Day_3

PVT & EOS Modelling

Using PVTsim Software
Eng.Mohamed Abdel Ghani
Senior Reservoir Engineer
AGENDA
• Adjusting PVT lab data
• Why adjusting?
• Adjusting techniques
• PVT Data QC for Oil Reservoir Samples
• PVT Data QC for Gas-condensate Reservoir Samples
• Sample QC in PVTsim
• Dealing with OBM Contaminated samples
• PVT Data Correction
• Error Evaluation
• Correction Technique
 Adjusting PVT lab Data
For
Actual Facilities Operating Conditions
 Adjusting PVT lab data for actual facilities
operating conditions
• Flash (Separator) GOR & Differential GOR:
Atmospheric Flash Data at Standard Conditions DV

Flashed Gas Gas Solution

Pressure, Temperature, o Oil Density, Oil API, Pressure Oil Density Z-Factor Oil F.V.F. Gas F.V.F.
Oil Ratio, Gravity Gas/oil ratio
psi F gm/cm3 gravity
SCF/STB
bo bg Rs

psig g/cc Air=1.000 bbL/STB CF/SCF SCF/STB

0 60 236.27 0.93781 19.24 3625.0 0.89684 1.09439 248.437
3300.0 0.89436 1.09743 248.437
3000.0 0.89199 1.10034 248.437
2755.0 0.89002 1.10278 248.437
2310.8 0.88626 1.10746 248.437
It is expected that the differential value of 1885.0
1450.0
0.88251
0.87854
1.11216
1.11719
248.437
248.437
solution GOR will be higher than the Rs from 1115.0
975.6
0.87539
0.88346
…..
0.68633
…….
0.92212
1.13074
1.11495
……
0.01715
248.437
217.966
the separation test as DV is accomplished at 836.3
696.9
0.89143
0.89929
0.73985
0.79337
0.91770
0.91718
1.09916
1.08337
0.01987
0.02375
187.495
157.024
higher temperature so more intense 557.5
418.1
0.90702
0.91463
0.84688
0.90040
0.92137
0.93096
1.06758
1.05180
0.02966
0.03963
126.554
96.083
vaporization of liquid is expected and thus 278.8
139.4
0.92211
0.92929
0.95392
1.03131
0.94649
0.96654
1.03601
1.02022
0.05942
0.11557
65.612
35.141
more gas to be produced. PVT Experiments 0.0 0.93612 1.22151 0.99533 1.00221 1.24741 4
0.000
 Adjusting PVT lab data for actual facilities
operating conditions
• The differential depletion conducted at constant temperature which is not the actual.so
the residual oil volume from differential, used for calculation of Bo & Rs, won’t be
representative to the actual residual oil from the production facilities which is simulated
by the separator test.
• The conversion of differential solution gas-oil ratio (Rsd) and differential oil FVF (Bod) to
a stock-tank oil basis must be applied (Standing, 1977).

PVT Experiments 5
 WHAT IS ACTUALLY
HAPPENING IN THE
RESERVOIR DURING
PRODUCTION??

Flash
Vaporization
P<Pb

Single phase
DV
PVT Experiments 6
 Adjusting PVT lab data for actual facilities
operating conditions
• Two methods to obtain PVT data for actual facilities operating conditions:
1. Composite liberation (Dodson Method 1953)
2. Adjusting PVT lab data
1. Amyx et al. (1960) and Dake (1978)
2. M.R. CARLSON (1997)

PVT Experiments 7
 Adjusting PVT lab data for actual facilities
operating conditions
1. Composite liberation (Dodson Method 1953)
A. The ideal method of obtaining these data is to place a large
crude oil sample in a PVT cell at its bubble-point pressure and
reservoir temperature.
B. At some pressure a few hundred psi below the bubble-point
pressure, a small portion of the oil is removed and flashed at
temperatures and pressures equal to those in the surface
separators and stock tank.
C. The liberated gas volume and stock-tank oil volume are
measured to obtain Bo and Rs.
D. This process is repeated at several progressively lower
reservoir pressures until complete curves of Bo and Rs versus
pressure have been obtained. This procedure is occasionally
conducted in the laboratory.
E. Time consuming and high volume sample 8
 Adjusting PVT lab data for actual facilities
operating conditions
2. Adjusting PVT lab data
A. Amyx et al. (1960) and Dake (1978)

