//,, ‘ :“

=&m+--
,(

Rapid Methods for Estimating Reservoir ‘

Compressibilities /
.,
I
H.J. SAMSY, JR.* MOBIL O/L CO.
., ‘MEMBERAIME LOS ANGELES, CAIIF.

ABSTRACT ; l. Better pkumirtgofpv

sssurebuild- upsmaybeachieved ‘
to avoid uMecessar
Conventional calculation of total system isothe~mai Ior” ch,,fiita marim-le
compressibility for a system captaining a free gas phase
yig.u .-MW.W...W-.
involves, among other things, evaluation of the change of
oil and gas formation volume factors and the gas in soh- 2. Better and mor= I-WLLUIC GSUIIMWUL SL2SL1G 1U1111SLL1UIJ ~

tion with pressure. Preferably, this information should be
obtained from laboratory measurements made with parti-
culirr oils and gases. Often,’ experimental measurements
are not available. In this case, it is necessary to obtain
uressure-voiuns e-temperature relationshi~s from general
correlations such as~hose of Standing’ f;r Californ~a oils.
In order tospeed estimatesof compressibility, generalized
plots have been prepared of the change of both oil forma-
{ion volume “factors and gas in solution, with pressure
frc)m Standing’s correlations. A generalized piot for esti-
tnating the change in the two-phase (oil and gas) formation
volume factor with pressure is also presented.
Usually, the ~fject of gas dissolved in reservoir water
upon the total s~stem compressibility is neglected for~gtw
saturated systems, due to the low sohtbility of gas in water.
Results o./ this study indicate that. the increase in total
‘system compressibility.caused by solution of gas in water
is often as large as thekcompressibility of water, and can
be magtiitudes Iargfr for low pre$xure systems. General-
ized results for esthhating the change of gas in solution in
water with pressure are presented in tabular ”@ graphical.
form.
. In 1956, r Perrine’ presented an intuitive extension of
‘INTRODUCTION
During the prpt decade? pressure build-up and draw-.
down techrdques have gaine~an important pIace,inreser-
voirengineerikig. Build-up anddrawdown anrdysesareody
two special applications of tlie broad field of transient
fluid-flow theory. All solutions of transient fluid-flow prob-
lems contain a parameter called the total system isother-
mal compressibility. This property of fluids and porous
rock’is a measure of the change in volume of the fluid
content of porous rock with a change in pressure, and it-
may vary considerably with pressure.
Evaluation, of ’total system isothermal compressibility is
not difficult, but it is tedious and time-consuming. Often
compressibilities are estimated roughly, or transient flow
methods are neglected completely, Y can contribute in an important way to the total system
‘The ber@M of using accy:rati?,riystern cornpremibiifty in
“Properly-executed build?w or drawdown analjses are:
Original manuscript received in Society of Petroleum Engineers ollice
Ses)L 16, 196% Revised manuscript received Dec. W, 196S.
*Now a professor of petroladm engineering at Texas A&M U., Cd-
Iege Station, Tsx.
preferences given at end of paper.
APR. IL, 1964
pressures for reserves estimates kmd rate performance
estimates.
3. Reliable information for evaluation of well comple-
tion effectiveness, and planningand il;terpretation of well
stimulation efforts.
The purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature of the
totaf system isothermal compressibility, and to present use-
ful methods for estimadon of compressibility, particularly’
for systems ,containing a gas phase.
DEVELOPMENT
Numero~ publications have presented solutions to
transient’ sin~e-phase flow of slightly compressible fluids,
stressing pressure build-up applications. In transient flow,
a compressibility* term arises to permit volume content
of fluids in porous rock to change as pressure changes.
The basic ,nature ,of the compressibility term is, usuallY
taken for granted, Problems arise in practical applications
of transient fluid theory because most published works con- ‘
sider only one flowing fluid-in an ideai porous system
containing only one fluid. .
single-phase flow pressure build-up methods to multiphase
Kow conditions. Later, Martin’ established conditims un-
der which Perrine’s multiphase build-up method had a
theoretical foundation. - -
Perrine has shown that improper use of single-phase
build-up amlysis in certain multiphase flow situations can :
lead to gross errors in estimated static formation pressure, ~
permeability and well condition. It is likely that much
“pressure build-up data for oil weHs should.be analyzed on
the basis of mukiphase flow.
For both single-phase and multiphase build-up analysis,
the isotherm+ compressibility term in dimensionless time
groups often shouId be interpreted as the total system:com-
pnmibility, All real reservoirs dontain one or more corn- ‘
pressible fluid phases. fn addition, rwk compressibility
~
‘ compressibility. The proper total. system compressibility.
- expression. may. contain terms. for. eompressibifi~=of oii,.... . --
gas, water, reservoir rock. and terms for the. chatige of
solubiiity of gas in liquid phases. ,
*It will be understrqd that thc term “rmmrmrmWilitY’”ref~ to isotk- (~’
mnl compr.rsslbility in the following.
.’
‘$47
.,

