Oil Formation Volume Factor

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

Oil Formation Volume Factor

The oil formation volume factor, Bo, is defined as the ratio of the volume of oil
(plus the gas in solution) at the prevailing reservoir temperature and pressure to
the volume of oil at standard conditions. Bo is always greater than or equal to unity.
The oil formation volume factor can be expressed mathematically as:
(2-83)

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.

Most of the published empirical Bo correlations utilize the following generalized

relationship:

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.

PVT and Phase Behaviour of Petroleum Reservoir

Fluids
In Developments in Petroleum Science, 1998

Oil Formation Volume Factor

The oil formation volume factor of saturated oils has been correlated by a number
of investigators using the gas in solution Rs, (gas to oil ratio), gas gravity, oil gravity
and reservoir temperature as the correlating parameters.
Standing initially produced a graphical correlation [39] for estimating the oil
formation volume factor, and later [49] expressed the graph by the following
correlation,
2.25
The Vasquez and Beggs [41] correlation, which accounts for the separator pressure
is as follows,
2.26

where Sgn is the normalised gas gravity, Eq.(2.24), and the values of the coefficients
are:

Coefficient API≤30 API>30

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

The oil formation volume factor of an undersaturated oil is calculated by correcting

the estimated formation factor at the saturation pressure for its compressibility at
the reservoir temperature. The oil isothermal compressibility coefficient, Co, is
related to the oil formation volume factor as,
2.28

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

The above correlation is believed to generally underpredict the compressibility,

particularly at high pressures [37], with an average absolute deviation of about
25%.
When the pressure gradient of a static oil column within the reservoir is known, the
oil density is conveniently calculated from,
2.31

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

Oil Formation Volume Factor

The oil formation volume factor, Bo, is defined as the ratio of the volume of oil
(plus the gas in solution) at the prevailing reservoir temperature and pressure to
the volume of oil at standard conditions. Bo is always greater than or equal to unity.
The oil formation volume factor can be expressed mathematically as:
(2-83)

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 “FVF” as a function of pressure

relationship.

Most of the published empirical Bo correlations utilize the following generalized

relationship:

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.:

Values for the coefficients C1, C2 and C3 are given below:

Coefficient API ≤ 30 API > 30

C1 4.677 × 10–4 4.670 × 10–4

C2 1.751 × 10–5 1.100 × 10–5

C3 –1.811 × 10–8 1.337 × 10–9

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)

Bob∗ is a correlating number and is defined by the following equation:

(2-88)

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)

with the correlating parameter F as defined by the following equation:

(2-90)

The coefficients a, b and c have the following values:

a = 0.742390
b = 0.323294
c = –1.202040
where T is the system temperature in °R.
The Petrosky-Farshad Correlation
Petrosky and Farshad (1993) proposed a new expression for estimating Bo. The
proposed relationship is similar to the equation developed by Standing; however,
the equation introduces three additional fitting parameters in order to increase the
accuracy of the correlation.
The authors used a nonlinear regression model to match experimental crude oil
from the Gulf of Mexico hydrocarbon system. Their correlation has the following
form:
 (2-91)

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

Method 2: Vasquez–Beggs correlation

Method 3: Glaso’s correlation

Method 4: Marhoun’s correlation

Method 5: Petrosky–Farshad correlation

Method 6: Material balance equation

Crude Oil Exp. Method Method Method Method Method Method

# Bo 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 1.528 1.506 1.474 1.473 1.516 1.552 1.525

2 1.474 1.487 1.450 1.459 1.477 1.508 1.470

3 1.529 1.495 1.451 1.461 1.511 1.556 1.542

4 1.619 1.618 1.542 1.589 1.575 1.632 1.623

5 1.570 1.571 1.546 1.541 1.554 1.584 1.599

6 1.385 1.461 1.389 1.438 1.414 1.433 1.387

%AAE – 1.7 2.8 2.8 1.3 1.8 0.6

Equations of State and Phase Equilibria

Tarek Ahmed Ph.D., P.E., in Equations of State and PVT Analysis, 2007

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.

