Module 4 - Solvent Flooding

PETE 609 - Module 4
Solvent Flooding Copyright 1998-2001: Maria Barrufet

Class Notes for PETE 609 Module 4 Page 1/105
Author: Dr. Maria Antonieta Barrufet - Fall, 2001

This module is protected by copyright. No part of any of these pages
may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or
otherwise, without written permission from the copyright owner
Maria Barrufet 979-8450314 / barrufet@spindletop.tamu.edu

Module 4 Solvent Flooding
Estimated Duration: 2 weeks

General overview of solvent methods.
Mechanisms of oil displacement.
Gas injection: Diffusion and Dispersion.
Hydrocarbon miscible displacement: First Contact Miscible process, Condensing-
Gas process, Vaporizing-Gas process.
Dissipation: Modeling Dispersion and Viscous Fingering
Minimum miscibility pressure (MMP). MMP estimation by correlations and by
equations of state.
Performance evaluation.

Suggested reading: MAB, R8, R18, S
PETE 609 - Module 4


Learning Objectives

After completion of this module, you will be able to:
- Identify various processes and solvent types
- Isolate several solvent properties
- Classify solvent floods
- Isolate properties of immiscible displacements
- Determine when viscous fingering may occur
- Evaluate concentration profiles/histories in 1-D miscible displacements
- Interpret slimtube experiments and evaluate Minimum Miscibility Pressure
- Evaluate the performance of a solvent flood

The material for this module is mainly from Lake 1989, Stalkup 1992, and Orr 1994; as
well as MAB (your instructor).

Introduction to Solvent Flooding
A solvent can be injected in the reservoir to displace oil. This injection can result in a
Miscible Displacement (1-phase), or in an Immiscible Displacement (2-phase).
PETE 609 - Module 4


Figure 1 - Example of miscible and immiscible displacement.

In Figure 1, we can see that if solvent S1 is injected in the reservoir, the resulting
mixture M1 will be only liquid (1-phase, Miscible Displacement). However, if solvent S2
is used, the resulting mixture M2 will consist of a gas with composition G2 and a liquid
with composition L2 (2-phase, Immiscible Displacement). (Review Module 3.)
A solvent flood is any EOR process whose primary means for recovering oil is through
mass transfer or extraction. Though many chemicals can be used for this purpose, we
concentrate on gaseous solvents, primarily carbon dioxide. The process is frequently
called miscible flooding because many solvents either have developed or will develop
miscibility with the crude being displaced.
Solvent flooding is a more general term for what is commonly called miscible flooding.
It is also sometimes called gas flooding because most injected solvents in current use
are gases. In this module, you will learn the distinctions among types of solvent floods,
and the importance of common solvents (mainly carbon dioxide). We will analyze the
engineering aspects for designing a miscible flood and we will also see some simple
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 0
0
1
Light
Heavy
Intermediate
Oil
M
1
S
1
S
2
G
2
M
2
L
2
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 0
0
1
Light
Heavy
Intermediate
Oil
M
1
S
1
S
2
G
2
M
2
L
2
PETE 609 - Module 4

scoping models to evaluate the performance of a miscible flood. You will also be able
to identify reasons for early solvent breakthrough.
The solvent can be introduced into the reservoir in one of four modes:
1. Continuous or pattern flooding,
2. Soak or stimulation,
3. Simultaneous or alternating injection with water,
4. In a saturated water solution.

Figure 2 illustrates the miscible gas injection process to be discussed further in this
module. Here, we will discuss primarily injection Modes 1 and 3.

Figure 2 - Illustration of miscible gas injection process.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Potential Solvents
The number and type of potential solvents is very large. Among the gaseous solvents
are,
Gas: nitrogen, flue gas, methane, and carbon dioxide
Liquid solvents: liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and any of several organic
alcohols
Carbon dioxide, LPG, nitrogen and combinations of these are in the most common
current use. Not all of these are particularly efficient displacing agents. However, all of
them recover oil through at least a limited amount of extraction.

CO
2
Solvent Properties
The oil extracting ability of many solvents can be related to their physical properties.
Carbon dioxide has a low critical pressure and a low critical temperature (1069.4 psia,
and 87.8
o
F respectively), this means that, for many applications, carbon dioxide, is a
supercritical fluid or even a liquid if the reservoir temperature is low. The near liquid
properties of carbon dioxide make it an excellent crude extractor.

CO
2
Density
Another consequence of the near-liquid character of CO
2

is its high density. The CO
2

density at reservoir conditions is very close to the oil density. Figure 3 shows CO
2

density as a function of temperature and pressure. At typical reservoir pressures and
temperatures, the CO
2
density approaches that of a light crude. This means that gravity
segregation of CO
2
will occur with respect to water more readily than with crude,
particularly since there is some measure of miscibility with the latter.
PETE 609 - Module 4


Figure 3 - Density of CO
2
as a function of pressure at various temperatures.

Note: Density expressed in [g/cm
3
] is very close to specific gravity.

