IPTC 13784

Quality Assessment and Consistency Evaluation of Hydrocarbon PVT Data

John J. Lawrence and Deepak K. Gupta, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company

Copyright 2009, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 79 December 2009.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees
of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Hydrocarbon PVT data are used for a wide range of reservoir engineering applications including early volumetric assessment,
well test evaluation, material balance calculations, and equation of state fluid characterization. High quality, accurate PVT
data can reduce uncertainty in reservoir fluid properties, provide a sound foundation for reservoir engineering studies, and
improve investment efficiency. Poor quality PVT data can result in lost time due to rework and additional studies, inadequate
or overly aggressive development plans, and inefficient investment.
While acquiring sufficient volumes of representative reservoir fluid samples is the first step in obtaining reliable PVT data(1),
understanding and identifying the quality of the PVT data once obtained from the laboratory is essential to ensuring that data
are applied appropriately. A number of techniques exist that can be applied to evaluate PVT data quality and significant
experience in using these techniques has been gained over the years. Examples and illustrations of evaluating data quality for
fluid compositions and flash data, oil PVT data, and gas condensate PVT data are provided.
Introduction
The techniques described have primarily been used to assess PVT data quality for equation of state fluid characterization, but
these techniques have much broader application such as ensuring an appropriate PVT basis for in place volume estimates,
analytical reservoir engineering calculations, and regulatory submittals. When preliminary laboratory PVT data are provided
to the reservoir engineer, these techniques can be used to screen that data. The reservoir engineer can then use the results to
provide feedback to the laboratory and identify when measurements or laboratory calculations may need to be redone.
Equation of state parameters can sometimes be tuned beyond reasonable bounds to match PVT measurements that are not
physically realistic. When an equation of state is overly tuned to bad data, at least two issues arise. First, the quality of the
match to the remaining good quality data is often worse. Second, and more importantly, the ability to predict properties
outside the range of the measurements is compromised. By using these quality and consistency evaluation techniques,
discrepancies can usually be resolved thus enabling the reservoir engineer to improve the quality of the fluid characterization
and property predictions.
Often reservoir fluid samples and laboratory PVT data are acquired over a period of time. Comprehensive assessment of the
data is often performed after data have been acquired from many laboratories using different techniques. This often leads to
differences in measurements between laboratories and/or datasets that need to be resolved. When differences in the data are
observed, the techniques described can be useful for resolving these differences and in identifying data most appropriate for
reservoir engineering applications.
Discussion
The methods described in detail include but are not limited to:
- Material balance checks and Hoffman plots(2) to assess consistency of compositional and flash data
- Graphical techniques to assess the consistency between constant volume depletion and constant composition expansion
data for gas condensates with methods applied to liquid dropout data, Z-Factor data, and density data
- Reference volume translation techniques for formation volume factor and solution GOR measurements to assess data
quality at low pressure and ensure that differential liberation data for oils are used appropriately
- Cross-plot techniques for comparing data from a variety of sources