Reservoir fluid properties

Abdus Satter, Ghulam M. Iqbal, in Reservoir Engineering, 2016

Oil formation volume factor

The oil formation volume factor is a measure of the degree of change in oil volume
as it is produced from the reservoir and brought to surface conditions. In the
subsurface formation, pressure as well as temperature is significantly higher than
stock-tank conditions. As oil is produced, it undergoes shrinkage or reduction in
volume due to the liberation of dissolved gas. The effect is greater in the case of
highly volatile oil due to the abundance of light hydrocarbons.
The oil formation volume factor is defined as follows:
(4.12)

Depending on the relative abundance of volatile components, the formation

volume factor may typically range from 5.0 for highly volatile oil to a value close to
1.0 for heavy oil. Oil having a formation volume factor of 2.0 indicates that the
volume of oil will be reduced to half when produced. Heavy oil, on the contrary,
has a relatively low formation volume factor meaning that oil volume is not
significantly reduced under surface conditions, as shown in Figure 4.4. Formation
volume factor of highly volatile liquid condensate is presented in Figure 4.5, where
significant change in formation volume factor occurs as the reservoir pressure
declines.
Figure 4.4. Formation volume factor of oil as a function of pressure.
The value is unity when no more volatiles are present in the liquid phase.
Figure 4.5. Plot of formation volume factor of condensate liquid versus reservoir
pressure.
Due to the presence of highly volatile hydrocarbons, formation volume factor is
quite high at reservoir conditions.
Courtesy: Computer Modelling Group.

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 Bob = formation volume factor at bubble point, rb/STB; pb = bubblepoint

pressure, psia.
Below the bubble point pressure, however, the effect of liquid expansion becomes
relatively small compared to shrinkage of oil as the lighter hydrocarbons are
liberated and form a vapor phase.
The formation volume factor can be estimated based on the following Petrosky–
Farshad correlation when certain fluid properties are known:
(4.14)

where Rs = solution GOR, scf/STB; γg = specific gravity of gas, ratio; γo = specific

gravity of oil, ratio; T = reservoir temperature, °R.

PVT Properties of Crude Oils

Tarek Ahmed Ph.D., P.E., in Equations of State and PVT Analysis, 2007

Oil Formation Volume Factor

The oil formation volume factor, Bo, is defined as the ratio of the volume of oil
(plus the gas in solution) at the prevailing reservoir temperature and pressure to
the volume of oil at standard conditions. Evidently, Bo always is greater than or
equal to unity. The oil formation volume factor can be expressed mathematically as
(4-37)

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.

FIGURE 4-7. Typical oil formation volume factor/pressure relationship.

Most of the published empirical Bo correlations utilize the following generalized

relationship:
Six methods of predicting the oil formation volume factor are presented here:
Standing's correlation, Vasquez and Beggs's correlation, Glaso's correlation,
Marhoun's correlation, Petrosky and Farshad's correlation, and the material balance
equation. 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 105 experimental data points on 22 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:
(4-38)

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:

COEFFICIENT API ≤ 30 API > 30

C1 4.677 × 10−4 4.670 × 10−4

C2 1.751 × 10−5 1.100 × 10−5

C3 -1.811 × 10−8 1.337 × 10−9

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)

is a “correlating number,” defined by the following equation:

(4-42)

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)

with the correlating parameter F as defined by the following equation:

(4-44)

where T is the system temperature in °R and the coefficients a, b, and c have the
following values:

Petrosky and Farshad's Correlation

Petrosky and Farshad (1993) proposed a new expression for estimating Bo. The
proposed relationship is similar to the equation developed by Standing; however,
the equation introduces three additional fitting parameters to increase the accuracy
of the correlation.
The authors used a nonlinear regression model to match experimental crude oil
from the Gulf of Mexico hydrocarbon system. Their correlation has the following
form:
(4-45)

with the term A as given by

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

where mg = weight of solution gas, lb of solution gas/STB.

The weight of one barrel of the stock-tank oil is calculated from its specific gravity
by the following relationship:

Substituting for mo and mg,

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.

Oil T pb Rs Bo ρo co at p > pb psep Tsep API γg

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

1 1.528 1.506 1.474 1.473 1.516 1.552 1.525

2 1.474 1.487 1.450 1.459 1.477 1.508 1.470

3 1.529 1.495 1.451 1.461 1.511 1.556 1.542

4 1.619 1.618 1.542 1.589 1.575 1.632 1.623

5 1.570 1.571 1.546 1.541 1.554 1.584 1.599

6 1.385 1.461 1.389 1.438 1.414 1.433 1.387

%AAE — 1.7 2.8 2.8 1.3 1.8 0.6

Method 1 = Standing's correlation.

