil formation volume factor, bbl/STB
(Vo)p, T = volume of oil under reservoir pressure, p, and temperature, i, bbl
(Vo)sc = volume of oil is measured under standard conditions, STB
A typical oil formation factor curve, as a function of pressure for an undersaturated
crude oil (pi > pb), is shown in Figure 4-7. As the pressure is reduced below the
initial reservoir pressure, pi, the oil volume increases due to the oil expansion. This
behavior results in an increase in the oil formation volume factor and continues
until the bubble-point pressure is reached. At pb, the oil reaches its maximum
expansion and consequently attains a maximum value of Bob for the oil formation
volume factor. As the pressure is reduced below pb, volume of the oil and Bo are
decreased as the solution gas is liberated. When the pressure is reduced to
atmospheric pressure and the temperature to 60°F, the value of Bo is equal to 1.
where
T = temperature, °R
γo = specific gravity of the stock-tank oil, 60°/60°
γg = specific gravity of the solution gas
Vasquez and Beggs's Correlation
Vasquez and Beggs (1980) developed a relationship for determining Bo as a
function of Rs, γo, γg, and T. The proposed correlation was based on 6000
measurements of Bo at various pressures. Using the regression analysis technique,
Vasquez and Beggs found the following equation to be the best form to reproduce
the measured data:
(4-39)
where
R = gas solubility, scf/STB
T = temperature, °R
γgs = gas specific gravity as defined by equation 4-25:
Values for the coefficients C1, C2, and C3 of equation (4-39) follow:
Vasquez and Beggs reported an average error of 4.7% for the proposed correlation.
Glaso's Correlation
Glaso (1980) proposed the following expressions for calculating the oil formation
volume factor:
(4-40)
where
(4-41)
where T = temperature, °R, and γo = specific gravity of the stock-tank oil, 60°/60°.
These correlations were originated from studying PVT data on 45 oil samples. The
average error of the correlation was reported at −0.43% with a standard deviation
of 2.18%.
Sutton and Farshad (1984) concluded that Glaso's correlation offers the best
accuracy when compared with Standing's and Vasquez-Beggs's correlations. In
general, Glaso's correlation underpredicts formation volume factor, Standing's
expression tends to overpredict oil formation volume factors, while Vasquez-
Beggs's correlation typically overpredicts the oil formation volume factor.
Marhoun's Correlation
Marhoun (1988) developed a correlation for determining the oil formation volume
factor as a function of the gas solubility, stock-tank oil gravity, gas gravity, and
temperature. The empirical equation was developed by use of the nonlinear
multiple regression analysis on 160 experimental data points. The experimental
data were obtained from 69 Middle Eastern oil reserves. The author proposed the
following expression:
(4-43)
where T is the system temperature in °R and the coefficients a, b, and c have the
following values:
where T = temperature, °R, and γo = specific gravity of the stock-tank oil, 60°/60°.
Material Balance Equation
From the definition of Bo as expressed mathematically by equation (4-37),
The oil volume under p and T can be replaced with total weight of the hydrocarbon
system divided by the density at the prevailing pressure and temperature:
where the total weight of the hydrocarbon system is equal to the sum of the stock-
tank oil plus the weight of the solution gas:
or
Given the gas solubility, Rs, per barrel of the stock-tank oil and the specific gravity
of the solution gas, the weight of Rs scf of the gas is calculated as
or
(4-46)
where ρo = density of the oil at the specified pressure and temperature, lb/ft3.
The error in calculating Bo by using equation (4-46) depends on the accuracy of
only the input variables (Rs, γg, and γo) and the method of calculating ρo.
EXAMPLE 4-20
The table below shows experimental PVT data on six crude oil systems. Results are
based on two-stage surface separation. Calculate the oil formation volume factor at
the bubble-point pressure using the preceding six different correlations. Compare
the results with the experimental values and calculate the absolute average error.