.. { . . if”
~. ..’. -.. .
/.. . ,- . . . ,- - -.. ------ .’. .‘1., .. .. ... . :
,.. ,
 r
.- ,“
~ /
.“
A general expression for total system compressibility
can be written in terms of separate phase compressibilities
by volumetric phase saturation weighting. That is: , and tbi.?seof Fatt$ are summari~ed by Craft and HawkIns.”
f+’= S,,c,, +s;c,c+s,c”+c, . . . .
By definition, the isothermal compressibility of component
i is
‘ C;=+-i+$-)...”
“ - “ ‘ - “ “ ‘2)
Expressing volumes in terms of formation volume fac-
tors, and considering gas volubility effects, Martin’ pre-
sented essentially the, foRowing extension of Perrine’s ex-
pression for total system. compressibility.
.f=so[;(*)++(*)]T+ ~
‘w%’-)+%(%)].-“
.— i3Bv s,
() B, ap ,
+C, . . . . .
‘ Eq. 3 ii deve~oped in the Appendix.
Practically speaking, the greatest uncertainty in estima-
tion of total system compressibility is estimation of the
proper liquid saturations for volumetric weighting. Uncer-
tainty in liquid saturations ofien overbalances uncertainty
in estimation of separate phase compressibilities.
In this connection, clarification of the basis for Perrine’s’
multiphase build-up theory is important, The separation of
oil and gas nobilities proposed by Perrine is actually based
on the field producing gas-oil ratio. equation.”
R=$(&)+R. . . . .
$ f;
where R is the instantaneous field producing gas-oil ratio.
Consequently, Perfifse’s multiphase build-up method im-
f plies the existence of a .kO/k. vs. saturation relationship.
Thus, liquid and gas satumtions may be estimated from
rnatmials. balances, or from results of the build-up test
and existing k,,/k,,-saturation relationships.
‘” Determination of total system compressibility from %.
3 depends upon the number of fluid phases pre<ent, or the
reservoir type. Thus compressibility will be discussed un-
der the “categories, “Rock Compressibility”, “Aquifers”,
“G”as Reservoirs” and “Oil Reservoirs”.
:,
‘ ROCK COMPRESSIBILITY
As pressure is increased within the pores of the rock,
the rock grains are compressed, and the bulk volume of
the rgck is increased due to interaction of internal pressure
and the ,confining overburden pressure. The effect of both
A
., ..’
factors is to increase pore’ volume as pressure increases.
.Thus by the general definition of compressibility given by
!. Eq. 2, rock compressibility in terms of change in pore
voiume should be negative qua-ntity. I-Iowever, the effect of
an incr~ase in pore volume with an increase in pressure
can be pictured as an increase in the size of the container
holding reservoir fluids. If the container volume ‘is’ held
constant, the sanie effect could be achieved by additional
shrinking’ of contained fluids. Thus the eflective rock co’m-
pressibil~ty may be”considered a.jositive quantity additive ,,
.=to..fitid compressibifi~o. ... ---- ..- =, .:::. .-. . ... = ,, -.
,1
It is usualiy necessary to estimate ~ock cdmpresiibilities.
II from existing correlations. In regard to rock compressibil-
ity, the correlation published’ by Hall,’ presenting ‘com-
448
>.
pressibility as a function of porosity, has been in wide use.
Hall reported that rock compressibilities range from 3 X
10-” to 10-’ (pore volume/pore volume) /psi. Hall’s results
Rock compressibility covers a range in magnitude from
. . . (1) the compressibility of water to tha} ~of some oils, and is
generally less than the compresslbdlty of gas. However,
rock compressibility is often an important component in
total system compressibility, particularly when gas, satura-
tion is small, porosity is small, or liquid compressibilities
are small; GeertsmaJ van der KnaapN and Dobrynin” have
studied the effect of overburden and pore-space pressure
upon rock compressibili~y. ‘
AQUIFERS
Water influx and material balance calculations often
require estimates, of the total compressibility of an aquifer,
system, i.e., porous rock totally saturated with water, In
this case, Eq. 1 becomes:
.;
(Cl=c,c+cj, .’.. . .. . . . . . . (5)
Specific information on the compressibility o{the aqui-
fer water will generally not be available. In view of the
...(3)’ uncertain nature of other information on the aquifer (e.g.,
porosity, permeability?, /he precision of estimates of com-
,
pressibility of the aqulfcr from existing correlations is ade-
quate. Available correlations are listed under “Oil Rcser-
voirs”. ~Water compressibilities range. from- 2X 10(’ to
4X 10-a’psi-’.
,,
GAS RESERVOIRS
There may be two or more phases present in a gas, re-
servoir: natural gas, comate water, and occasionally con- -
densate, tar or other forms of liquid hydrocarbons. For the
present, consider only gas’ and water to be present. The
effect of a liquid hydrocarbon phase will be discussed un-
der “Oii Reservoirs”. The compressibility of natural gas is
. . . . (4) large and ranges from 1,000X 10”” psi-’ at 1,000 psi
pressure, to about lOOXJ0“” psi-’ at 5,000 psi pressure.
The effective compressibility of water with dissolved gas
ranges from 15X 10-’ psi-’ at 1,000 psi, to 5 X lo-’~,psi-’
at 5,000 psi. Rock compressibilities range from 3 X 10’” to
10X 10“ psi-’. Thus compressibilities of rock and water .
are often negligible compared to,. the compressibility of
gas. Eq. 1 becomes: ,. . ,’
Ct=suc,, .,..., . . . ..-. ; (6)
In certain cases; e.g., high pressure and high connate
water saturation, water and rock compressibilities are not
negligible. In this event, Eq. 3 must be used to evaluate
total compressibility. It is recommended that the magni- -
tude of water and” rock compressibility contributions be !’
checked quantitatively before Eq. 6 is used.
Clearly, measured gas compressibilities should be used
if available. If measured values are not available, estimates
can be made by one of several acceptable correlations or
methods. For example, cotipressi13ility of gas for Eqs. 3
or 6 can be computed from “the real gas law (see Trube,’:’
or Craft ‘and Hawki@l ~~ Trube has published reduced
compressibilities for natural gases in convenient graphical
form.’ His corndation is usually the best source for esti- ,
mation of gas compressibilities.
/
Often the reciprocal of absolute pressure is used ap an
estimate of gas compressibility. This approximation is
rigorously true for a per!ect gas, and should not be used i
.foEprE.ss,uresabove 5!20psi. -., ..-. _:. . ~. ._. ,:.-..:-, -.-1
~.-,...
1,
‘ OIL f&5ERVOIRi
OH reservoirs contain two or more fluid phases in addi-
tion to roclc oil, water and possibly gas, Although gas
compressibility is much larger than oil, water, or rock
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECIIXiJLfl GV
..
,,
 ,. -,, ,.
/“
, .
. .