PVT Experiments
 Adjusting PVT lab data for actual facilities
operating conditions
2. Adjusting PVT lab data
A. Amyx et al. (1960) and Dake (1978)
• The method is summarized in the following steps:
1. Calculate the oil formation volume factor at pressures above the bubble-point pressure
1.Bo = Vrel * Bofb (Above the bubble point using CCE/CME)
2.Bo = Bod * Bofb/Bodb (Below the bubble point)
2. Calculate Rs

OR

PVT Experiments 10
 Adjusting PVT lab data for actual facilities
operating conditions
• Amyx et al. (1960) and Dake (1978)
• It should be pointed out that previous Equations can produce values less than one for
Bo and negative values for Rs at low pressures.
• The calculated curves of Bo and Rs versus pressures must be manually drawn to Bo =
1.0 and Rs = 0 at atmospheric pressure.

PVT Experiments 11
 Adjusting PVT lab data for actual facilities
operating conditions
• Amyx et al. (1960) and Dake (1978)
• Disadvantages:
• It was found that Amyx et al. (1960) and Dake (1978) is very difficult to implement in practice
due to:
1. The calculation is predicated on having separator data from the PVT analysis. In practice, a
significant proportion of analyses have either no or limited separator tests.
2. When lab separator data is available, field implementation of separator temperature and
pressure does not match the lab assumptions.
3. In many cases, operating conditions are not accurately recorded throughout the producing
life of a property.
4. No inclusion of common facilities equipment like treater in laboratory PVT data.
5. Negative underground withdrawals could occur. In particular, this occurs if initial producing
GORs are lower than Rsi from PVT data. It is also physically unlikely.
6. It frequently extrapolates to negative values of solution gas at low pressures. it results in
what is obviously a non-physical extrapolation .The intent of this was clearly to adjust for
variations in evolved gas gravity, Since reservoirs do not reach such low average reservoir
pressures it is often possible to complete such a calculation despite this problem.
12
 Adjusting PVT lab data for actual facilities
operating conditions
• M.R. CARLSON (1997)
• This author's solution has been to modify the B0 and R. curves based on field
observed GORs. The differential data is adjusted to field data based on the ratio of
field observed initial GOR divided by lab initial differential GOR:

• The accepted practice historically is to use the solution gas oil ratio from both the
separator and the stock tank. Stock tank GORs are rarely measured, even on a
periodic basis. Recently, Rollins, McCain and Creeger correlated stock tank GORs as a
function of oil gravity, separator pressure and temperature. This correlation neatly
solves this problem.
• It should also be pointed out that separator conditions of over 100 psi are not
common for most onshore applications. Stock tank GORs corrections therefore apply
to relatively rare conditions. In such high primary separator pressures would normally
result in a second stage separator, where gas would be measured.
 PVT QC for Oil
Reservoirs Samples
PVT Quality Check Definition & Levels
• PVT QC Means:
PVT 1. Representative Sample
QC 2. Efficient Lab Procedure

Check

• Any Errors in PVT can lead to a

disaster in the economic project side.
Experiment Representing
Procedure of the sample
PVT QC for Oil Reservoirs Samples
1
6 Leakage
Check
2
DL Check Contamination
Check

PVT QC

CCE Check Composition

QC
5 Separator
test Check
3
Sample Validity QC
4 Analysis procedure QC
PVT QC for Oil Reservoirs Samples
1. Leakage check is: to compare sample opening pressure versus sampling pressure at the
same temperature regarding going under saturation pressure possibility.

