f-=aof

SPE
Pebaeun En@x3em

SPE 14152 Prediction of Miscibility for the Enriched-Gas Drive Process

by S.S. Kuo, ARCO Resources Technology

Copyright

1SS5, Sc@esy of Petroleum

Engineera at the 60fh Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineera held in Las

This papar was prepared for presentation Vegaa, NV September 22-25, 1985.

This paper wes aalacted for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information contained in an abetract aubmittad by the author(a). Contents of the papar, as prasentad, have not been reviewed by the Sodefy of Petroleum Engineera and are subject to correctii~ by the author(a). The material, as presented, doaa not necessarily reflect any position of the SOdety of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at SPE maatinga are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of tha Sociity of Petroleum Engineers. Permission to copy is raatrioted to an abatract of not more than 200 words. Muatrationa may not be copied. The abstract should oontain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the papar is preaantad. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box S32S3S, Riihardaon, TX 7S082-3836. Telex, 720989 SPEDAL.

ABSTRACT Minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) is an important parameter for screening and selecting reservoirs for miscible gas injection projects. This paper presents a new correlation for the enriched-gas process that can be used to calCU1ate the miscible
.. 1..>IUY --.....-:+ LUlllp U>l . . . . LIUI13 ...h+-h Wlllurl .---Vulla +.+ lab AF ut mn+hsma m.= bItuttG am-l UIIU rniw m,m _

components in the injection gas decreases, or (3) reservoir temperature increases. INTRODUCTION The use of miscible gas flooding as an improved oil recovery technique is increasing rapidly. Multiple Pfital-+ mic~+hla (~~z ~~~ ~flyj~~~~-g~~) pp~~~~~~~ -V,,*UU ,,,,*W,,U are generally pressure and composition dependent, iq ., a certain pressure is required before a gas of given composition can miscibly displace a given crude oil. The minimum pressure at which miscible recovery takes place is generally called minimum dynamic miscibility pressure (MDMP) or simply minimum miscibility pressure (MMP). MMP is an important parameter for screening and selecting reservoirs for miscible gas injection projects. For the highest recovery, a candidate reservoir must be capable of withstanding an average reservoir pressure greater than the h?4P. For enriched-gas flooding processes, the injection gas can also be sufficiently enriched with LPG so that q h- Wn k..b,.,enn 4ha 4n;A.++An +ha -c,ear.uni r. an,+ ~11= lUlr UCGWCCII bll= lllJCGblUli ~~~ CZFKI e,!= I =4=! VW, , fluid is at or below the reservoir pressure. A number of papers have discussed the process of obtaining miscibility in the enriched-gas drive processl-g or presented prediction method of calculati,ng minimum enrichment requirement.?3>14s20 However, only the paper by Benham et al.g derived a simple correlation to calculate the miscible slug composition. The approximate conditions for miscibility were correlated using the reservoir temperature and pressure, reservoir fluid C5+ molecular weight, displacing gas C2+ concentration in the displacing gas as the parameters. In deriving Benhams correlation, the MMP prediction was based on the calculation of critical properties of mixtures of a reservoir fluid and an i j ction gas since using a modified Kurata-Katz method. 18S?1

tures of intermediate molecular weight hydrocarbons such as ethane to butane. The miscibi1ity correlation was developed from MMP predictions of four reservoir fluids and several enriched-gas mixtures using the Peng-Robinson equation-of-state model. The correlation can be used to predict 144P for a fixed slug composition, or predict methane concentration for a given operating pressure. The correlation was tested with published data and showed an average prediction error of * 2.5 mol% methane. The miscibility conditions for two reservoirs and several enriched-gas mixtures were also determined in this study using slim tube apparatus. The miscibility in the slim tube tests was judged from the --change of phases in the iifi SCibl@ trafisitien Zefie rather than arbitrarily choosing oil recovery at the 90% level. A photosensor was used to aid the This experimental determination of miscibility. The technique has proved to be very consistent. results of these tests were compared with the new correlation and showed an average prediction error on MMP of less than t 4%.

In general, either a higher pressure or a higher concentration of C2 to C4 hydrocarbons in the injection gas is required for achieving miscibility as (1) reservoir fluid C5+ molecular weight increases, (2) average molecular weight of C2 to C4

References and illustratlons at end of paper.