,
r’
compressibilities, gas saturations may be small and it otten feren~iations indicated by Eq, 3 are not difficult, but arc
is necessary to consider contributions from each fluid tedious and subject to the usual errors inherent in differ-
phase and the rock. Eqs, 1 or 3 ,are generally applicable. entiation, It is often necessary to smooth original data and
in regard to the formation water contribution to total final results.
compressibility, the ‘correlations of Dodson and Standing,’r’ Assuming that experimental information is no~ avail-
or Culberson and McKetta” ~ may be used. able, the change in oil formation volume factor and gas in
The compressibility data presented by. Dodsors and solution with pressure required for ~q. 3 can be obtainer-i
Standing provide only the effect of the change in liquid from Standing’s ‘correlations for California oils, Fig, 4
water volume, the’ first term in the water contribution in presents the change of gas i’n solution in’ oil with pressure
Eq, 3. In order to obtain the second term involving the as a. function of gas’ iq solution and pressure. Fig. 5 pre~
pressure differential of the gas in solution, (aR.,./@),, sents, the change of oil formation volume factor yith- gas
either the Dodson and Standing, or Culberson and Mc- in solution as a function of oil formation vokrme factor.
K&tta solubility data can be used. Since this term is often These figures are general and, in. conjn~ction with Figs, 1,,
numb larger than the water compressibility, gas-in-water
solubi[ity, data ,have been, differentiated generally and re-
.’ sults are presented in Table 1, and Figs. 1, 2 and 3, Table
1 and Fig. 1 present, the pressure differential of gas in
solution’ fbr a single nati.rral gas containing 88.51 per cent
methane and 6:02 per cent ethane, This system was stud- I
ied by Dodson and Standing. ii
m
For this’ system, the pressure differential does not \
I&
change much with temperature over the range lQOF to v
m
250F as shown by Table 1, Thus a single, average fine is
shown &i’ Fig. 1; to cover the &tird temperature range.
Correction for total solids in the brine should be made
by us”ingthe lower graph oh Fig. 1. If temperature is above
250F, Fig, 1 should not be used. Figs. 2 and 3 can be
used to estimate the pressure differential of soh ion gas
for mixtures of methane and ethane in water. - These fig-
ures were prepared from the Culberson-McKetta data and o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

cover a more extensive range in temperature and pressure %.