IPTC 13784

Composition and Flash Data

One of the first steps in evaluating laboratory PVT data is to assess the consistency of compositions. Historically, a simple
consistency test was to sum the compositions to ensure they added to one. This was particularly important in the days when
reports were typewritten and typographical errors could lead to erroneous compositions. Today, however, when reports are
generated using spreadsheets, summation calculations are normally done automatically and typographical errors are now
unusual. Discrepancies in composition sums from modern PVT reports are usually small and related to significant figures
rather than errors.
Two other techniques for evaluating consistency of flash and composition data have also been applied for a long time, but are
still very useful today. These methods are material balance tests and Hoffman plots. The material balance plot can be used as
a rigorous criterion for consistency while the Hoffman plot is considered a qualitative assessment of data quality. Each of
these two tests are discussed in more detail below
Material Balance Tests:
The material balance test is often used as a rigorous test to evaluate compositional consistency between feed composition and
separator vapor and liquid compositions. The test is derived from component material balance criteria:
Fzi = Lxi +Vyi
Where:
F = Total moles of feed
L = Total moles of separator liquid
V = Total moles of separator vapor
zi = mole fraction of component i in the feed
xi = mole fraction of component i in the liquid
yi = mole fraction of component i in the vapor
This equation can be rearranged to the following:
yi/zi = F/V (L/V)(xi/zi)
A plot of yi/zi versus xi/zi should yield a straight line with a slope of L/V and an intercept of F/V. Any deviations from a
straight line reflect material balance discrepancies. Reservoir fluid compositions are typically calculated from a mathematical
recombination of flashed vapor and liquid compositions. When feed compositions are determined from a mathematical
recombination of the separator vapor and separator liquid compositions, a perfectly straight line should be observed in the plot.
In this case, the plot is sometimes useful for identifying discrepancies in the reported compositions. The reciprocal of the
slope of the line can then be used to calculate the GOR and compare that with the reported GOR. The liquid density and
molecular weight must be provided so that the conversion from moles to barrels can be made. When the feed composition is
truly independent from the vapor and liquid compositions, the material balance test provides a good check on the overall
Table 1. Example 1 Gas Condensate Separator Compositions
consistency of the analyses.
Table 1 provides compositions for an example gas condensate and
Figure 1 is the resulting material balance plot when yi/zi is plotted
against xi/zi. In this case, the wellstream composition was the result
of a mathematical recombination of the separator vapor and liquid
so the straight line in the plot should be no surprise. The slope of
the line in the figure is -0.622056, which can be converted to a
GOR of 16,708 SCF/Sep Bbl by taking the negative reciprocal of
the slope and converting it to the measured units. This calculated
GOR is about 0.5% higher than the reported GOR of 16616.8.
While not an exact match, the calculated GOR in this example is
close enough that liquid molecular weight, liquid density, and the
recombination ratio all appear to be reasonably consistent with the
reported GOR.
The material balance test can be more useful when the feed
composition is measured independently of the separator or flash
compositions being evaluated for consistency. When this is the
case, deviation of the data from the straight light trend is indicative

Component
CO2
N2
C1
C2
C3
iC4
nC4
iC5
nC5
C6s
C7s
C8s
C9s

Liquid
Mol %
5.04
0.08
15.71
6.26
8.33
2.33
4.84
2.81
3.09
5.11
8.31
11.46
7.53

Gas
Mol %
8.82
0.77
74.92
8.64
4.50
0.61
0.97
0.24
0.22
0.12
0.10
0.07
0.02

Wellstream
Mol %
8.60
0.73
71.44
8.50
4.73
0.71
1.20
0.39
0.39
0.41
0.58
0.74
0.46

C10+

19.10

0.00

1.12

Liq Den (lb/ft3)

44.94

Liq MW

92.13

Gas Grav (air=1)

GOR (scf/sep bbl)

0.7702
16616.8

IPTC 13784

of errors or uncertainty in the measurements

rather than a problem with significant figures
or mathematical consistency when the
compositions are dependent. Material balance
plots can be used for analyzing results from
constant volume depletion data or differential
liberation data as well.

1.2
y = -0.06220560x + 1.06174928
R2 = 0.99995711
1

0.8

yi/zi

Hoffman Plots:
A qualitative test to evaluate consistency of Kvalue (y/x) data is often referred to as the
Hoffman plot. This technique was published
in 1953 by Hoffman, et al.(2) and is based on a
technique developed in the 1930s by S. E.
Buckley of Humble Oil and Refining
Company. This method utilizes a log-linear
plot of K-value versus Hoffman factor, F. F is
defined as follows:

Figure 1. Material Balance Plot for Example 1 Gas Condensate

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

xi/zi

F = (log(Pc)-log(14.7))(1/Tb-1/T)/(1/Tb-1/Tc)

GOR =

Where:

GOR =

1 lbmol
0.06221 lbmol

379.5 scf
lbmol

lbmol
92.13 lb

44.94 lb
ft3

5.6145 ft3
bbl

16708 scf/bbl

Figure 2. Hoffman Plot for Example 1 Gas Condensate

K = K-value (y/x)
P = separator pressure (psia)
T = separator temperature (R)
Tb = boiling temperature (R)
Tc = critical temperature (R)
Pc = critical pressure (psia)

100

N2

10

C1
CO2
C2

C3

Log K

When log(K) is plotted versus F for each component, the

result should be a nearly straight line for light
hydrocarbons. Light non-hydrocarbons should be close to
the behavior of light hydrocarbons, but not necessarily on
the same line. Iso- and normal- butane and pentane often
fall on either side of a straight line. Additionally, some
curvature might occur for heavier hydrocarbons, but
extreme curvature can be indicative of potential data
issues, often losses in the vapor phase heavy components.

nC4
nC5

0.1

iC4

iC5

Reported
EOS

C6*
C7*

0.01

C8*
C9*

0.001

The compositions from Table 1 representing the Example

1 gas condensate were also used to generate the Hoffman
plot shown in Figure 2. The normal boiling point, critical
temperature, and critical pressure were from standard values for the
light components and from standard correlations for the C6+
components. K-values generated using an equation of state are also
plotted with the reported data. In this case, the reported data fall
close to a straight line with no obvious data issues.
Another set of compositions from a second example, in this case for
an oil, is provided in Table 2. A material balance plot for these
compositions is shown in Figure 3. As expected for mathematically
recombined compositions, all of the points fall on a straight line and
no obvious discrepancies are identified from the plot. While the plot
itself appears consistent, the calculated GOR from the slope of the
line is about 5% higher than the reported GOR (604 SCF/BBL vs
572 SCF/BBL). Discrepancies of this nature are often due to
misreported or incorrect liquid molecular weights or densities and
often result in difficulties when attempting to match predictions with
an equation of state.

-2

-1

Hoffman Factor, F

Table 2. Example 2 Oil Separator Compositions

Liquid
Gas
Wellstream
Component
Mol %
Mol %
Mol %
CO2
3.65
1.29
2.46
N2
5.74
0.20
2.95
C1
10.01
57.48
33.94
C2
5.34
15.84
10.63
C3
3.64
14.04
8.88
iC4
2.76
2.15
2.45
nC4
2.76
5.30
4.04
iC5
2.23
1.29
1.76
nC5
2.23
1.44
1.83
C6s
1.86
0.74
1.30
C7s
1.60
0.20
0.89
C8s
1.41
0.03
0.71
C9s
1.25
0.00
0.62
C10+

50.81

Liq Den (lb/ft3)

44.73

Liq MW

160.70

Gas Grav (air=1)

GOR (scf/sep bbl)

0.00

25.20

0.966
572

Figure 3. Material Balance Plot for Example 2 Oil

1.8
y = -0.98205619x + 1.98244766
2

1.6

R = 0.99994598

1.4
1.2
1
yi/zi

The Hoffman plot shown in Figure 4 was

also made for the Example 2 oil from Table
2. In this case, the points for methane and
ethane appear to fall on a very different trend
from the rest of the hydrocarbon
components. Nitrogen and carbon dioxide
also deviate more significantly than
expected. Equation of state generated values
are also plotted to provide a reference for
comparison purposes. The reservoir engineer
initially had greater difficulty calibrating
equation of state predictions to this and other
data.
Once the material balance and
Hoffman plots were made, the discrepancies
in composition became apparent and the data
from this particular well was discarded in
favor of data from other wells that passed
consistency checks.

IPTC 13784

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

xi/zi

Differences between experimental data and

the expected trend in the Hoffman plot could
GOR =
be due to unstable separator conditions
during the experiment or incorrect
GOR =
compositions of the separator products.
Unstable separator conditions during experiment lead to
compositions that are not in equilibrium with each other.
In this case, the computed feed composition may still be
correct but the reported values for GOR, liquid density,
and liquid molecular weight should be discarded. If the
separator product compositions are measured incorrectly,
then the feed composition should be discarded.