CO
2
Viscosity
Figure 4 illustrates the viscosity of supercritical CO
2
. Note that pressure and
temperature are higher than the critical temperature and pressure for CO
2
, which are
T
c
(CO
2
)=87.8F and P
c
(CO
2
)=1069.4 psia.

PETE 609 - Module 4


Figure 4 - Viscosity of CO
2
as a function of pressure at various temperatures.

Carbon dioxide viscosity, illustration in Figure 4, underscores other aspects. At typical
reservoir conditions, CO
2
viscosity is 0.06-0.08 cp. At the same conditions, methane
viscosity is 3-5 times less. This means that CO
2
-crude mobility ratios will not be nearly
as unfavorable as methane-crude mobility ratios.
Three-phase behavior in CO
2
floods is too complex to be modeled with current
simulation capabilities. Three-phase behavior occurs in low temperature systems;
however, three-phase behavior disappears at T>107F.
The result of increasing the temperature is to shift the entire phase diagram to higher
pressures. This causes an expansion of the two-phase region, which suggests that it
will be more difficult for solvents to work at high temperature.
PETE 609 - Module 4

In addition, many laboratory results indicate that a small amount of solid precipitate
(waxes, asphaltenes) can form at higher CO
2
concentrations. This means that four
hydrocarbon phases can form in at least a limited portion of the P-z plane at low
temperature. The precipitate is less prevalent at high temperature.

P-z Plots and Miscibility
The primary use of P-z diagrams is as a source of data to calibrate phase behavior
predictions using an Equation of State (EOS).
We will use them to illustrate an important insight into the issue of miscibility. A solvent
is said to be miscible with the crude if they mix in all proportions without forming an
interface. This means that CO
2
and crude are miscible at a temperature and pressure
outside the phase envelopes. They have limited miscibility elsewhere.
In a displacement prior to solvent breakthrough, fluid composition near an injector will
plot near the vertical axis on a P-z diagram. A point near a producer will plot on the
right vertical axis at some lower pressure. All other points in the reservoir are on some
line connecting these two points. Unless extraordinary pressure is used, this line must
necessarily cross a two-phase region. This means that CO
2
is rarely completely
miscible with crude at lower pressures.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Figure 5 - Ideal composition profile.

Fortunately, such complete miscibility is not usually necessary because CO
2
extraction
can form a mixture, which will be miscible with both the crude and the pure solvent
(CO
2
). This is discussed next.

Ternary Plots and Miscibility
The compositional information not present on a P-z diagram is represented on a ternary
diagram (seen in Module 3).
We divide the non-aqueous components into "light", "intermediate", and "heavy". Then
we plot these on the top, lower right, and lower left apexes as in Figure 6.

Injection
Well
Production Well
Injection
Well
Production Well
Composition of CO
2
presure
PETE 609 - Module 4

.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 0
0
1
Light
Heavy
Intermediate
Oil
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 0
0
1
Light
Heavy
Intermediate
Oil

Figure 6 - Ternary diagram illustrating single and two phase regions

Ternary diagrams may approximate phase behavior of multi-component mixtures by
grouping them into 3 pseudocomponents. A frequent way of grouping different
components of a mixture based on similarities of critical and other physical properties is,
- light (C
1
, CO
2
, N
2
- C
1,
CO
2
-C
2
, ...)
- heavy (C
7
+
)
- intermediate (C
2
-C
6
)

Dilution lines
When representing phase behavior relations in a ternary diagram, the compositions of
ALL possible mixtures from mixing two fluids will fall in the straight line connecting the
points indicating the compositions of the two source fluids. For example, ALL mixtures
of n-C
4
and bubble point fluid X in next figure are miscible in all proportions, while
mixtures of X with C
1
are miscible only at high concentrations of C
1
.

PETE 609 - Module 4


. 9
. 8
. 7
. 6
. 5
. 4
. 3
. 2
. 1
. 1
. 2
. 3
. 4
. 5
. 6
. 7
. 8
. 9
1
. 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 0
0
1
C
1
C
1 0
n - C
4
x

Figure 7 - Dilution lines example.

Exercise:
If 80 moles of oil with composition indicated with X in Figure 7 are mixed with 15 moles of n-
C4. What is the resulting composition of the mixture?
In practice, we must translate volumetric quantities to a molar basis.

The light and intermediate components are miscible, but the light and heavy
components are only partially miscible.

Exercise:
Indicate the "Heavy" and "Light" compositions at which mixtures of heavy and light
components are fully miscible. Consider that the amount of intermediate (n-C4) is zero.

Recall that the entire diagram is at fixed temperature and pressure.
PETE 609 - Module 4

The two-phase region has tie lines, as discussed in Module 3, and three-phase regions
(if they occur) are smaller internal triangles within the 2-phase region.
Each of the apexes represents pseudocomponents in complex systems.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Types of Displacement
Solvent displacements fall into two major categories, miscible and immiscible. Recall
the effect of pressure on miscibility by observing the two-phase behavior of Figure 8.