PREDICTION OF MISCIBILITY FOR THE ENRICHED-GAS DRIVE PROCESS

SPE 14152

this method relies completely on the empirical critical temperature and pressure correlations it is inadequate in predicting the miscibility condition for reservoir fluids with C5+ molecular weight above 240 and below 180. With the advances in computer implemented equationof-state model, the predictions of phase behavior have become more reliable. A method of calculating MMP using Peng-Robinson equation-of-state was developed. A miscibility correlation based on this method of calculation is presented in this paper. Also included in this paper are the discussions of the slimtube displacement tests of two reservoir fluids and the miscibility criteria used in these tests. The data collected in the laboratory as well as those from the literature were then used to test the new correlation. MECHANISM OF OBTAINING MISCIBILITY The mechanisms of obtaining miscibility between a displacing mixture of light hydrocarbons and displaced reservoir fluid involve a number of displacing and mixing stages. The multiplecontacting mechanism can be illustrated in the pseudoternary phase diagram as shown in Fig. 1. The hydrocarbon mixtures are represented by three pseudo-components: lean (methane), intermediate and heavy (pentane and (ethane to butane), heavier). The reservoir fluid and injection gas are represented by points R and G respectively. As the gas first contacts the oil, the overall composition of the mixture lies on the line RG. Suppose it is at point A, the mixture separates into two phases represented by AV and AL. As more gas is injected, it displaces gas AV and mixes with AL. These may mix to an overall composition B which separates into liquid BL and vapor Bv. Injection of more gas will result in displacement of the vapor BV and mixing of the liquid BL with the injection gas G to form the mixture C. This continues until the injection fluid G mixes with the liquid FL at which time a miscible displacement begins. Injection gas G miscibly displaces FL which miscibly displaces the liquid EL which miscibly displaces DL, etc. The gases will also be miscibly displaced by the rich gas. The liquid saturation will gradually increase with displacement until a completely single-phase miscible displacement is achieved. The multiple-contacting mechanism creates a transition zone of contiguously miscible liquid compositions from reservoir fluid composition through comBL..EL, FL on bubblethe AL, positions point curve to injection gas composition G. Sufficient gas-oil contacts must occur before the miscible transition zone is developed. At the same time, the multiple contacting mechanism establishes a transition zone of gas compositions from AV to FV along the dew-point curve; and, although the reservoir fluid is displaced miscibly, two-phase gas-liquid flw can occur in the transition zone. It may be shown that the leanest mixture which will give a miscible displacement is represented by a point on the extension of the limiting tie line

(LPI)which passes through the critical point P. It should be noted that the last liquid which is miscible with the injection gas is not necessarily the critical mixture. Only if the injection gas contains the amount of intermediate component at point L will the injection gas miscibly displace liquid with the composition of the critical mixture. The injection gas which contains more intermediate component (or less lean component) than the gas at point L will either develop miscibility or be first-contact miscible wtth the reservoir fluid. Therefore, the maximum allowable methane concentration in the injection gas to achieve miscibility with reservoir fluid R at a given temperature and pressure is the methane concentration at point L. ESTIMATION OF MISCIBILITY CONDITIONS The concentration of intermediate molecular weight hydrocarbons required in the injection gas for condensing-gas drive miscibility depends on reservoir pressure. An increase in pressure reduces the size of the two-phase region in the pseudo-ternary phase diagram. This decreases the concentration requirement because the limiting tie line intersect the right side of the pseudo-ternary diagram (i.e., the side representing lean-intermediate mixtures) at a lower concentration of the intermediate hydrocarbons. As represented by Fig. 1, point L moves toward the lean apex of the diagram. Pressure and injection gas concentration requirement generally depend on oil composition, on composition of the intermediate molecular weight hydrocarbons contained in the injection gas and on reservoir temperature. Benham et al .9 derived a correlation to estimate the miscibility requirement by mathematically combining reservoir fluids in various-proportions with different mixtures of methane and intermediate molecular weight hydrocarbons and calculating the critical temperature and pressure for the resulting overall mixtures. The critical properties prediction that they used was a irditied Kiirata-Katz Benham et al. assumed that a rich method.l~ll gas having an intermediate molecular weight hydrocarbon concentration equal to or greater than that of the critical mixture would miscibly displace the reservoir fluid at the calculated temperature if pressure were higher than the calculated critical pressure. A correlation of methane concentration in the injection gas as functions of temperature, pressure, molecular weight of C5+ (MWC5+) in the reservoir fluid, and molecular weight of C2+ (MWC2+) in the injection gas was developed. Benhams correlation generally yields conservative predictions because the minimum intermediate component concentration necessary for condensing-gas drive miscibility is lower than the concentration of intermediates in the critical mixture or plait point fluid (see Fig. 1).