1 lbmol
0.9821 lbmol

379.5 scf
lbmol

lbmol
160.7 lb

44.73 lb
ft3

5.6145 ft3
bbl

603.91 scf/bbl
Figure 4. Hoffman Plot for Example 2 Oil
1000

N2

100

C1

Reported

CO2

EOS
H2S

10
C3

Log K

Consistency Tests for Gas Condensate Data

Other authors have written on the topic of evaluating gas
condensate data, but most have been focused on evaluating
compositional data such as Whitson(3) and/or usage of the
data, Moses(4). An area that has not been given as much
attention is evaluating the bulk property data from constant
composition expansion (CCE) and constant volume
depletion (CVD) tests. The data from these laboratory
tests are often used to calibrate or tune equation of state
models and understanding the quality of the bulk data is an
important aspect of the tuning process. Significant insight
can be gained by simultaneously plotting various
properties from the two experiments together.

C2

nC4 iC4
nC5 iC5

1
C6*
C7*

0.1

C8*
C9*

0.01
-2

-1

Hoffman Factor, F

One of the properties typically given important consideration during equation of state tuning is liquid dropout data. Liquid
dropout data are obtained during both CCE and CVD experiments. While CVD liquid dropout data are nearly always reported
relative to the dew point volume, CCE liquid dropout data might be reported relative to the dew point volume, the total
volume, or both. Simultaneously plotting liquid dropout data relative to the dew point from both experiments has little value,
but plotting liquid dropout data from CCE relative to the total volume with the liquid dropout data from the CVD relative to
the dew point volume turns out to provide significant insight to the consistency of the data from the two experiments.
When plotted in this manner, the following characteristics should be exhibited:
Dew points should be identical
CVD liquid dropout should be greater than CCE liquid dropout (on a total volume basis)
CVD maximum liquid dropout should occur at a lower pressure than the CCE maximum liquid dropout.

IPTC 13784

On the other hand, when CCE data and CVD data are
inconsistent, at least one of the tests is certainly inaccurate.
Figure 6 presents liquid dropout data for a rich gas condensate.
The liquid dropout data from the CCE experiment were
originally reported relative to the dew point volume. Little
insight can be gained when these data, represented by the open
squares labeled as CCE Raw in the figure, are compared with the
CVD liquid dropout data, represented by the solid diamonds. By
converting the CCE liquid dropout data to be relative to the total
volume the comparison between CVD and CCE liquid dropout
data becomes much more meaningful. This conversion is
accomplished by dividing the liquid dropout relative to the dew
point volume by the relative volume, V/Vsat, at each pressure to
obtain liquid dropout relative to the total volume and is
described in equation form as follows:

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Pressure (PSIA)

Figure 6. Liquid Dropout Comparison for a Rich Gas Condensate

35
30
Liquid Dropout (Vol %)

Figure 5 shows the CCE and CVD data from the Example 1 gas
condensate and provides an illustration of consistent liquid
dropout behavior for a gas condensate. The liquid dropout is in
Figure 5 is plotted relative to the total volume in the cell for both
the CVD and CCE experiments. In the case of the CVD liquid
dropout, the total volume and the dew point volume are
obviously the same. Note that this comparison only indicates
that the liquid dropout data from the two tests are consistent with
each other. The test does not imply accuracy for either test.