Method 2 = Vasquez and Beggs's correlation.
Method 3 = Glaso's correlation.
Method 4 = Marhoun's correlation.
Method 5 = Petrosky and Farshad correlation.
Method 6 = Material balance equation.

Al-Shammasi (1999) used the neural network approach to generate an expression

for predicting Bo. The relationship, as given below, gives an average absolute error
of 1.81%:
where T is the temperature in °R.

Laboratory Analysis of Reservoir Fluids

Tarek Ahmed, in Reservoir Engineering Handbook (Fifth Edition), 2019

Correcting the Separator Tests Data

Stock-tank gas-oil ratio and gravity:
No corrections are needed for the stock-tank gas-oil ratio and the stock-tank API
gravity.
Separator gas-oil ratio:
The total gas-oil ratio Rsfb is changed in the same proportion as the differential
ratio was changed, or
(3-22)

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

○ Oil formation volume factor

Applying Equation 3-23, gives

Laboratory Analysis of Reservoir Fluids

Tarek Ahmed, in Reservoir Engineering Handbook (Fourth Edition), 2010

Correcting the Separator Tests Data

Stock-tank gas-oil ratio and gravity:
No corrections are needed for the stock-tank gas-oil ratio and the stock-tank API
gravity.
Separator gas-oil ratio:
The total gas-oil ratio Rsfb is changed in the same proportion as the differential
ratio was changed, or
(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

Separator GOR = 785 − 13 = 772 scf/STB

• Oil formation volume factor
Applying Equation 3-23 gives

Reservoir Fluids and PVT Analysis

Rogério Oliveira Espósito, ... Frederico Wanderley Tavares, in Compositional
Grading in Oil and Gas Reservoirs, 2017

1.2.1 Oil Formation Volume Factor (FVF or Bo)

By definition, the oil formation volume factor (FVF or Bo) is the volume of live oil at
any T and P (not necessarily the original reservoir conditions) divided by the
volume of the respective dead oil at standard conditions, 1 atm and 60°F:
(1.2)

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.

Figure 1.10. Example of a Bo graphic in a differential liberation assay.

In practice, Bo can only be calculated at the end of DL because we need the

residual oil volume at 60°F to obtain its denominator. As to the numerator, the
live-oil volume inside the cell above Psat is obtained from nominal-volume readings
on the pump-body scale, applying the due corrections already cited. Below Psat, the
free-gas volume in equilibrium with the oil (given by the difference on the pump
reading before and after the gas expulsion) must be subtracted from total volume
of the sample inside the cell in an order that only saturated oil is computed.
Starting from static pressure and reducing it to Psat (bubble point), the increase in
Bo shown in Fig. 1.10 might be explained by expansion due to oil compressibility.
Such expansion might be more pronounced, depending mainly on the
intermediate fractions in the mixture. Generally, the leaner the dissolved gas (and
the heavier the dead oil), the lower the live-oil compressibility; then the increase in
Bo tends to be moderated and linear. Below Psat, however, the oil shrinkage due to
gas evolving tends to overcome its expansion by pressure reduction, so one
observes a steeper decline in Bo. Finally, the last reported value (that is atmospheric
pressure) is greater than one because of thermal expansion, since the assay
(reservoir) temperature is always greater than 60°F.

Fluid Properties (PVT Data)

Richard O. Baker, ... Jerry L. Jensen, in Practical Reservoir Engineering and
Characterization, 2015

5.1.2 Black Oil Fluid (PVT) Study

For black oil reservoir fluids, the oil and gas formation volume factors, the solution
gas-oil ratio, oil and gas densities, and the oil and gas viscosities are required at
reservoir temperature as a function of pressure. These properties can be
determined in a fluid study consisting of the following tests:
• Flash expansion test: used to determine the bubble point pressure and the
compressibility of the undersaturated oil as a function of pressure.
• Differential liberation test: used to determine the relationship of the oil and gas
formation volume factors and the solution gas-oil ratio to pressure. Oil density,
oil viscosity, and gas density are also measured at each pressure. Gas viscosity
is calculated at each pressure.
• Separator test: used to determine the bubble point formation volume factors
and solution gas-oil ratio at separator conditions.
These tests are performed in a pressure, volume, and temperature (PVT) cell, as
shown in Figure 5.1.6. A PVT cell is a high-pressure chamber, usually equipped
with a site glass. The chamber resides in an air bath in which a constant
temperature is maintained. A fluid sample is pumped into the cell, and the volume
and therefore pressure of the sample chamber is controlled with a piston. Most
sample chambers also are equipped with a magnetic stirrer to ensure that the
system is well mixed. When two phases are present, the interface between the faces
can be detected through the site glass and the volume of each phase measured.
When required, a volume of the lighter phase can be displaced from the sample
chamber. Procedures for the fluid tests are described below.