Sample Validity QC
PVT QC for Oil Reservoirs Samples
2. Contamination check: is to check sample composition
fingerprint versus oil base mud composition fingerprint
to indicate contamination at sampling time or not.
• Also it can be indicated by the unregular phase plot

Sample Validity QC
PVT QC for Oil Reservoirs Samples
3. Composition check: is to check GOR of sample recombination if it provides equilibrium
between proposed liquid and gas compositions.
Material Balance QC
1.60000
1.40000
GOR 1430
1.20000 LAB Flash GOR 1513

Yi/Zi
1.00000 ERROR % 5.8
0.80000
RESULT Valid
0.60000
0.40000
0.20000
0.00000
0.00000 0.50000 1.00000 1.50000 2.00000 2.50000 3.00000 3.50000 4.00000
Xi/Zi

Sample Validity QC
PVT QC for Oil Reservoirs Samples
4. Separator test Check: is to check the equilibrium between the liquid and gas
compositions:
1. Hoffman check : plotting Hoffman factor versus Log k for all the components , nearly straight
line means good quality separation.
2. Buckly check : plotting square of Tc versus Log k for all the components , nearly straight line
means good quality separation.
2.0
2.0 1.5 Buckley QC
1.5 Hoffman QC 1.0
1.0 0.5
0.5 R² = 0.9591 0.0
R² = 0.9023
Log K 0.0 Log K -0.5
-0.5 -1.0
-1.0 -1.5
-1.5 -2.0
-2.0 -2.5
-1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 50000.0 100000.0 150000.0 200000.0 250000.0

Hoffman Factor Tc2

PVT QC for Oil Reservoirs Samples
5. CCE check : plotting Y-function and relative volume vs. pressure , to ensure
reported bubble point.

1.4000 Relative Volume 2.6000 Y-Function

1.3000 2.4000
y = -3E-05x + 1.1253 2.2000
1.2000 R² = 0.9966 2.0000
V(rel.) 1.1000 1.8000
Y y = 0.0002x + 1.6615
1.0000 1.6000
R² = 0.9419
1.4000
0.9000
1.2000
0.8000
1.0000
2500 3500 4500 5500 6500
2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Pressure Pressure
PVT QC for Oil Reservoirs Samples
• Differential liberation
• MB check : The mass of the sample and evolved gas at each step should be
equal the sample mass above the bubble point.
PVT QC for Oil Reservoirs Samples
• Differential liberation
• Vapor Compositions vs. Pressure : The behavior of gas components when evolving
should be monotonic with pressure depletion except for light components.
100 Vapor Composition vs. Pressure

10
Mole%

0.1
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Pressure
 PVT QC
Presented by
Mohamed Ameen Abdel Ghani
Reservoir Engineer – GPC – Offshore team
PVT QC for Gas Condensate
Reservoirs Samples
PVT QC for gas condensate reservoirs
• PVT QC for gas condensate reservoirs incorporates some steps:
• Sample validation:
1. Validity check as oil reservoirs
2. Contamination check as oil reservoirs
3. Composition check as oil reservoirs
• CVD check:
1. Comparing to CCE liquid drop out
2. Material balance check (forward & Backward)
3. K values versus Pressure

26
 PVT QC for gas condensate reservoirs
• PVT QC for gas condensate reservoirs incorporates some steps:
• CVD check:
1. Comparing to CCE liquid drop out

VALID NOT VALID

27
 PVT QC for gas condensate reservoirs
• CVD check:
2. Material balance check (forward & Backward)
• Forward Material balance check: Subtracting the
evolved gas compositions from the initial
composition and compare the calculated residual
liquid composition versus the lab measured
composition.
• Backward Material balance check: adding the
evolved gas compositions to the lab measured
residual liquid composition to get initial composition
then compare the initial composition versus the lab
measured composition
 PVT QC for gas condensate reservoirs
• PVT QC for gas condensate reservoirs incorporates some steps:
• CVD check:
3. K values versus Pressure