1 250 2377 751 1.528 38.13 22.14 × 10−6 at 150 60 47.1 0.851
2689
2 220 2620 768 1.474 40.95 18.75 × 10−6 at 100 75 40.7 0.855
2810
3 260 2051 693 0.529 37.37 22.69 × 10−6 at 100 72 48.6 0.911
2526
Oil T pb Rs Bo ρo co at p > pb psep Tsep API γg
4 237 2884 968 1.619 38.92 21.51 × 10−6 at 60 120 40.5 0.898
2942
5 218 3065 943 0.570 37.70 24.16 × 10−6 at 200 60 44.2 0.781
3273
6 180 4239 807 0.385 46.79 11.65 × 10−6 at 85 173 27.3 0.848
4370
SOLUTION
For convenience, these six correlations follow:
Method 1
Method 2
Method 3
Method 4
Method 5
Method 6
Results of applying these correlations for calculating Bo are tabulated in the table
below.
Method
Crude Oil Bo 1 2 3 4 5 6
The separator gas-oil ratio is then the difference between the new (corrected) gas
solubility Rsfbnew and the unchanged stock-tank gas-oil ratio.
Formation volume factor:
The separator oil formation volume factor Bofb is adjusted in the same proportion
as the differential liberation values:
(3-23)
Example 3-7
Results of the differential liberation and the separator tests on the Big Butte crude
oil system are given in Tables 3-4 and 3-6, respectively. New field and production
data indicate that the bubble-point pressure is better described by a value of 2,500
psi as compared with the laboratory reported value of 1,936 psi. The correction
procedure for Bod and Rsd as described previously was applied, to give the following
values at the new bubble point:
Using the separator test data as given in Table 3-6, calculate the gas solubility and
the oil formation volume factor at the new bubble-point pressure.
Solution
○ Gas solubility: from Equation 3-22
The separator gas-oil ratio is then the difference between the new (corrected) gas
solubility and the unchanged stock-tank gas-oil ratio.
Formation volume factor:
The separator oil formation volume factor Bofb is adjusted in the same proportion
as the differential liberation values:
(3-23)
Example 3-7
Results of the differential liberation and the separator tests on the Big Butte crude
oil system are given in Tables 3-4 and 3-6, respectively. New field and production
data indicate that the bubble-point pressure is better described by a value of 2,500
psi as compared with the laboratory-reported value of 1,936 psi. The correction
procedure for Bod and Rsd as described previously was applied to give the following
values at the new bubble point:
Using the separator test data as given in Table 3-6, calculate the gas solubility and
the oil formation volume factor at the new bubble-point pressure.
Solution
• Gas solubility: from Equation 3-22
where .
Note that the numerator of this fraction (Eq. (1.2)), the live oil, does not show the
same composition of the denominator (dead oil), because, from T and P of interest
to standard conditions, the gas comes out of solution. The inverse of Bo is known
as shrinkage, because generally the dead-oil volume is lower than the live-oil one.
As composition varies, it is expected that Bo is a function of the fluid trajectory
from live- to dead-oil conditions. Fig. 1.10 shows the qualitative behavior of Bo
along DL. Naturally, none of these values is necessarily equal to the Bo of the flash
liberation.
Sample preparation: The recovered oil and gas samples are recombined at a
pressure far above the bubble point so that a single phase fluid is obtained. It is
critical to recombine at the correct ratio to recreate an accurate bubble point
pressure and solution gas-oil ratio. Subsurface samples are recombined at their
measured gas-oil ratio. Surface samples are recombined at the gas-oil ratio in the
separator vessel from which the sample was obtained, Rs,SEP. Because the gas-oil
ratio is not measured directly, the ratio is calculated from the measured gas-oil
ratio at stock tank conditions, Rs,ST as follows:
(5.1.4)
in which S is the ratio of the stock tank oil volume to the separator oil volume. The
value of S is determined as part of the fluid study by flashing a sample of the
separator oil to stock tank conditions. As is discussed in Section 5.4, it is important
to check bubble point pressure and solution gas-oil ratio against field pressure and
production data.