PRESSURE, PSIA
than the Dodson-Standing data. The expression for the
pressure differential of any mixture of ethane and methane
is:

(%).=
’1(2).+’2
COkRECTION FACTOR FOR SALINITY

(%-),~~- ‘7)
where the subscript 1 re$ers to methane, and 2 refers to
CORRECTION
0.s
1.0
“(

FACTOR
ethane, Becatke the sol@ilit y of hydrocarbons’ in water
decreases rapidly with increasing mofecular weight, con- 0.8
0 10 20 30 60
tributions to the pressure differe!ltial from propane and
higher molecular weight cornponenfs can often be neg- TOTAL SOLIDS” IN BRINE, PPM n 10-3, -
lected. Again, correction for total solids in ,brine should
be made by using the ‘lower graph on Fig. .f. Eq. 7 is not
rigorously correct, but provides a very good approximation
as can be shown by comparison of Do~son-Standing data
from Table 1 with results from Eq. 7 and the Culberson-
McKetla data from Figs. 2 and 3, Eq, 7 was derived as-
suming both the mol fraction water in the vapor ~hase
and mol fraction gas in the liquid phase are quite small.
1n regard to oil and gas contributions to the “total sys-
tem compressibility, it is possible to determine total com- G
a
pressibility from Eq. 3 provided formation volume factors
and, gas volubility data are ~~lailable as a function, of pres-’
sure at the desired system temperature, The numerous dif-
._
TABLE I-CHANGE OF iOLuiSi LITY OF A NATURAL GAS IN PURE WATER
WITH PRESSURE,(FROM <REF. 10 DATAI
f (
IN!* ,0
‘FT , scf/[bbl-psi) “
-, ().” .a
..--.-,-
P;-., m,-
. (psio)
.——.- IOOF 15dF 2(toF ——.250F
500
. ---1000 ---
0.006s7
-0.00666-
0.00645
. . --0:00571 0.00640
0:005s1 ;
.: 0,00640
‘- -:J$OJ ;
1500 0.00555 0.00444 0.00480
2000 0.00418 0.00373 0.00390 0:00444.
2500 lm;fg 0.00290 0.00329 0,00374 .’
3000 0.00240 0.0027S 0.00315 PRESSURE- PSIA ,
3500 0.00270 0.00219 0.00262 0.00270
4000 0.00245 0.00204 0.00242 0,00250
4500 ~ 0<00231 0.00197 0.00231 0.00240
Fsc. 2—CHANGE IN’ SIJLLiIkITYOF METHANSIN PIJREWALXJI’
,- ,5000 . o.oo2r2 4 0.001?7 (?.00226 0.00231 WITH PRWSIJRE%9 ]%WSURS. .- :,
. .
*- 449
,\ PRIL, 1964 7
,’
. ... . “.”. . .1
., -.’ [-,
 { a-
,/
,’, - ,.
,/’ {
!.

,,
,. ‘,

?.

2 and 3 and Table 1, provide a rapid means for evaluation DISCUSSION

of total system compressibility from Eq. 3 for any system
The main purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature
containing a gas phase. Note that the change of oil forma-
and importance of total system compressibility for tran-
tion volume factor with pressure is obtained from results . sient flow problems—and particularly pressure buiid-up
of both Figs. 4 and 5 and the expression:
analysis. Often, specific PVT data ard not available to the
field engineer. It is likely that Eq. 3 and Figs, 1 through
5,, and Table 1 will be of most use for field calculations,
with the Dodson-Standing water compressibility correla-
,Development of the relationships shown on Figs. 4 and tional Trube’s’3 correlation for gas compressibility, and the
5 from Standing’s correlations is presented in the Appen-
dix.
Gas Saturatiotr Less Than Critical Saturation
For the conr!ition that gas saturation is less than the cri-
tical saturation for free gas flow, it is possible to rearrange
Eq. 3 to avoid much of the differentiation associated with
“oil and gas phase data. The result i~ , ,..

“= -+[(%’)l.+s”[=(%)+
3R.w
T.T )1“+-c’
B.
B ( ‘ “““‘ “‘9)
where B, is the total, or two-phase (gas and oil) formation
volume factor:
B, = B. + (R.,–R,)B, . . . . . . . . (10)
Derivation of Eq. 9 is presented in the Appendix.
It should be clear that use of Eq. 9 is limited to systems
where the gas phase saturation is less than the critical gas
saturation for ftow of free gas. For this reason, use of Eq.
9 is quite, restricted. But, for systems wher~, Eq. 9 does
apply, considerable simplification results. It IS possible to
obtain @B,/~p), directly from Standing’s two-phase vol-
ume factors, or from experimental data by methods ,which
do notinvolve differentiation. These features are presented
in the Appendix.
Undersaturated Systems A hove the BubbIe Point
Compressibility of undersaturated oil and ‘formation
water above the bubble point cah be estimated readily Fm. 4-CHANCE
R;, 13AS IN SOLUTION, !S.)YF/STB

OF GAS IN SOLUTION IN OIL wrrw

,,
I?RESSUHE vs
I
I
from existing ,correlations. The required information can GAS IN SoLuTIo~. ,- ,’
be found in the following -sources: for oil~see Trube~
for reservoir wa~er—see Dodson and Standing.’”
-, ,,
0.010