MMP Calculations Using Peng-Robinson Equationof-State

With the use of the equation-of-state model, the critical properties of the mixtures of reservoir fluid and the injection gas can be calculated. The

SPE 14152

s.

KUU

From critical tie line can also be determined. these the minimum amount of intermediate component (or the maximum amount of lean component) in the injection gas to develop miscibility with. the reservoir fluid can be calculated. The first step involves the characterization of the C7+ fractions in the reservoir fluid. This is done by adjusting the binary interaction coefficients between the CT+ component and other lighter components to match saturation pressure and other PVT data. In some cases several C7+ components may be used in order to properly match the experimental data. Once the C7+ fraction has been characterized, the dew-point and bubble-point curves in the pseudo-ternary diagram are calculated. The following steps describe the method to calculate minimum miscibility pressure for a reservoir fluid and injection gas at a given temperature: (1) Choose an initial pressure below MMP. (2) At the temperature and pressure chosen, mix the reservoir fluid and injection gas so that the mixture is in the two-phase region and perform for each component. The the flash calculation flashed liquid fraction is mixed with the injection gas and the flash calculation is repeated. Mix flashed liquid and injection gas until the composition of the liquid fraction just flashed is the same as that from the preceding stage. (3) If the 1iquid composition at the end of step (2) is thesame as the vapor composition, then the plait point has been located and IMP is the pressure that is used to perform the flash calculation. (4) If step (3) is not true, then increment the pressure by 50 to 100 psia (345 to 690 KPaj and

weight of C2-C4 in the injection gas. The graphical representations of the correlation are shown in Figure 2 to Figure 5. Each figure represents a miscibility correlation for a given reservoir fluid C5+ molecular weight and three injection gases with intermediate molecular weights (MWC2+) of 40, 44, and 54 at three reservoir temperatures. The correlation in equation form is: log(Cl)=(A+B*T)*log(T)+C*log(P)+D*log(MWC5+) +(E+F.mc2+).log(MWc2+) . . . . . . . (Eq. 1)

where

cl T= P
MWC5+ MWC2+

= =
= =

maximum allowable methane concentration in the injection gas, mol% F teiliperztii?e, pressure, psia molecular weight of C5+ fractions in the reservoir fluid molecular weiqht of C? to CL fractions in the iisplacin~ gas

The constants are: 0.19899861 - 0.00055769 c= 0.58347828 D=0.62406453 E = 0.57821035 F= 0.00058948 . Method of Using the Correlation A= B=

To use the correlation to predict minimum enr chment level or maximum allowable methane content

1.

Calculate the weight, MWC5+.

reservoir

fluid

C5+

molecular

~~p~~~ ~~+

(~) ~~ ~~~p (~)e

This procedure was used with four reservoir fluids and injection gases consisting of methane and three intermediate components of different molecular weights. The properties of the reservoir fluids are shown in Table 1. The molecular weight of C5+ ranged from 160 to 300. The composition of intermediate components in the injection gases are shown in Table 2. They consist of ethane, propane and The molecular butane in various proportions. weight of C2+ ranged from 40 to 54. The MMP calculations were performed at temperatures between 130F (54.4C) and 21OF (98.9C). The concentration of methane in the injection gas was varied so that the MiP calculated at each temperature is between 1500 psia (10;340 KPa) and 4000 psia (27,580 KPa).

7!. Caicuiate the moiecuiar weight of Cz to C4 iil the injection gas, MWC2+. In the case where enriched-gas is to be obtained from blending natural gas with LPG, MWC2+ is the molecular weight of LPG. 3. Determine the maximum allowable methane content in the injection gas from the correlation chart or Eq. 1 for the reservoir temperature, pressure, MWC5+ and MWC2+.