Liquid Dropout (Vol %)

The initial retrograde portion beginning at the dew point and decreasing in pressure can be nearly identical for the two
experiments at high pressures, but the CVD should exhibit greater liquid dropout as more liquid condenses. The simple
explanation for this behavior is that the composition of the gas
Figure 5. Liquid Dropout Comparison for Example 1 Gas
phase is leaner than the liquid phase once retrograde
Condensate
condensation begins. The leaner gas is removed during the CVD
5.0
experiment resulting in a composition that is richer than the
4.5
original composition that remains in the CCE experiment.
4.0
Because the total composition for the CVD fluid is richer, it will
CVD
CCE
3.5
have greater liquid dropout when compared on a total volume
basis.
3.0

25
20
15
CVD
CCE Dew Point

10

CCE Total

5
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Pressure (PSIA)

Liquid dropout (% of total volume) = Liquid dropout (% of dew point volume)/(V/Vsat)

Liquid Dropout (Vol %)

The solid squares in Figure 6 represent the same CCE liquid dropout data relative to the total volume. In this case, the facts
that the CCE liquid dropout data is initially greater than, then crosses the CVD liquid dropout data to become lower in the
retrograde region is meaningful and indicates that the liquid
dropout data between the two experiments is inconsistent.
Figure 7. Theoretical Liquid Dropout for a Rich Gas Condensate
While the data from one or the other, or possibly both
30
experiments, are inaccurate, the test does not provide a clear
indication of which experiment is likely more accurate. In the
25
case of this particular gas condensate, other samples were
available that had consistent data so these particular data were
20
given no weight during equation of state tuning. Once the
equation of state was tuned to other available data, comparisons
15
made with the tuned equation of state suggested that first CVD
liquid dropout measurement at approximately 3400 PSIA was in
10
CVD
error.
CCE Dew Point

CCE Total

Theoretical predictions with an equation of state provide a

clearer picture of the expected behavior. Figure 7 presents
0
theoretical predictions of the same rich gas condensate using a
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
tuned equation of state. The solid line represents the theoretical
Pressure (PSIA)
CVD liquid dropout and the line with squares represents the
CCE liquid dropout relative to the dew point volume. While the trend for liquid dropout relative to the dew point volume is

IPTC 13784

typically for the CCE to be greater than the CVD initially, it can also cross during the revaporization portion of the curve as
described by Whitson(5) making evaluation of data consistency difficult. When the comparison is made on a total volume basis
as represented by the dashed line for the CCE, the behavior is now such that the CVD will consistently have at least as much
liquid dropout as the CCE.
Other simultaneous plots of CCE and CVD data can also be very useful in identifying data consistency. Two properties often
compared are Z-factors and vapor phase density. Sometimes only Z-factors or only vapor phase densities are reported. It is
very common for laboratories to report only Z-factors with CVD data. When this occurs, it is often still useful to calculate the
density for comparison with the CCE data. This can be done using the Real Gas Law:
= P/ZRT
Where:
= Molar density
P = Pressure
Z = Z-factor
R = Gas constant
T = Temperature (absolute)

Density (g/cc)

The molar density can then be easily converted to mass density by multiplying by molecular weight. Combining these tests
has proven useful over the years. Recently, a reservoir engineer had laboratory measurements made on a gas condensate in
support of government regulatory filings. One of the important parameters was the density at initial reservoir conditions.
Once the preliminary data were provided, the consistency test
Figure 8. Density Comparison for a Gas Condensate Discovery
for density was performed. Figure 8 shows the comparison of
the density data from the CVD and the CCE. The procedure
0.6
above was used to convert the CVD vapor phase Z-factors to
mass density so that they could be compared with the reported
0.5
CVD
CCE mass densities. The plot demonstrated that the densities
Original CCE
Corrected CCE
0.4
from the two experiments were not consistent and supporting
equation of state calculations showed excellent agreement with
0.3
the CVD density values. The laboratory was initially reluctant
to revisit their CCE densities solely based on equation of state
0.2
comparisons, but once the plot of densities from the two
experiments was provided to them, they identified that incorrect
0.1
conditions had been used to calculate the original CCE vapor
densities and the corrected values shown in Figure 8 were then
0
provided.
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Pressure (kPa)