29
 PVT QC for gas condensate reservoirs
• PVT QC for gas condensate reservoirs incorporates some steps:

30
 Fluid types in PVTsim
1. Plus fraction:
• A Plus fraction fluid is interpreted as a composition where the last component is a
plus fraction containing all components of the actual carbon number and heavier.
The last fraction must be C7 or higher.
2. No-Plus fraction
• A No-plus fluid is interpreted as a mixture of pure components and possibly C7+
carbon number fractions. The last entry is interpreted as a discrete carbon number
fraction, not as a plus fraction. This option is primarily intended for mud
compositions and will not work if the fluid contains components lighter than C7.
3. Characterized
• For a characterized fluid Crit T, Crit P, acentric factor and other component properties
are assigned to each component. A characterized fluid usually originates from a Plus
Fraction or a No-Plus fraction type of composition, but it is also possible to enter an
already characterized composition. The composition of a characterized fluid is always
in mole.
 Quality check of fluid compositions

Based on EOS Calculations

Use only the

composition distribution
higher than C6

Use only the the

comparison between
sampling, opening
pressures and Psat
Quality check of fluid compositions
1. STO Oil Density (Single Stage Flash)
• The bottomhole composition is flashed to at standard conditions (typically
1.01 bara/15°C or 14.7 psia/59°F), and the density of the flashed liquid
compared with the input STO Oil density.
• The fluid fails the QC test if the deviation exceeds ± 3%.
• The QC evaluation will also fail if a single-phase gas is detected at standard
conditions.
2. GOR (Single Stage Flash)
• The GOR from a single stage flash of the bottomhole composition at standard
conditions is compared with the input GOR.
• The fluid fails the QC test if the deviation exceeds ± 10%. The same applies if a
single phase is detected at standard conditions.
Quality check of fluid compositions
3. Critical Point/Fluid Type (bottomhole)
• Critical temperature less than reservoir temperature -> Fluid Type: Gas or gas
condensate.
• Critical temperature higher than reservoir temperature -> Fluid Type: Oil or heavy oil.
• A mismatch between the reported and simulated fluid type should only be observed
for near critical fluids (typically heavy gas condensates or volatile oils), i.e. fluids for
which the reservoir temperature and the critical temperature are very close.
4. C7+ Molar Distribution (bottomhole)
• For most reservoir fluids With a fluid composition to for example C20+ an almost
straight line is to be expected for logarithm of the mole%’s of C7-C19 versus carbon
number. A best fit should have a coefficient R2 above 0.80 for the fluid pass the test.
• For heavy oils, the carbon number, at which the logarithmic decay starts, is
dependent on the STO API Gravity of the heavy oil The fluid analysis must be to at
least CNB + 4.
Quality check of fluid compositions
5. Plus Component Amount (bottomhole)
• By extrapolation of the best-fit line generated in the C7+ Molar Distribution
analysis, an estimate can be provided of the molar amount contained in the
plus fraction (C20+ molar amount if compositional analysis ends at C20+).
• The extrapolation is continued to C80 (C200 for heavy oil). The simulated plus
fluid molar amount found by this extrapolation should agree with the
reported plus molar amount within ±100% for the fluid to pass the test.
6. Plus Molecular Weight (bottomhole)
• An extrapolation of the best-fit line generated in the C7+ Molar Distribution
analysis enables the reported plus molecular weight to be checked.
• A deviation of more than ± 25% from the reported plus molecular weight will
make the QC test fail.
Quality check of fluid compositions
7. Plus Component Density (bottomhole)
• An extrapolation of the best-fit line generated in the C7+ Molar Distribution
analysis enables the reported plus density weight to be checked.
• The fluid fails the plus component density check if the simulated plus density
deviates by more than ± 5% from the plus density input for the fluid.
8. Bottomhole Sample Saturation Pressure (bottomhole)
• If the fluid sample is representative for the fluid in the reservoir, the
Bottomhole Sample Saturation Pressure must be lower than the Reservoir
Pressure.
9.Bottomhole Flowing Pressure (bottomhole)
• The Bottomhole Flowing Pressure must be higher than the Bottomhole
Sample Saturation Pressure.
Quality check of fluid compositions
10. Sample Cylinder Shutting/Opening Pressures (bottomhole)
• The Sample Cylinder Shutting Pressure must be higher than the Sample
Cylinder Opening Pressure.6. Bottomhole Sample Saturation Pressure
(bottomhole)
• The opposite would suggest that the sample in the laboratory is heated to a
temperature above reservoir temperature before the sample cylinder is
opened. That is obviously not the case. Something else has gone wrong and
the test will fail.
11. Test Separator GOR (bottomhole)
• The simulated GOR is found as GOR at standard conditions
• A deviation of more than ± 10% from the input separator GOR will make the
test fail.
Quality check of fluid compositions
12. Test Separator Oil Density (bottomhole)
• If the separator oil density has been input, the sampled fluid composition is
flashed to separator conditions and the simulated separator oil density
compared with that input. The test will fail if the deviation exceeds ± 4%.
13. OBM Contamination (bottomhole)
• The evaluation is conducted by a calculation of the best-fit straight line
through the logarithm of the mole fraction of C7+ fractions (except plus
component) versus carbon number.
• An analysis to at least C20+ is required for gas condensates and oils, whereas a
composition to C30+ is required for heavy oils.
• If the analysis shows signs of OBM, it is recommended to obtain a
composition of the mud and perform a Clean For Mud calculation in PVTsim.
 Quality check of fluid compositions and PVT data