Flash expansion test: A sample of recombined fluid is compressed to a pressure well
above the bubble point and maintained at reservoir temperature. The volume of
the sample chamber is increased incrementally, and hence the pressure is reduced
incrementally, as shown in Figure 5.1.7(a). The volume of the fluid in the cell and
the pressure are recorded at each step after some time for equilibration. The data
are usually scaled to the bubble point oil volume, as shown in Table 5.1.2. The
system compressibility changes dramatically when gas is liberated at and below the
bubble point. Therefore, the bubble point pressure is determined from a change in
slope of the measured pressure versus volume, as shown in Figure 5.1.8. Oil
viscosity is also measured above the bubble point. The calculation of the oil
compressibility above the bubble point is discussed in Section 5.1.2.
Table 5.1.2. Flash expansion test results from Pembina Viking B Pool fluid
study
19,995 0.9965 –
19,305 0.9983 –
Pressure (kPag) V/Vsata Viscosity (mPa·s)
18,140 1.0107 –
17,065 1.0347 –
15,658 1.0742 –
14,058 1.1336 –
12,473 1.2132 –
10,894 1.3240 –
9460 1.4670 –
8039 1.6727 –
7412 1.7934 –
a
Vsat is the volume of oil at the saturation pressure (bubble point).
The data in Table 5.1.3 or Table 5.1.4 are sufficient to determine oil and gas PVT
properties for a differential liberation. Oil density is used directly as reported. The
other oil properties of interest are the differential liberation oil formation volume
factor, Bod (oil volume at a give pressure per volume of residual oil at 15 °C and
atmospheric pressure) and the differential liberation solution gas-oil ratio, Rsd (gas
volume at standard conditions per volume of residual oil at 15 °C and atmospheric
pressure). These properties are calculated as follows:
If the measurements are scaled to bubble point oil volume:
(5.1.5)
(5.1.6)
(5.1.8)
in which Vo is the relative oil volume, and F is the evolved gas volume. The
subscripts are defined as follows: subscript r—the property is relative to the
residual oil volume; subscript b—the property is relative to bubble point oil;
subscript residual—residual oil property. Oil properties calculated from the data in
Table 5.1.3 are provided in Table 5.1.5. Note that oil viscosity is also measured in a
differential liberation test and is included in Table 5.1.5.
Table 5.1.5. Pembina Viking B Pool oil properties from differential test
Pressure Oil density Oil viscosity Oil volume factor, Solution gas-oil ratio,
(kPag) (kg/m³) (mPa·s) Bod (m³/scm) Rs (scm/scm)
The gas density is used directly as reported. The gas formation volume factor, Bg, is
the reciprocal of the expansion factor, Eg. The gas compressibility factor (z-factor)
can be calculated from the expansion factor as follows:
(5.1.9)
Gas properties calculated from the data in Table 5.1.3 are provided in Table 5.1.6.
Gas viscosity is calculated from a correlation and was included in Table 5.1.3.
18,685 – – – – –
Table 5.1.7. Separator test results from Pembina Viking B Pool fluid study
Total 149.11
a
Gas at 101 kPa and 15 °C relative to oil volume at given pressure and
temperature.
b
Gas at 101 kPa and 15 °C relative to stock tank oil volume at 15 °C.
c
Volume of saturated oil at bubble point relative to volume of stock tank oil at
15 °C.
d
Volume of oil at given pressure and temperature relative to volume of stock
tank oil at 15 °C.
e
Relative to air at 101 kPa and 15 °C.
The two properties of most interest are: the total gas-oil ratio, which is termed the
separator flash bubble point solution gas-oil ratio, Rsfb; and the oil formation
volume factor, which is termed separator flash bubble point volume factor, Bofb.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors.
ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.