Material balance and composite Hoffman plots are also useful in

evaluating compositional data from CVD tests. Whitson(3) provides a good discussion on evaluating compositional data from
constant volume depletion experiments. The methods described enable the calculation of liquid compositions from the
measured vapor compositions and volumetric data. Once liquid compositions are calculated, composite Hoffman plots can be
made to evaluate the consistency of the compositional data. Combining the material balance tests and Hoffman plots provides
insight to understanding when the compositional measurements from CVD experiments should and should not be used for
equation of state tuning.
Consistency Tests for Oil Data
McCain(6), Al-Marhoun(7), and others have written extensively on analyzing black oil PVT reports for the purposes of
combining results from differential liberation data and separator test data to obtain appropriate formation volume factors and
GORs for reservoir engineering purposes. When production separator conditions are different from the laboratory or test
separator conditions, a tuned equation of state is often used to model fluid properties for either compositional simulation or
PVT table generation. Understanding what data are appropriate for tuning purposes is a critical step in equation of state fluid
characterization.
Plotting reported properties as a function of pressure is a simple first step in assessing oil data quality. Properties for
undersaturated oils should exhibit smooth monotonic trends with pressure. When plotting properties for undesaturated oils,
compressibility should decrease with increasing pressure, while density and viscosity should increase with increasing pressure.
These might seem like relatively simple checks, but they can be very revealing. Figure 9 represents viscosity measurements
for a highly underaturated oil that were recently obtained. The original viscosity measurements show a subtle change in slope
at about 12000 PSIA. Because viscosity is such an important parameter for understanding performance of undersaturated oils,

IPTC 13784

this issue needed to be resolved. Sometimes, phenomena such

as asphaltene precipitation can cause similar behavior, but this
did not appear to be the case in this instance. Calibrations were
subsequently checked and viscosities remeasured using
multiple techniques. Once all of the data were collected, the
original viscosities were updated to the values shown in the
figure.

Figure 9. Undersaturated Oil Viscosity Plot

18

16

Viscosity (cp)

14

12

Updated Viscosity
The Y-function is commonly used for smoothing CCE data and
10
assisting in precisely determining bubble points for oils.
Ahmed(8) describes the Y-function and its usage for smoothing
Original Viscosity
8
and interpreting bubble point data. Bubble point and relative
volume data reported in hydrocarbon PVT reports for oils have
6
typically been interpreted and smoothed in this fashion.
Because the data have already been smoothed, consistency
4
problems with relative volume data are usually hidden. One
indication that there might be issues with relative volume data
2
or the bubble point measurement is when there are few points
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
reported near the saturation pressure. Often the laboratory
Pressure (PSIA)
does not report all of the measurements so checking with the
laboratory to verify the measurement is a good idea if the data is difficult to match during equation of state tuning.

Another very simple qualitative test for oil data consistency is to compare the residual oil API gravity from the differential
liberation with the stock tank API gravity from a staged flash or separator test. Typically, the oil remaining from a differential
liberation will be denser and thus have a lower API gravity than the stock tank oil from a staged flash. This is because the
differential liberation is usually performed at a much higher temperature. When there is little difference between the
differential liberation temperature and the flash temperature, this might not be true, so this test is not rigorous. While this test
is not completely rigorous, it can be very useful for identifying inconsistent data.
Possibly the most useful technique for determining what differential liberation data should be matched during equation of state
tuning is to convert solution gas-oil-ratio (GOR) to cumulative GOR referenced to the bubble point volume and convert
formation volume factors to liquid shrinkages. These changes are important because the reported solution GOR and formation
volume factor data will include any error that occurs during the experiment in all of the data points. Differential liberation
formation volume factors will include any error in liquid measurement during the experiment because the values are all
referenced to the residual liquid from the experminet. Differential liberation solution GOR will include any errors in gas
measurement as well as any error in liquid measurement. In addition to the challenges associated with measurement of the
final depletion point, the theoretical simulation of the last step might not replicate the laboratory process. The most common
points when errors are introduced result from depressuring to atmospheric pressure. This can make understanding the data and
tuning an equation of state very difficult. The conversions to eliminate the propagation of these errors are described as
follows:
Rcbp = (Rsbp Rs)/Bobp
V/Vsat = Bo/Bobp
Where:
Rcbp = Cumulative GOR referenced to bubble point volume
Rsbp = Solution GOR from differential liberation at bubble point
Rs = Solution GOR from differential liberation
V/Vsat = Liquid shrinkage
Bo = Formation volume factor from differential liberation
Bobp = Formation volume factor from differential liberation at bubble point
If any errors were introduced during the laboratory procedures, these conversions will remove the errors from any points that
are at pressures higher than where the errors were introduced. This technique makes it much easier to identify when errors
might have occurred and enables the engineer to utilize the data measured before the errors were introduced.
The utility of these conversions is best illustrated with an example. A reservoir engineer had acquired some PVT data for an
oil and started equation of state tuning. He soon realized that extreme modifications of critical parameters were required to