For example, if the reservoir fluid C5+ molecular weight is 300, the injection gas is methane and LPG which has C2+ molecular weight of 44, the reservoir temperature is 130F (54.4C) and the reservoir pressure is 2500 psia (17,240 KPa), the maximum allowable methane concentration in the displacing gas would be 49.6% (from Fig. 5 or Eq. 1). If the displacing gas contains this amount or less of methane, the miscibility between reservoir fluid and the displacing gas would be generated. EXPERIMENTAL DETERMINATION ~ -

Miscibility Correlation

The calculated maximum allowable methane concentration in the injection gas was correlated against temperature, pressure, molecular weight of C5+ fraction in the reservoir fluid, and molecular

To test the correlation accuracy, the MMPs of two reservoir fluids, Oil 1 and Oil 3 in Table 1, and several enriched-gas mixtures were determined

PREDILI1(JNUF MISCIBILITY FUR THE ENKILHIJMiAS

URIVt

PRUWSS

SIJL 141W

in a S1im tube apparatus. The schematic diagram of the slim tube apparatus is shown in Fig. 6. A annar.atilc @ the detatled description of ~~~ -rr-, ---operating procedures are given in Appendix A: The major features of the apparatus are the 40-ft (12.2-m) slim tube and the photoelectric cell which was placed at the downstream of the slim tube. The photoelectric cell was installed to allow the detection of the gas breakthrough and the color change in the effluent liquid stream. The compositions of the gas mixtures used in slim tube tests are shown in Table 3. Basically, they are methane and propane mixtures in various proportions. Oil 1 was displaced with Gas Mix A, B, and C at reservoir temperature of 132F (55.6C). Oil 3 was displaced with Gas Mix D at 170F (76.7C) and 206F (96.7C), which are the lower and upper bounds of the reservoir temperature. For each oil-gas pair, the displacement tests were conducted at several pressures. The MMP was determined from the ultimate recovery, which is defined as the stock tank oil (STO) recovery at i.? pore volume (PV) of gas injection, versus pressure A typical oil recovery curve is shown in plot. Fig. 7. For each individual displacement test, the miscibility was judged from the observation of the miscible transition zone using the photoelectric cell and was indicated in the recovery versus pressure plot. . Miscibility Criteria

photoelectric cell along with the liquid phase. The beginning of the dotted area indicates the time ~f gas hmaakfhpmlah which iS shown as BT in the , -.. -.. --=..~ plot. It can be seen that at 4590 psia (31,650 KPa) and at 4138 psia (28,530 KPa) the baseline of the curve changed smoothly when the phase changed from oil to the rich gas. This is a clear indication of a miscible flood. The time when the baseline starts to increase indicates the miscible transition zone is passing through the photoelec+Pie i-all Tha wavv the baseline has ,.. s...J mntion ----.-. . after ,! -,.. increased is due to the loss of interracial tension. At 3670 psia (25,300 KPa) and at 3218 psia (22,190 KPa) gas breakthrough occurred between 0.3 Two phase flow and 0.5 PV of gas injection. existed even after 1.2 PV of gas injection. There was hardly any change in the baseline for the entire period. These are indications of an immiscible flood. The displacement at 3909 psia (26,950 KPa) showed a mixed phenomena, indicating that the displacement is at miscitiie;immiscibie bwundary. However, it is very close to a miscible flood.
in ~i! d the The photosermr teehfi~que 4W~S iid tests to aid the determination of miscibility. The determination of MMP ustng this techntque has proved to be more consistent and reliable than that using oil recovery versus pressure plot alone.

CORRELATION ACCURACY
q

Testing with Laboratory MMP Data

Various miscibility criteria have been used in the Among literature for the slimtube experiments. oil recovery of 90% at 1.0 PV of gas these are: injection or at 1.2 PV of gas inection18, oil A recovery of 95% at gas breakthrough , or miscibility judging from the smooth change of phases in the miscible transition zone17. Since the criteria researchers are different, used by different extreme caution should be taken when eoiipa?ifig me It is also obvious from set of data to another. Fig. 7 that different BQ4P will be obtained if different criteria are used. The criteria of miscibility used in this study was simflar to that of reference 17. To aid in judging if a displacement was miscible, the signals from the photoelectric cell were recorded. In a typical miscible run, the light transmittance will gradually increase as the fluid passing through the cell changes from crude to crude-enriched gas transition zone to enriched gas. Fig. 8 shows typfcal plots of the signals from the In this figure, the signals were photosensor. plotted against the cumulative gas injection for the displacement tests of Oil 1 and Gas Mix A at five pressures. The vertical axis is a measure of the intensity of the light transmittance through the windowed cell. It will increase if the color of the oil becomes lighter. The horizontal axis is the tfme scale which is expressed in terms of pore Dotted area in Fig. 8 volume of gas injected. represents sequence of spikes in the vertical axis, which indicate gas bubbles are passing through

The MMPs determined in this study were compared As shown in Table 4, they with the correlation. are in excellent agreement. The average error is +4%, with the largest being 6%. . Testing with Published Data