Based on EOS Calculations

Graphical Checks

Use only the

composition distribution
higher than C6 As BHS
 Quality check of fluid compositions
1. Separator Conditions (separator)
• Phase envelopes for the separator gas and
the separator oil should ideally meet at the
separator P and T. In the QC module the
deviation between the simulated separator P
and T and the reported separator conditions
are defined as
1. TSimulated > Treported :Accept criterion is 5%
(deviation most likely caused by liquid
carryover)
2. TSimulated < Treported :Accept criterion is 20%
(deviation most likely caused heavy
components in gas not analyzed for, which will
have little influence on the properties of the
recombined fluid)
3. The test will fail if the phase envelopes do not
intersect.
Quality check of fluid compositions
2. Saturation Temperature Separator Gas (separator)
• Ideally the dew point temperature of the separator gas at the separator
pressure should be equal to the separator temperature. The fluid will fail the
QC if the simulated saturation temperature for the separator gas at the
separator pressure deviates by more than ± 10% from the separator
temperature.
3. Saturation Pressure Separator Oil (separator)
• Ideally the bubble point pressure of the separator oil at the separator
temperature should be equal to the separator pressure. The fluid will fail the
QC if the simulated saturation pressure for the separator oil at the separator
temperature deviates by more than ± 10% from the separator pressure.
Quality check of fluid compositions
4. K-Factor Plot (separator)
• The K-factor is determined through Yi/Xi
• To check whether the sampled separator compositions were at equilibrium at
separator conditions the K-factors of the sampled compositions may be
compared with the K-factors of the compositions from a flash of the
recombined fluid to separator conditions.
• The test should yield a straight line (y=x) when plotting the simulated K-
factors against the reported K-factors. Only defined components are included
in the test since heavier components are not always contained in both
separator gas and separator liquid analysis. N2 is not included in this
evaluation, the reason being that sample cylinders may be contaminated by
N2.
• The line coefficient R2 must be above 0.98 to pass the K-Factor Plot test.
Quality check of fluid compositions
4. Mass Balance Closure Plot (separator)
• Plotting yi/zi against xi/zi should yield a straight
line. The line coefficient R2 must be above 0.85
for the fluid in order to pass the Mass Balance
Closure Plot evaluation.
5. Hoffmann Plot (separator)
• The Hoffmann Plot (Hoffmann et al. (1953)) is
an alternative/supplement to the K-factor plot
for determining whether the given separator
gas and oil compositions are in equilibrium at
separator conditions.
• The other QCs are done as BHS
 Dealing with OBM
contaminated samples
 Cleaning OBM contaminated samples
• Sometimes bottomhole samples are
taken before a good enough cleaning
period.
• An analysis to at least C20+ is required for
gas condensates and oils, whereas a
composition to C30+ is required for heavy
oils.
• If the analysis shows signs of OBM, it is
recommended to obtain a composition
of the mud and perform a Clean For Mud
calculation in PVTsim.
 Cleaning OBM contaminated samples
• In order to use the Mud module, the following compositional data are
needed:
1. Composition of contaminated reservoir fluid. It is customary to
analyze to either C7+, C10+, C20+, or C36+.
2. Composition of base oil contaminate. It will usually consist of
components in the carbon number range C11 – C30
3. Weight% contaminate in stock tank oil (optional for extended
compositions). Can be found using tracer in the mud fluid and
depending of the tracer amount in the sample we can determine
the amount of mud in the reservoir sample.
 Cleaning OBM contaminated samples
• The cleaning iterative procedure for Reservoir fluids to C7+ or C10+ or
C20+:
1) Characterization of contaminated reservoir fluid as for a usual plus composition.
2) PT-flash to standard conditions
3) Weight% contaminate of total reservoir fluid initially estimated as weight%
contaminate of the STO oil (input) multiplied by the weight fraction of oil from flash.
4) Contaminated reservoir fluid cleaned (Subtraction the Weight% contaminate).
5) Usual characterization of cleaned fluid.
6) Weaving of cleaned fluid with mud contaminate.
7) PT flash to standard conditions. Check whether calculated amount of contaminate
in STO oil agrees with input. Otherwise make new estimate of weight% contaminate in
reservoir fluid and return to 4.
 Cleaning OBM contaminated samples
2. Reservoir fluids to C36+:
• With a composition to C36+ the carbon number fraction C7-C10 will usually
be free of contamination and the same will be the case for the fractions
C30-C36. This allows the percent contamination to be estimated.
• For a clean reservoir fluid PVTsim assumes the following relation between
the mole fraction (z) of C7+ fractions and carbon number i. (Ln Zi = A + B *
Cni); A and B are estimated by a fit to mole%’s for C7+ mole fractions
against carbon number.
• The above relation will not apply for fractions contaminated by base oil,
but it will still be true for uncontaminated C7+ fractions.
• Using A and B, the mole fractions of the remaining C7+ fractions in the
uncontaminated fluid may be estimated. The remaining molar amount of
each carbon number fraction is assumed to originate from the base oil,
which enables the composition of the contaminate to be estimated
 Composition of contaminated Contaminated Stock tank oil
Res Fluid +
Composition of OBM Flash
Wt% of contamination Gas