0.000

g
1.
0.006
d
m..
k.
u.
u
w.
. 0.004
_+
3
“a

e ~ ~02
/

.. .- . .- .
.0
, 0 .: $000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 FoRMAT ION VOLUME FACTOR OF
OIL, Ba, RES. SBL/STB/
i. ‘RESS”RE-PS’Y

, FIG,3-CHANGE OF %LuBu,I’rY OF‘ETNANEIN PUREwA’IER T?ITN ‘FIG,5—CNARGEOF OIL FORMATION VOLUMp FACTOR WITH GAS IN ‘ .
!. PRESSURSvs PRESSURE, SOLUTION vs OIL FORMATION VOLUME FACTOR.
\
460 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
I
i . .
 , ,, .i
!’
,, .
. ,,,
0

.,
/’
/ t ,
., .!
.,
,.
.

Ha;l’ correlation of rock compressibility. An example R ,. = solubi.lity of gas in water, scf/STB water,
estimation of total system compressibilityy is presented in correlating function, see Appendix,
the Appendix, Fig. 7 will be of limited hse for reservoirs real gas law deviation factor,
at pressures below the bubble point, but still producing at specific gravity of tank oil at 60F (to water),
or near the original solution gas-oil ratio. gas gravity (to air),
CONCLUSIONS SUBSCRIPTS
1 = methane,
One result of this study of compressibility is worth 2 = ethane,
emphasis. The (OR,,./3p)* term wtich appears in Eqs. 3 b = bubble poin:,
and 9, represents the increase in effective gas compres- 1“ = denotes phase i.
sibility resulting from solution of gas in water. This term
is usually neglected in estimation of total system compres-
sibility. It “should be<emphasized that, in most situations ACKNOWLEDGMENT ,
where the magnitude of water compressibility is important, The author wishes to express appre&ation to Mobil Oil’
the effect of solution of gas in water will be even more Co. for permission to publish this paper. Special thanks ,
important. “ are offered to C. F, Gates for helpful comments and dis-,
cussions concerning this study.
NOMENCLATURE*
,,
a = constant, REFf3RENCfX
B, = two-phase formation volume factor, res L Standing, M, B.: Volumetric and Pfwse Behavior 01 Oil ~~ld
bbl/STB oil (see Eq. 10) i’ [ Hydrocarbon Systeors, Reinh@d Puldishing Corp., New York
(1952), See also: Dritl. & PruJ. Prae., API (,1947) 275.
B,, = two-phase volume factor at bubble-point pres-
sure, res bbl/STB oil, ,2.Perrine, R. L.: “Analyses of Pressure Buildup Curies”, Dri[l. &
Pl,od. Prac., API (1956) 482.
c, = total system isothermal compressibility,
(vol/vol)/psi, 3. M’artin, .T~C.: “Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Driva Re-
servoirs and the Theoretical Foundation of Multiph=.e Pressure
c,P, = pseudo reduced gas compressibility. Buildup Analyses”, Trans., AIME (1959) 216, 309. ~
d = constant,
4. Hafl, H. N.:’ “CompressiI>ility of Reservoir Rocks””: Trusts.,
R. = volubility of gas in oil, scf/STB oil, AIME (1953) 198,309.
R., = initial, or bubble-point solution gas-oil ratio,
5. Fatt, I.: “Pore Volume Cmnpressilrilitits of %ndstone” Keservoir
scf/STB oil, “Rocks”, Trans., ~IhfE ( 1958) 213,362. /
———.—.- ——. —--—.
‘~l.”or dhrr symbols definitions, me AIME wmbols lists for: petroleum 6. Craftj B. C., and Hawkins, M. F.: Applied PefI-olIw/m Ik.seruoii
rc.wvoi r ,mrineerimr, ‘rra~l~., AIME ( 1!1;6) 207, 8SS: md natural m!s “
wwinwvinx, .Iour, Prt. ‘TwA. { kc., 1!W ) 134S. Engineering, Prentice.HaR, Iuc., Englewoo(l Cliff,. N.1. f 1959)
.132.
7. Geertsma, j,: 4’TIw Effect of Fluid l’resmre Declilie ou VolmnW
tric .Changes of Porous Rocks”’, Tram., Ali[fl (1957) 210, 331. ‘.
-... .- 8..van der Knaap, W,: *’Nonlinear Behavior of, .hrs~ie Porous
Media”, Trans., AIME [ 1959) 216, 179; ‘“’fl 1 Influence nf :1 ,;
Pore Volume Change an, he E, tinmtion of Oil Resemes””.
Erdol urrd Kolde ( 1960) 13, 305.
9.lMmytin, %’. M.:, ‘-Effect rrf O{erhurden l+ressure on %me
Properties of .%mrlstmws”. Ser. Pet. En,g. jour. (Dec.. 1962)
360.

.- .