There are some published data giving the results of core flooding studies and laboratory PVT mixing -..---a-.-&. ..ha.h ,. ha teed ~~ ~~~~ ~~e ~~~$~~~y ~a,,== tXpeI-IIItWL3 WIIIGII of the correlation. The criteria of miscibility in core flooding studies were oil recovery of 90% or greater. Table 5 shows the comparison of the data with the maximum allowable methane concentration predicted. The predicted values from Benhams correlation are also shown. If the concentration of methane in the laboratory test is lower than the predicted value, the miscibility should be indicated in the laboratory test. As can be seen from However, this table, agreement is excellent. since Benhams correlation assumes that the leanest injection gas contains the same amount of intermediate component as that of the critical mixture, it yielded lower maximum allowable methane concentration in several conditions. Table 6 shows the comparison of this correlation with the published slimtube data in terms of maximum allowable methane concentration in the injection gas. The predictions from Benhams correlaIt can be seen that tion are also included. Benhams correlation over estimates methane concentration by more than 9 mol% in several conditions. Generally, the predictions from this correlation are better than those from Benhams correlation.

SPE 14152

S.

S.

KUO

The average error of methane concentration prediction from this correlation is *2.5 mol%. In terms of error percentage, the predicted methane concentrations average *4% of the laboratory determined maximum methane concentrations. ~~~~~~~

3. Slobod. R. L. and Koch. H. A.. Jr.: Hiah Pressu~e Gas Injection-Mechanism of Recove~y Increase::, Eirilio and Prod. Prac., API (195.3], 82. 4. Whorton, Leonidas P. and Brownscombe, Eugene R- U.S. Patents 2,724,437 and 2,724,438 (Nov. 2;; 1955). 5. Koch, H. A., Jr. and Hutchinson, C. A., Jr.: iFiiscibie Llisplacments of Reservoir Oils Using Flue Gas, Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 7. 6. Clark, N. J., Schultz, W. P. and Shearin, H. M .: Condensing Gas Drive, Critical Displacement Process-New Injection Method Affords Total Oil Recovery, Pet. Engr. (Oct., 1956) 28, B-45 . 7. Clark, N. J., Garms, K. M., Moore, J. L. and Shearin, H. M.: Miscible Drive-Its Theory and Application, Jour. Pet. Tech. (June, 1958) X, No. 6, 11. B. Crump, James S.: U.S. Patent 2,B80,801 (April 7, 1959). 9. Benham, A. L., Dowden, W. E., and Kunzman, W. J .: Miscible Fluid Displacement-Prediction of Miscibility, Trans. AIME (1960), Vol 219, 229-235.

i.

A miscibility correlation for the efiriched-gas drive process has been developed. Application of this correlation is limited to conditions of temperatures between 130F (54.4C) and 260F (126.7C), pressures between 1500 psia (10,340 KPa) and 4000 psia (27,580 KPa), reservoir fluid C5+ molecular weights between 160 and 300, and injection gas C2-CQ molecular weights between 35 and 58. Thi.s, correlation has been shown to be better than,. the similar correlation developed by Benham et al. in predicting the miscibility conditions. It also covers a wider range of re~erv~ir f~ujd r j+ pw-ilaclllar ,,..-.. . . . u~jaht.----Good agreement between this correlation and experimental data implies that the equation-ofstate model can adequately represent the multiple-contacting mechanism in the enrichedgas drive process. The criteria of miscibility for the enrichedgas drive process in the slim tube test should be judged from the smooth change of the phases in the miscible transition zone.

2.

3.

4.

10. Brown, G. G., Katz, D. L., Oberfell, G. G. and

Alden, R. C.: Natural Gasoline and the Volatile Hydrocarbons, NGAA (1948).

11. Davis, P. C., 6ertuzzi, A. F., Gore, T. L. and cl

T P

=
= =

MWC5+ =
MWC2+ =

maximum allowable methane concentration in the injection gas, mol% temperature, F pressure, psia molecular weight of C5+ fractions in the reservoir fluid molecular weight of C2 to C4 fractions in the displacing gas constants

Kurata, F.: Phase and Volumetric Behavior of Natural Gases at Low Temperatures and High Pressures, Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 245.

12. Yellig, W. F., and Metcalfe, R. S.:

Determination and Prediction of C02 Minimum Miscibility Pressure, J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1980), 160-168.