Figure 5.1.6. Schematic of PVT apparatus.

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.

Figure 5.1.7. Flash (a) and differential (b) liberation tests.

Table 5.1.2. Flash expansion test results from Pembina Viking B Pool fluid
study

Pressure (kPag) V/Vsata Viscosity (mPa·s)

34,474 0.9670 0.361

31,026 0.9729 0.349

27,579 0.9796 0.337

24,132 0.9868 0.324

20,684 0.9948 0.312

19,995 0.9965 –

19,305 0.9983 –
 Pressure (kPag) V/Vsata Viscosity (mPa·s)

18,685 (Pbp) 1.0000 –

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).

Figure 5.1.8. Bubble point determination from flash expansion test.

Data from Pembina Viking B Pool fluid study (Table 5.1.2).

Differential liberation test: A sample of recombined fluid is compressed to the

bubble point pressure and maintained at reservoir temperature. As with the flash
expansion test, the volume of the sample chamber is increased incrementally;
however, in this case, the evolved solution gas is withdrawn from the sample
chamber after each incremental expansion, as shown in Figure 5.1.7(b). After each
step, the evolved gas is expanded to standard conditions, and the expansion factor
is recorded. Also, the pressure, the total volume of the fluid in the cell, the volume
of the liquid phase, the viscosity of the liquid phase, the volume of evolved gas, and
the density of the evolved gas are measured at each step. The viscosity of the
evolved gas is usually calculated rather than measured.
The oil volume data are sometimes scaled to the residual oil volume at atmospheric
pressure and 15 °C, as shown in Table 5.1.3. The residual oil volume is determined
in the final step of a differential test when the oil at atmospheric pressure and
reservoir temperature is flashed to 15 °C. In other cases, the data may be scaled to
the bubble point oil volume, as shown in Table 5.1.4. In many fluid studies, the
solution gas-oil ratio calculated from the evolved gas volume and the relative oil
volume is reported instead of the evolved gas volume.

Table 5.1.3. Differential liberation test volume and density measurements at

82.2 °C from Pembina Viking B Pool fluid study

Pressure Oil Relative Relative Relative Gas- Gas

(kPag) density oil total evolved gas specific expansion
(kg/m³) volumea volumea volumeb (Fr) gravityc factord (Eg)
(Vor)

18,685 644.6 1.642 1.642 0.00 – –

16,547 655.5 1.579 1.723 23.86 0.814 166.11

14,486 666.1 1.525 1.833 44.13 0.773 143.06

12,376 677.0 1.473 2.008 63.87 0.765 119.47

10,321 687.7 1.426 2.266 82.01 0.753 97.66

8239 698.0 1.382 2.685 98.91 0.769 75.93

6191 708.6 1.338 3.426 115.81 0.789 55.46

4137 719.5 1.295 4.941 131.99 0.820 36.21

1931 733.3 1.238 10.307 151.91 0.983 16.75

979 741.6 1.204 19.747 162.78 1.131 8.78

0 776.3 1.061 241.079 194.24 1.797 0.81

Scaled to residual oil volume.

Density of residual oil = 823.0 kg/m³ at 15.56 °C.
a
Oil and gas at indicated temperature and pressure relative to residual oil
volume at 15 °C.
b
Gas at 101 kPa and 15 °C relative to residual oil volume.
c
Relative to air at 101 kPa and 15 °C.
d
Gas volume at 101 kPa and 15 °C relative to volume at given pressure and
temperature.