IPTC 13784

match the differential liberation data and that he could not simultaneously match densities and multi-stage flash data along
with the differential liberation data. At this point, the reservoir engineer was advised to make the above conversions and
compare those predictions. Figure 10 shows a comparison of laboratory measured and equation of state predicted solution
GOR and cumulative GOR referenced to the bubble point volume. The comparisons of solution GOR cause the equation of
state to appear biased, while the comparisons of cumulative GOR show the equation of state to make accurate predictions of
the oil behavior down to the 700 PSIA depletion point. Likewise, comparisons of formation volume factors and liquid
shrinkage in Figure 11 show the equation of state to make accurate predictions of the liquid volumetric behavior, while the
formation-volume-factor comparison alone would lead you to believe that the equation of state did not accurately predict the
liquid volume behavior. Once the reservoir engineer tuned the equation of state to match the cumulative GOR referenced to
the bubble point volume and liquid shrinkage data instead of the reported solution GOR and formation volume factors from the
differential liberation experiment, predictions for densities and separator GOR were easily matched as well.
Figure 10. Differential Liberation GOR Comparisons

Figure 11. Differential Liberation Oil Shrinkage and Formation Volume

Factor Comparisons

1200
1.8
Lab Rs
Lab Rcbp
EOS Rs
EOS Rcbp

1.6
1.4
Relative Volume (BBL/BBL)

1000

GOR (SCF/BBL)

800

600

400

1.2
1
0.8
0.6

Lab Bo
Lab V/Vsat
EOS Bo
EOS V/Vsat

0.4
200
0.2
0

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Pressure (PSIA)

Pressure (PSIA)

Comparisons with Equation of State Predictions

With the widespread availability of equation of state software, comparisons of laboratory data with equation of state
predictions may very well be the most commonly used checks for laboratory data consistency. Equation of state comparisons
can be a powerful tool for evaluating laboratory data, but caution should be exercised to ensure that bad data are not matched
and that good data are not ignored.

Figure 12. Equation of State Test for Oil Shrinkage

1

0.9
Oil Shrinkage (V/Vsat)

The following example illustrates some of the pitfalls

that can occur from equation of state predictions. PVT
data were acquired on a relatively high-shrinkage oil
and a fluid characterization was performed using the
volume translated Peng-Robinson(9) equation of state.
The fluid characterization required minimal adjustment
of critical properties or interaction parameters and most
of the data such as saturation pressures, GORs, and
densities were matched very closely. Liquid shrinkages
and high-pressure gas gravities were two exceptions to
the very close matches. The liquid shrinkage matches
as shown in Figure 12 were not considered bad for a
high-shrinkage oil, especially considering that the
measurements were probably more challenging than for
a typical oil. More confidence was initially placed in
the equation of state predictions for the gas gravities
than for the laboratory reported gas gravities for the
first couple of depletion points. As additional data
from the field were collected, a discrepancy between
the equation of state predicted gas pressure gradient and
the gradient observed in the field became apparent.