13. Metcalfe, R. S., Fussel, D. D., and Shelton,

A,B,C,D,E,F = J. L., A Multicell Equilibrium Separation Model for the Study of Nultiple Contact Miscibility in Rich-Gas Orives, SPEJ, June, 1973, 147-155.

ACKNWLE6MENT

I would like to thank the management of Atlantic Richfield Company for permission to publish this paper.
REFERENCES

14. Williams, C. A., Zana, E. N., and Humphrys, G.

E Use of the Peng-Robinson Equation of State t~ Predict Hydrocarbon Phase Behavior and Miscibility for Fluid Displacement, SPE 8817. Presented at the First Joint SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery at Tulsa, OK, April 20-21, 1980.

1. Hutchinson, C. A., Jr. and Braun, Philip H.:

Phase Relations of Miscible Displacement in Paper presented at AIChE-SPE Oil Recovery. Joint Symposium in San Francisco (Dec., 1959). 2. Slobod, R. L. and Koch. H. A., Jr.: Which to Use-I Type or M Type-in High Pressure Gas Injection?, Oil and Gas Jour. (April 6, 1953) 51,84, 115.

15. Stone, H. L., and Crump, J. S.:

Effectof Gas Composition Upon Oil Recovery by Gas Drive, Trans., AIME (1956) 207, 105. J. F.: Miscible Displacement-Flow Behavior Phase Relationships and for a Partially Depleted Reservoir, Trans., AIME (1960) 219.

16. Wilson,

PREDICTION OF MISCIBILITY FOR THE ENRICHED-GAS DRIVE PROCESS

SPE 14152

17. Yarborough, L. Y., and Smith, L. R.: Solvent and Driving Gas Compositions for Miscible Slug Displacement, SPEJ, (September 1970), 298-310. 18. Jacobson, H. A., Acid Gases and Their Contribution to Miscibility, J. of Can. Pet. Tech. April-May, 1972, 57-59. 19. Rutherford, W. M., Miscibility Relationships in the Displacement of Oil 8y Light Hydrocarbon, SPEJ, Dec. 1962, 340-346. 20. Cohen, G. S., and Shirer, J. A., Prediction of Conditions Necessary for Multiple-Contact Miscibility, SPE 12111, presented at the 58th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Francisco, CA, Ott 5-8, 1983.

Effluent from the tube was flashed in a darcies. glass receiver where produced oil is collected and measured. A gas chromatography was set up on-line to analyze the produced gas before the produced gas was sent through a wet test meter. A visual cell was installed downstream of the tube to allow visual inspection of the change in To aid in monitoring the the effluent stream. effluent stream, a photoelectric cell was installed within the visual cell to record the gas breakthrough and the color change in the effluent stream. The photoelectric cell consisted of a LED and a photosensor. For each displacement test, the coil was saturated initially with oil at the desired test temperature and pressure. The enriched-gas from the gas reservoir was injected into the coil at the rate of 6 cm3/hr or 45 ft/D (13.7 m/D) using a positive displacement pump. gf~.p
s. ya= hmaab+hem,mh wlGmmlllll Vuya, hsA ,, IW-P,,PPA *..S , b ~fi~ z~()~~ &~

Laboratory

APPENDIX A Slim Tube Apparatus

The displacement tests were conducted in the slim tube apparatus. The schematic diagram of the appa-1:. *,.I.,. . -.*..- L-- L--- -k_..- . ThiS IIIe SI 1111 buw racus nds ueen >rw.rwrl ifi Fig. 6. made of a 3/8-in. (9.5-n3n)OD stainless steel tube long and packed with 80-100 mesh 40 ft. (12.2m) glass beads. The pore volume of the tube was 125 to 130 cc and was determined by gas expansion. The permeability of the tube was approximately 13

PV of gas had been injected, it was assumed that the transition zone, whether miscibie or immisciblehad bwM (xtablished, The injection rate ~hen-;as increased to 12 cm3/hr or 90 ft/D (27.4 m/D ). After 1.2 PV of the gas was injected, the test was terminated.

TABLE Properties of Reservoir Fluids

1 Used n the #OIP Prediction

Component,

mol

oil

Oil ---

Oil

oil .