Contaminated Stock tank oil

Composition Subtraction Clean STO
C7 5 5 5/90*100
C8 6 6 6/90*100
…. 11 11 11/90*100 Assume Wt% of
C14 12 7 7/90*100 contamination
10% Mud
C15 13 8 8/90*100 C14 & C15
C16 16 16 16/90*100
…. …. …../90*100
Total 100 90 90/90*100
Clean STO Gas Clean
5/90*100 Composition Reservoir
C1 Fluid
6/90*100 Composition
11/90*100 C2
C1
7/90*100 C3
+ …
= C2 + =
8/90*100 C3 Mud
16/90*100 … C14 & C15
…
…../90*100 ….
…
….. Contaminated
90/90*100 Contaminated Stock tank oil
…. Reservoir Fluid
Composition Gas
….. Composition
C7 5 Composition
C1
C8 6 C1
C2
Check if Wt% of …. 11 C2
C3
contamination C14 12 C3
Equal initial + Flash …
C15 13 …
assumption or …
not 10% C16 16 …
….
…. …. ….
…..
Total 100 …..
 Stop the process as
it’s matched

Yes
Check if Wt% of
contamination
Equal initial
assumption or
not 10%
No
Rerun the process
until match
For Extended compositions
until C30+, The Wt% of
contamination can be
estimated

Raw OBM Uncont.