0.8

0.7
Measured
PR-VT
BWRS

0.6

0.5
0

1000

2000

3000
Pressure (PSIA)

4000

5000

6000

IPTC 13784

Yield data from the gas cap also indicated that the equation of state should be re-examined.
Peng-Robinson characterization met with little success.

Initial attempts to retune the

At this point, the question of whether the data should be matched was given serious consideration and a test with another
equation of state, the BWRS(10) was performed to try to gain a better understanding. Surprisingly, the BWRS required little
tuning and matched the liquid shrinkage and gas gravity data very closely. Figure 12 aslo shows the results of the BWRS
equation of state predictions for liquid shrinkage. The BWRS also predicted gas gradients consistent with field observations.
In this case, data that had been questioned based on the match with one equation of state were now considered very good based
on the match with another equation of state. The BWRS equation of state, being derived from the Virial equation, also
provided a good contrast to the cubic Peng-Robinson for testing the reasonableness of the data.
Because compositional reservoir simulation was being performed for this fluid, a Peng-Robinson characterization was still
required. Now armed with additional data and confidence in the data, the Peng-Robinson was aggressively retuned (while still
maintaining reasonable parameter adjustments) to improve the match to the gas gravities, expected yields, and liquid
shrinkages. While the final Peng-Robinson match was not as good as the match with the BWRS, the results were considered
suitable for future reservoir simulation and engineering.
Conclusions
Major conclusions from this work include:
While most laboratory PVT data are of high quality, poor data quality can be identified using a variety of quality
assessment and consistency evaluation techniques. These techniques are straightforward and easy to apply. These
techniques have been demonstrated through a series of examples and illustrations.
While many of these PVT techniques are available in the open literature or easily understood, they are often not being
used. This has been observed through the continued identification of poor quality PVT data.
These techniques can be applied to assess data quality and consistency to identify high quality data. The high quality
data then provide improved bases for reservoir engineering calculations, including equation of state fluid
characterization.

References
1) Lawrence, J. J., Chorneyko, D. M., Smith, C. K., Nagarajan, N. R., Representative Reservoir Fluid Sampling: Challenges,
Issues, and Solutions, IPTC 12401 presented at the 2008 International Petroleum Technology Conference, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 3-5 December, 2009.
2) Hoffman, A. E., Crump, J. S., and Hocott, C. R.: "Equilibrium Constants for a Gas-Condensate System," Petroleum
Transactions, AIME (1953), Vol. 198, 1-10.
3) Whitson, C. H. and Torp, S. B.:Evaluating Constant-Volume Depletion Data, J. Pet. Tech. (March 1983), 610-619.
4) Moses, P. L.:Engineering Applications of Phase Behavior of Crude Oil and Condensate Systems, J. Pet. Tech. (July
1986), 715-723.
5) Whitson, C. H. and Brule, M. R.:Phase Behavior, Monograph 20, SPE, Henry L. Dougherty Series.
6) William D. McCain, Jr.: Analysis of Black Oil PVT Reports Revisited, SPE 77386 Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 29 September 2 October 2002.
7) Al-Marhoun, Muhammad A.: Adjustment of Differential Liberation Data to Separator Conditions, SPE 84684 revised
from SPE 68234 first presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 17-20 March 2001.
8) Ahmed, Tarek H.: Reservoir Engineering Handbook, Elsevier/Gulf Professional, 2006.
9) Javeri, Bharat S., and Youngren, Gary K., Three-Parameter Modification of the Peng-Robinson Equation of State to
Improve Volumetric Predictions, SPE 13118, SPE Reservoir Engineering (August 1988), 1033-1040.
10) Hopke, S. W. and Lin, C. J. Application of the BWRS Equation to Natural Gas Systems, paper presented at the 76th
National AIChE Meeting, Tulsa (March 1974).