Carbon Dioxide Nitrogen Methane Ethane Propane Iso-Butane N-Butane Iso-Pentane N-Pentane Hexanes Heptanes Plus Density, CT+ Molecular Weight, C7+ Reservoir Temp., F Bubble point pressure at Reservoir Temp., psia Pseudo-Ternary Components CHq (Lean), Mel% C2-C (Intermediate), C5+ t Heavy), Mel% MWC2-4 MWC5+

0.06

0.39

0.17 41.79 0.75 0.30 0.19 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.00 56.57 0.8907 302 132
2300 41.96 1.43 56.61 3;;

--15.77 1.54 2.20 --4.79 --4.36 4.73 66.61 0.8511 263 173
1128

0.13 32.52 5.53 4.25 0.85 2.91 2.28 1.39 5.!97 43.78 0.8506 215 170 1875
32.65 13.93 53.42 1::

0.47 0.37 32.04 8.36 10.05 2.23 4.38 1.12 2.18 3.65 35.15 0.8429 173 140

2140 32.41 25.49 42.10 1:?

Mel%

15.77 8.53 75.70 2:;

TABLE Composition of Intermediate

2 in the Injection Gas

Used in the MMP Prediction

Component

The injection gas diate component:

consists

of

methane

and

the

following

interme-

Ethane Propane N-Butane Molecular Ileight

;: ----

1;;

i; 71

40

44

54

ranbr
,

L-

Compositions

of

Gas

14i x Used

in

the

Displacements Gas Mix

Tests

Component,

!401

Carbon Oioxide Nitrogen Methane Ethane Propane I so-Butane N-Butane lsO-Pentane N- Pentane Iiexanes + Pseudo-Ternary
Cnmnnc .- .,,.--, iti., n. -..

----------65 -----35 -------------------------Components 65 35 -----44 62.4 37.6 44 62.4 37.6

c . ----54.3 --45.7 ---.. -------

o
0.45 0.26 52.88 19.43 13.11 3.02 4.68 1.66 1.51 3.00 53.14 40.69 6.17 39.9

CH+, mol % C2-C4, mol % C5+, mol % MUC2-k

54.3 45.7 .-. 44

TABLE Comparison of Correlation

4 Laboratory Slimtube

with MMP Data

MMP Oetermi ned Oil* Gas 1 (MUC5+=300) Mix** A (MUC2+=44) B (MHC2+=44) C (MUC2+=44) 3880 3650 2750 psia psia psia

MMP Predicted

% Error

3969 3700 2916

psia psia psia

+2.3 +1.4 +6.0

Oil* Gas

3 (M14C5+.191) Mix** O (MUC2+=40) 17Q0F 206 F Z4Q0 26B0 psia psia ZZ68 2638 p~i~ psia -~.~ -1.8

* **

Composition Composition

was was

shown shown

in in

Table Table

1 3

Table Comparison of Core Flooding and PVT

5 Data with the Correlation

Experiment

Laboratory MWC5+ TJJ P, PSIA MWC2+ 38 49 50 43 :: 43 44 39 39 44 44 44 44 M01!4 Methane 83.0 67.4 55.0 55.9 27.7 42 33 ;: 3! 35 41.5 46

Oata

Miscibility Oeveloped? NO1 NO1 Yes] Yes 1

Correlation Benham et al . M 1% M ibil i ty 14et;ane P;~;icted ? 57.5 63.8 64.0 60.0 45.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 27.0 27.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No

Prediction This Correlation Miscibility 14e; hane Predicted 57 68 :; 50 39 39 39 35 35 ;: 39 39 No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No

Ref. 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 9 9 9 9

167 167 167 167 216

216 216 228 228 241 241 241 ~~ ~

167

128 128 128 128 260

260 260 260 260 173 173 173 173

128

2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2015

2015 2015 2015 2015 1500 1500 1500 1500

Yesl No: Yesl

Yes

NO1 1 Yes Yes=

Yes2 Yesl No2 Noz

1 Criteria 2 Miscibility

for

miscibility was determined

was

recovery

of

90% or mixing

greater

in

the

long in

core a PVT

displacement cell.

tests.

from

multi-stage

experiments

Table Comparison of Slimtube Maximum Allowable

6 in Terms of Injection Gas the

Data with the Correlation Methane content in the Maximum

Lab MWC5+ 300 TJJ 132 132 132 170 206 210 227 227 230 230 233 233 140 140 200 227 144 144 160 165 i~~ 18B 188 110 P, PSIA 3880 3650 2750 2400 2680 1610 4000 4500 4000 4900 3850 4200 1615 2215 2975 2365 1670 2150 1865 1555 2175 2515 2515 1265 hverage 14WC2+ :: 44 39 39 44 39 40 42 41 36 35 44 44 44 43 41 40 44 44 44 44 58 44 Prediction