---

CORRELhTINGFACTOR, $

f%. 6-CHANGE OF STANDINC’S TWO-PHASE FORMATION VOLUME Ftc. 7—lSOITiERMAL Pakssma D~FERENTML OF TWO-PHASE
,* FACTORS WITH PRESSUaE: VOLUME FACTOR.
,“ .

APRIL, 1964
 -- -4

10. Llodson, C. R, and Standing, h!. B.: “Prwsure-Volume~Tempertr- DETERMINATIONOF (2R./~P) , FROM STANfUNG’S I
ture and Solufrility Relations for Natural GBs-Water Mixtures”, PVTCORRELATIONSFOR CALIFORNIAOILS .
Drill. & Prod. Prrrc.,API (1944) 173.
11. Culberson, ‘O. L, and McKetta, J. J.: “Phase E uilibria in
H drocarhorr-WaterSystems,Part II.. .“, Trans., AI\ IE (1950)
Standing’si Fig. 1,“ a correlation of bubble-point pres-
sure and gas-oil raticr, may be expressed analytically by
R,- ‘“n
~oosw ,
I
19
ld9, 319,
r..ll.--.m.>v,,
Uu,,,s, ,

droearfron-WaterSystems,
.1Y4,
,.* 24s.
-.”
n r
v. AA
..” uA ‘,M,.v...,.
@,, MJS.G .,-,

Part I 11.,..“. Trans., AIME (1951)

1, J,: “Phtr*
.! , Equilibria in Hy- ‘() —

.-.Y.
~ ~kol:.
tL0537p + 1.408
(. A1.1,
=

where y, is the gas gmvity (to air), T is temperature, ‘F,

and (“API) is the tank oil gravity, Taking the natural
k% ‘J’rnbe, A. S.: “Compressibility of Natural Gases”, Trurrs., AIME logarithm .of b?th sides of this equation, and differentiat-
(1957) 210, 61. ing analytically’ with respect to pressure leads to:
1.
14. ‘lhbe, A. S.: “Colz]llressil]ility of Underwtwrted Hydmearhon aRa R8
Reserroir F1nids”, Trans., AIME (1957) 210, 34.1.
()~, = (0,83p i- 21.75) .

DERIVATION OF GENERAL TOTAL SYSTEM

APPENDIX Solutions of this equation are presented on Fig. 4.
l)Ef’ERMINA’HONOF (W./tUt,) r.FRON S’~A.~lHN[;.S ~~
PVT CORRELATIONSFOR Cc4LJf?0RhlL4 OILS , ‘
“1
ISOTHERMAL COMPRESSIBILITY EXPRESSION

Eqs. 1 and 2 state:’

Standing’s Fig. 3* presents B,, vs
[4
R. ~ + 1.25 T’ s
1’. 1
and
c, = .sOc’,,
+s,rc,r+sycr+c,

1’ avi
. . . . . . . (1) Graphical differentiation
yields
~
—
. r’ J%(:)
vs B,, sIS

shown on Fig. 5. Note that y,, is the s~ecific gravity of

(, ..

I
(., ______

v, () ap
Since a “normal” fluid decreases in. volume with an in-
t’”--..’.’
.
. ‘,(2) tank oil at 60F, and temperature T is in ‘F.
SAMPLECALCULATIONOF TOTAL
1’

SYS’1’EhfCOMPRESSIBILITY
crease in pressure, the definition of compressibility given. Given the properties of an oil zone in Table 2, (1) find
in Eq. 2 indicates a “normal” fluid will have a positive all quantities needed ‘to estimate total system compressi- ,
compressibi lity. We can write the following expressions bility as a function of pressure, and (2) estimate the total
t’or the separate compressibilities in Eq. 1: system compressibility at a pressure of 1,500 psia assunl- ,,’

r,, =
-w%=--k(%)” ~
ing pore volume saturatioris ofi oil—57 per cent; water-
40 per cent; and gas—3 per cent.
The oil formation volume factor B,, may be estimated
from Standing: Chart 3,* and the solution gas-oil ratio
R. may be estimated from Standing,’ Chart 2.* The iso-
thermal change in solution gas-oil ratio (N?./ap.)r. is—..
ob-
tained from tFig. 4 of” this paper. .The quantity [Vy.,/y,,
(i3Bt,~aR.),] may be obtained from Fi~. 5. and
Since gas is soluble in b&h oil and water, as well as ‘conl-
pressible, the total compressibility term must be considered
an “effective-’ compressibility which ran account for. solu- Then (M,,/ i3p)r may be obtained as indicated by’-.Eq. 8:
tion effects. Oil and water formation volume factors con-
.taiin the effect of solution gas on the change in liquid”
phase volumes. Thus terms to reduce the gas phase volume
by the quantify of gas going into solution as pressure is The c&ipressibility”’ of gas-saturated water may. be esti~
raised must be added. The change in gas volume due to mated from Dodson and Standing.’” Tlie quantity (aR,,, /
soiution of gas in c!~iis (aR./ap), scf/STB-psi, or in terms Z?p), may be taken from Table 1 or e~timated from Frg. 1,
of reservoir barrels per unit pore volume-psi: this paper, because no information was given on detailed
giis composition. The. compressibility dof, gas may be ob-
(B,, res bbl/scf) .— ~f?, tained from Trube”s pseud&reduced compressibilities.”
. . ‘S” ‘es bbi’res bb] ‘v)(B,,- res bbljSTB) ap