Table 5.1.4. Differential liberation test volume and density measurements at

82.2 °C from Pembina Viking B Pool fluid study

Pressure Oil Relative Relative Relative Gas- Gas

(kPag) density oil total evolved gas specific expansion
(kg/m³) volumea volumea volumeb (Fr) gravityc factord (Eg)
(Vor)

18,685 644.6 1.0000 1.000 – –

16,547 655.5 0.9616 1.049 14.53 0.814 166.11

Pressure Oil Relative Relative Relative Gas- Gas
(kPag) density oil total evolved gas specific expansion
(kg/m³) volumea volumea volumeb (Fr) gravityc factord (Eg)
(Vor)

14,486 666.1 0.9287 1.116 26.88 0.773 143.06

12,376 677.0 0.8971 1.223 38.90 0.765 119.47

10,321 687.7 0.8685 1.380 49.95 0.753 97.66

8239 698.0 0.8417 1.635 60.24 0.769 75.93

6191 708.6 0.8149 2.086 70.53 0.789 55.46

4137 719.5 0.7887 3.009 80.38 0.820 36.21

1931 733.3 0.7540 6.277 92.52 0.983 16.75

979 741.6 0.7333 12.03 99.14 1.131 8.78

0 776.3 0.6462 146.8 118.29 1.797 0.81

0 (15 °C) 823.0 0.6090 – 118.29 – 1.00

Scaled to bubble point oil volume.

a
Oil and gas at indicated temperature and pressure relative to residual oil
volume at 15 °C.
b
Gas at 101 kPa and 15 °C relative to residual oil volume.
c
Relative to air at 101 kPa and 15 °C.
d
Gas volume at 101 kPa and 15 °C relative to volume at given pressure and
temperature.

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)

If the measurements are scaled to the residual oil volume:

(5.1.7)

(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)

18,685 644.6 0.304 1.642 194.24

16,547 655.5 0.330 1.579 170.38

14,486 666.1 0.360 1.525 150.11

12,376 677.0 0.394 1.473 130.37

10,321 687.7 0.432 1.426 112.23

8239 698.0 0.474 1.382 95.33

6191 708.6 0.506 1.338 78.43

4137 719.5 0.613 1.295 62.25

1931 733.3 0.759 1.238 42.33

979 741.6 0.866 1.204 31.46

0 776.3 1.579 1.061 0

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.

Table 5.1.6. Pembina Viking B Pool gas properties

Pressure Gas- Gas Compressibility Gas expansion Gas volume

(kPag) specific viscosity factor, z factor, Eg factor, Bg
gravity (mPa·s) (scm/m³) (m³/scm)

18,685 – – – – –

16,547 0.814 0.0204 0.802 166.11 0.00602

14,486 0.773 0.0183 0.816 143.06 0.00699

12,376 0.765 0.0169 0.836 119.47 0.00837

10,321 0.753 0.0157 0.854 97.66 0.01024

8239 0.769 0.0147 0.879 75.93 0.01317

6191 0.789 0.0138 0.908 55.46 0.01803

4137 0.820 0.0130 0.937 36.21 0.02762

Pressure Gas- Gas Compressibility Gas expansion Gas volume
(kPag) specific viscosity factor, z factor, Eg factor, Bg
gravity (mPa·s) (scm/m³) (m³/scm)

1931 0.983 0.0118 0.971 16.75 0.05970

979 1.131 0.0111 0.985 8.78 0.1139

0 1.797 0.0089 0.999 0.81 1.236

Separator test: A sample of recombined fluid is compressed to the bubble point

pressure at the reservoir temperature. The sample is then flashed to the
temperature and pressure of the field separator. The volume of oil and gas are
measured. If the field has a second stage separator, the sample is then flashed to
the temperature and pressure of the second separator. The oil and gas volumes are
measured again. After all of the separation stages have been tested, the sample is
flashed to stock tank conditions, and the stock tank oil and gas volumes are
measured. The results of a separator test are usually reported in terms of oil
volume factors and gas-oil ratios, as shown in Table 5.1.7.

Table 5.1.7. Separator test results from Pembina Viking B Pool fluid study

Seperator Seperator Gas- Gas- Oil API Oil Separator Gas-

pressure temperature oil oil gravity volume volume specific
(kPag) (°C) ratioa ratiob (15.6 °C) factorc factord gravitye
(Rsf) (Bofb)

545 16 127.25 133.71 – – 1.051 0.753

0 16 15.39 15.40 44.0 1.474 1.001 1.123

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.