Wt% Wt% Wt%
c7 2.73 2.73
c8 4.15 4.15
c9 5.98 5.98
c10 5.83 5.83
c11 4.83 4.83
c12 4.31 4.31
c13 4.23 4.23
c14 13.80 10.00000 3.80
c15 3.79 3.79
c16 7.33 3.80000 3.53
c17 3.03 3.03
c18 5.67 2.74000 2.93
c19 3.23 3.23
c20 2.27 2.27
Cleaning OBM contaminated samples
Cleaning OBM contaminated samples
PVT Data Correction
 PVT Data Correction
• Laboratory PVT data can be not representative due to:
1. In partially depleted reservoirs or in fields that originally existed at the bubble-point
pressure, it is difficult to obtain a fluid sample, which usually represents the original oil
in the reservoir at the time of discovery.
2. Also, in collecting fluid samples from oil wells, the possibility exists of obtaining
samples with a saturation pressure that might be lower than the actual saturation
pressure of the reservoir.
3. Human errors.
• In these cases, it is necessary to correct or adjust the laboratory PVT measured data to
reflect the actual saturation pressure.

PVT Experiments 56
 PVT Data Correction
• How to know the correct saturation pressure: 1
1. Allocation initial reservoir pressure and temperature on P-T
diagram.
2. Monitor production performance.
3. Select suitable correlation by having the basic analysis for the
crude: API,GOR, Gas gravity.

2
 PVT Data Correction
• The proposed correction procedure for adjusting the following laboratory test data is
described in the subsequent sections:
1. Constant-composition expansion (CCE) test
2. Differential expansion (DE) test
3. Oil viscosity test
4. Separator tests

PVT Experiments 58
 PVT Data Correction
• Constant-composition expansion (CCE) test correction:
• Below Pb:
1. Calculate the Y-function,
2. Plot the values of the Y-function versus pressure on a Cartesian scale and draw the best
straight line to get a,b coeffients.
3. Recalculate the relative volume Vrel values using the “new” saturation pressure

• Above Pb:
1. Plot the “old” relative volume values above the “old” saturation pressure versus
pressure on a regular scale and draw the best straight line through these points.
2. Calculate the slope of the Line S
3. Draw a straight line that passes through the point (Vrel = 1, psat new) and parallel to
the line of Step 1.
59
 PVT Data Correction
• Differential expansion (DE) test correction:
• The laboratory-measured Bod data must be corrected to account for the new bubble-
point pressure pb new. The proposed procedure is summarized in the following steps:
• Relative oil volume Bod versus pressure:
1. Plot the Bod data versus gauge pressure on a regular scale.
2. Draw the best straight line through the middle pressure range of 30%–90% pb.
3. Extend the straight line to the new bubble-point press
4. Transfer any curvature at the end of the original curve, i.e., ΔBo1 at pb old, to the new
bubble-point pressure by placing ΔBol above or below the straight line at pb new.
5. Repeat the above process and draw a curve that connects the generated Bod points
with original curve at the point of intersection with the straight line.

60
 PVT Data Correction
• Differential expansion (DE) test correction:
• Solution gas-oil ratio:
• The correction procedure for the gas-oil ratio Rsd data is identical to that of Bod except

61
 PVT Data Correction
• Differential expansion (DE) test
correction:
• Correcting Oil Viscosity Data
• Below Pb: 1/μo

1. Defining the fluidity as the reciprocal of the

oil viscosity, i.e., 1/μo,
2. Plot fluidity versus pressure on a Cartesian
scale
3. Draw the best straight line through the
points and extend it to the new saturation
pressure pb new.
4. New oil viscosity values above pb are read μo
from the straight line.

62
 PVT Data Correction
• Differential expansion (DE) test
correction:
• Correcting Oil Viscosity Data
• Above Pb:
1. Plot the viscosity values for all points above
the old saturation pressure
2. Through the point on the extended viscosity
curve at pb new, draw a straight line (Line B)
parallel to A.

63
 PVT Data Correction
• Correcting the Separator Tests Data
• Solution gas-oil ratio:
• The total gas-oil ratio Rsfb is changed in the same proportion as the differential ratio was
changed.

• Formation volume factor:

• The separator oil formation volume factor Bofb is adjusted in the same proportion as the
differential liberation values:

• Note : No corrections are needed for the stock-tank gas-oil ratio and the stock-tank API
gravity.