A similar term may also be written for effect of solution

() ,. The gas formation volume factor may be computed from:
z(T+ 460) res bbl
B,, = 0.00504 ——–--—- .
of gas in watec P Scf
Thus~ ‘1
~ ~ aR6.
“B,, ()~ y. B,, = 0,00504 (155 -k 460) ‘~
~. = 3.1;.
Thus we may combine the previous to obtain Marti& From :he pseudo+ritical properties. of’ natural gases. at u
expression for total effective isothermal compressibility gas gravity of 0.83, ‘the pseudo-critital temperature and ,
for a mukiphase system of oil, water and gas: pseudo;critical pressure are 432R and 664 psia. Thus
,’ pseudo-reduced temperature and pressure are: ‘
1 aBr, B,, aR.. ,,
c, .= S’,, —-——
. [
B,, ap -f-z@- , 1 ‘
-...-... .. .
VI.*1,1 ,
P

s, a~g ,. —. .—— !
._—
B,, ~1() + C,..,....
”.,
(3) *Ref. 1 fimrre numbers refer to the API wblication: .Chart mrmbers “‘
refey tn the pm-ket rhwts xttached to the Reinhold rmbhcutkrfi.

.,~~ !. JOlll{N.i J, OF PETltsJt.EIJM .“f Ef:l{NOI,OGY

 TABL14 2-01 L zONE PROPERTIS3 (0,57)
Porosity ;$i: per cent – —--(6x 10-’)+3.98X 10-’-I-3X 10-0
Fermatlen temperature c’ – ,(1.267)
011 sravlW 39,8” API (0.S26 to water]
Gas eravily 1308:$P;:) =2.77 X 10-4 psi-’.
Formation water salinity
This answer is 2S.3 per cent higher than the previous
value of 2.21 X 10-’ psi. The disagreement results prin-
cipally because the formation gas saturation was speci-
From Hall’” the rock compressibility is estimated to be fied to be lower than the two-phase volume factor would
3 X 10-0 pore volume/pore volume-psi. indicate. Thus the assumption that the gas saturation is
Table 3 summarizes calculation bf <the various com- less than the critical does not apply.
ponents of total system compressibility required in Part Certain of the results in Table 3 are worth inspection.
1 of this problem. 8
Notice that in both Parts A and B, the terms involving
The total system compressibility at 1,500 psia and’ fluid (8RJ8pJ~ are large, and particu~arly so at low pressures.
saturations given may be calculated by use of ~q. 3, rock This group actually controls the waler and oil compressi-
compressibili~ of 3X10-0 psi”,- and values tabulated in bility at ~500 psia. For both oil and water, the effect of
Table 3: .. solution of gas is about 10 times aS large as the effeci due
to change in liquid phase volume at 500 psia.
c’“O[-.+(%)T+~(%);]+
s’”[-&’ TOTAL S%TEM Compressibility WHEN GAS
(%-).
.
+wal-w%”)~+i’
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) DERIVATION
SAT~RATION 1$ LESS THAN CRITICAL

Substituting numerical values: The oil and gas terms in Eq. 3 may be combined to
yield a much simpier result f&r totdl compressibility. Con-
c, = (0,57) (0.000334) + (0.4) (9.94,x 10-0)+ (0.03) sidering only the oil and gas terms
or
(0.000798) + 3 Xlo-”

C, = 190x10-”
+ 3X1 O-”
+ 3.98 X10”.0 + 23.9X104 v+%+%%-%%
If gas saturation ]s below critical, and the system was
initially at the bubble poirit:
Ct = 221 X 1O’a psi-’, or 2.21X 10-4 psi-’.
‘An approximate answer for total system compressibility s.
—-. STB oil
may be obtained by means of Eq. 9 and Fig. 7., Assum- B,, ~bbl res PV =
ing the bubble-point gas-oil ratio to be 600 cu ft/bbl and (S. res bbl gas/bbl res PV)
using Fig. 5: ‘: (B, res bbl gas/scfl (R.i -R. scf/STB) -
aB,
..()—
ap .,
= 6.0 X 10-’ @-’.
and
s
_a=
+ (R”, - R,)
From Eq, 9: B. *

‘=-+(%91‘s+++$-).
‘+
where” R., is the solution gas-oil ratio at the bubble point.
Substitution
,. in the above yields:
s _~aBo +. B08R,

,
or
.(, )1
aR#m’
—.
,ap ~
-
-I-C,,.’.......(9)
,
.. or
o
—.
[
“
B. ~ Boap*. 1 –+(R,i - R,)
(
~
)
7