Oata

1401%

Allowable Methane Content This Correlation 8enham et al . 1401% %Error ~ %Error 74 72 66 55 53 43 69 73 68 :: 68 :: 62 50 50 59 53 41 51 54 62 52 +13. B +15.4 +42.6 +3.9 +0.2 -14.9 +0.7 -11.0 -4.2 -6.7 +0.8 -0.7 -6.8 +4.1 -2.4 -2.9 -8.3 -4. B -2.8 +5.1 +1.0 -6.9 -8. B +20.9 ?7.9 64.1 61.9 52.4 53.7 53.4 54.3 72.2 7B.7 73.6 81.5 64.5 66.6 56.7 68.3 68.0 53.9 49.2 56.0 54.8 39.3 47.6 53.8 65.7 42.5 *2.5 -1.4 -0.8 -3.5 +1.5 +0.9 +7.5 +5.4 -4.0 +3.7 +0.0 +0.0 -4.2 -3.9 +12.9 +7.1 +4.7 -9.7 -9.7 +0.6 +0.8 -4.8 -7.2 -3.3 -1.2 ?4.1

300 300 191 191 130 157 157 163 163 162 162 157 157 168 171 186 106 178 251 ., .-. <31 219 219 215

65. D 62.4 54.3 52.9 52.9 50.5 68.5 82.0 71.0 81.5 64.5 69.5 59.0 60.5 63.5 51.5 54.5 62.0 54.5 39.0 ~o.~ 58.0 68.0 43.0 Error

17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 19

*4.2

SE

1.41!i2

LEAN

A /
R: G: P: LM:
Fig. l-P*udotems~

\
! \ \ \

/ //
urA\lv
nr=mv t

I
M

\
INTERMEDIATE

Reservoir Fluid Injection Gas Plait Point Critical Tieline

of theenriched~ss ddvepmce*.

repre*ntstion

SPE 1.415)2

100

,.

El
z 4

100

90

90

T =170 F. MWC2+ =40 .:: .:. .

80

80

70

70

60

60

50

50

40 00 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 00 2000 2500 3000

3500

4! 00

PRESSURE, Pk.2-EJ7*W

PSIA
Fb. 3-Enrfchd-9u

PRESSURE,

PSIA

mfsclbillfycwrdatlon fw MwC5 + of 200.

mlsdutw corrofmlao for wwcs + d 150.

60

;.. . :.
70

:.. ; .:

;.~

,,

;.;

: .,.+1

60

50

40

3
-i
00 2000
F@ 4-2mfddw9

::
;..;; ::

.:
. ...: ,. :: I :: 1

:,
:. : 1

T~21.~

~M,~.C&Z.4.?

::
2500

::
1

:
1

T=210? . -.. MWC2+ .. -44 T~2 10~ M*L2 + %4 !-J

3000

3500

)0

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

PRESSURE,
~ffw ~n

PSIA
for WCS+ C4 240.

PRESSIJRE, PSIA MWC5 + of 300. W.5-Enffch~ rn18clbflHy CJX@mfon FOI

il
100 90

-. ., ,.,P
TWO-STAGE BACK PRESSURE REGULATOR

mfd

dol

$1
GAS
RESERVOIR

R =G)WWaer
METER

GAS CHROMATOGRAPH

..

80

70

80

;..

:: : .:. ::
,:

:: .: . ... .. :: ::
,.
I

50
DO

3000

3500

IL
::
s q

;; :, ... . : TEMP = 132 F :

MISCIBLE IMMISCIBLE
4500

4000

PRESSURE,
Fb.
741 IUVVNY

PSIA

CUWe for 0111 end GES MI, A.

SE

1415:2

10 4fXl

psia

MISCIBLE

$5

o 0
I

1 0.2

1 0.4

, 0.6

, 0.8

BT ,

, 1.0

1 1.2

4138

psia - MISCIBLE

01 o
10

It

J
1.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.s

1.0

3909

psia

- MISCIBLE

/ IMMISCIBLE

I
I 1
0.8

>

E5

BT 1
0.8

1 o

I
0.2

1
0.4

1
1.0

#
1.2

I
10

3670

psia -

IMMISCIBLE I

3218

psia

- IMMISCIBLE

-o

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

PORE

VOLUME

INJECTED

BT: Gas Breakthrough

Fig. 8Photoelectric cell outputforOil1 and Gas Mix A.