>
. .
TA8LE 3-CALCULATION OF TOTAL SYSTEM COMPRESSi81LllY FOR SAMPLE PROBLEM
A. OiL AND GAS !,

Pressure R. -(~)= m+), f,., (&&) , (+2) +-{*)T ,,, ‘

‘ [-war,,
p+io scf/ST8 pT ~ *K*); “’%%%.1 &
~=
— — {1] —’--w-- j:\ ‘—— [s)
500 126 1 !29 0.29 0.0!%45 O. O!%}l29 0.0001175 0.754 0.910 0.~7~65 0.00149 0.001372
1000 280 1.173 0.23 5:00 v 0.000500 0.000145 0.0001236 1.51 0.828 0.00257 0.000723 0.000599 0.79
1500 460. 1.267 0.37 5.41 0.000541 0.000157 0.0001238 2.26 0.762 0.00157 0.000458 0.000334 0.53
1900 60<> 1.3A0 0.38 5.56 0.000556 0.000161 0.0001201 2.86 0.733 0.00120 0.000341 0.000221 0.375

NOTES
(1) From Ref. 1, Ckrt 3, Reinhold publication (6) Use Ea. 8. ThisPowr
i21 From Ref. 1, Chert 3, Reinkld publication (71a“ = 3.1 21P
[3) From f%!. 4, This Paper (8) From Ref. J 3, cq pm c cmr
[4) From Fig. 5, This Poper ,. (9) co ~ 1/500 = 0.002 for 500 PSiO
“.
(5) Vwo s 1

8. RESERVOIR WATER 3
/

I
[-+++) ~
K’:T, uf/bbl* -+(%: %%7 +($.L) ~ ,$-= ,::;; “% ~,yw) ,>(&J) ] r ““
Preisure ,. Pure Pure Far Gas .—
in SOlutiOn* 8rine Water 8rlne bbl P ,, 6P ~
Water 8rine Wafer
+. ps!a
4.1 .ji 12 x 10-6 ~ ~~” -. E .1.019 33,sxlfl-3 37.0 x 1o-u
4.3 .
13.6x 10-n s 16.9x 10-n
.1000. .. 7.5. . , 7.+. 3 to x~.,o:o
.,3:03 10-S . -,;053.
.I.obo .. 3.26 x 10’”-. 0.0057 0.0Q54. - 1.017
1500 10.0 &29 X 10= - U.00.65-- 0:0043- ~.FJJ:-’ ““- 6.6SK10-a” --- -- 9.94x ~0’a- “----~ “ “- - - -
11,3 10.9 : 3.01 x 10P 1.095 3.30 x 10-0 0.003S 0.0036 . 4<26xlo-f~ 7.56x lo+
1900 ., 1
-1
 —
Sa
[
–+ (R,,
B.
-R,)~+B,!$-
1
. .
and
1 aB, B,b -i- (B, -B,J(2Y -d) “
But by d~firsition, the two-phase volume factor B, is: $ .E FT.
() BopY
B, = B, + (R,, –R,) B,
or
and by differentiation,
1 a’, = B,b + (B, – B,J(Y +~)-,
‘ .( )
(-%)=[-%-’R-R’%+B”*17” –T~r B,,’ Y
Thus Either form may be used. The interesting feature is
that the oil and gas compressibility terms including the
-%(%)T ‘sO[-+%+%%-%(%), solution effect may be ldetermined as a function of pres-
which may ‘be substi~uted in Eq. 3 to yield Eq. 9. sure without differentiation. This procedure permits
smoothing data since values of Y should ,be determined
EVALLJATIOk OF (aB,/’ijp) . from the best straight line through the data points. Cal-
The change of the two-phase vph.srne.factor with pres- culatioris are tedious, however. This method is probably
sure may be evahsated in severaI ways other than direct of most use in connection with experimental data and for
differentiation. One way is by means of the empirical “Y” application to some forms of the rntiterial balance.
correlation.” o That is, from I
The partial (aB,/i3p)r can also be evaluated by direct

‘=’ix:’)=ap+d”
differentiation of Standing’s’ B, correlation; Standing’s cor-

We achieve
“ relation of B, vs pressure can. be differentiated generally
to yield Fig. 6. Fig. 7 presents a nomographic solution
of results on Fig. 6 to aid determination” of (aB,/i3p)T. It
shouId be emphasized that Fig. 7 is of only limited use

t
and
‘=’1’{(%9+
‘}=B1’{$P=+$+l} in determination of total system compressibility due to
the restriction of gas saturation to less than the critical
value for free gas flow. However, Fig. 7 may be of con-
m, siderable use in connection with certain material balance
~=-pY 7’ ‘(%-l)(Y”*”P)I calculations. : **
,

.(

. J

.-.

,!
f
\. ‘i
, .’
..
.,
—

.>
., ,.
?