Figure 8 - Effect of pressure on miscibility.
PETE 609 - Module 4

To define the various types of solvent displacements, we analyze the data plotted on
ternary diagrams. A very important feature of the ternary representation is the critical tie
line. This is an extended tie line (in the single-phase region) which is tangent to the plait
point, as in Figure 9. The plait point is indicated by the critical composition where
bubble and dew curves converge at the pressure and temperature at which the ternary
phase diagram is calculated.

First Contact Miscible Recovery Processes (FCM)
The simplest and most direct method for achieving miscible displacement is to inject a
solvent that mixes completely with the reservoir oil in all proportions, such that all
mixtures are in single phase. Some examples are: intermediate molecular weight
hydrocarbon C
3
-C
4
or mixtures of LPG.
If mixing is solely by dispersion or diffusion, all possible compositions in the mixing zone
between the solvent (A) and the crude (O) plot on a straight line "dilution path" as in
Figure 9. If the dilution path entirely circumvents the two-phase region, the
displacement is first-contact miscible.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Figure 9 - Example of a First Contact Miscible recovery process (FCM).

Reservoir oil with composition "O" could be diluted with methane up to concentration "A"
and still achieve FCM.
The highest methane concentration that would still achieve FCM is 30%.

Exercise:
If oil has a concentration of 0.8 C7
+
, 0.1 C1 and 0.1 C2-C6, What would be the maximum C1
concentration in the injected solvent to achieve FCM?

.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 0
0
1
C
1
C
2
-C
6
C
7
+
A
O
CP
PETE 609 - Module 4

.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 0
0
1
C
1
C
2
-C
6
C
7
+
A
O

Figure 10 - Ternary diagram for FCM exercise.

For first contact miscibility to be achieved between solvent and oil, the displacement
pressure must be above the cricondenbar (CB) pressure of all possible combinations
between injected solvent and reservoir oil at the selected temperature. This ensures
that all solvent/oil mixtures above this pressure are single phase.
Problems associated with FCM:
Intermediate molecular weight hydrocarbon solvents for fixed contact FCM may
precipitate some of the asphaltenes from asphaltic crudes. Severe asphaltene
precipitation may reduce permeability and impair well injectivities and productivities. It
may also cause plugging in producing wells.
Pressure and temperature changes and/or the addition of intermediate molecular weight
hydrocarbons or CO
2
to some reservoir fluids may cause multiple phases to form.
Some of these phases are,
- Solid precipitation of asphaltenes and/or waxes (supersaturation achieved due to P,
T, or composition changes).
- Two or more liquid phases (i.e., Hydrocarbon-rich, CO
2
-rich)
- Gas-liquid -solid-liquid phases.
PETE 609 - Module 4


In the past, LPG solvents that are FCM have been too expensive to inject continuously.
Instead solvent was injected in a limited volume, or slug, and the slug was displaced
miscible with a less expensive fluid such as natural gas or flue gas.

Solvent
Slug
Flue
Gas
Oil

Figure 11 - Compositional grading.

Ideally with such a process scheme, solvent miscible displaces oil while drive gas
miscible displaces the solvent, propelling the small solvent slug through the reservoir.
Miscibility between solvent and driving gas normally determines the minimum pressure
required for miscible displacement in the FCM slug process with LPG solvents.
As solvent slug travels through the reservoir, mixes with oil at the leading edge and with
the drive gas at the trailing edge.

Quantitative Representation of Phase Compositions
Tie lines join equilibrium conditions of the gas and liquid at a given pressure and
temperature.
Dew point curve gives the gas composition.
Bubble point curve gives the liquid composition.
Hints: B.P. richer in the heavier component (oil).
D.P. richer in the lighter component (solvent).

PETE 609 - Module 4

All mixtures whose overall composition (z
i
) is along a tie line have the SAME equilibrium
gas (y
i
) and liquid composition (x
i
), but the fractional amounts on a molar basis of gas
and liquid (f
v
and f
l
) change linearly (0 vapor at B.P., 1 liquid at B.P.).

.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 0
0
1
C
1
C
10
n-C
4
CP

Figure 12 - A ternary phase diagram illustrating the phase envelope and tie lines.

As the concentration of methane in the injection fluid increases (moving above point A
in Figure 10), the CB increases and will not have FCM. However, dynamic miscibility
can be achieved by multiple-contact-mechanisms (MCM). These are,
(1) condensing-gas drive
(2) or vaporizing gas drive
(3) condensing-vaporizing gas drive (most likely)

PETE 609 - Module 4

Developed Miscibility
Suppose the reservoir oil and solvent (here taken to be the light component) are on
opposite sides of the critical tie line as in Figure 13. The displacement is not first-
contact miscible because the dilution path passes through the two-phase region. The
solvent will develop miscibility with the crude, however, and this may be explained by
the following mixing cell arguments for vaporizing and condensing gas drives.

Figure 13 - 1-Vaporizing and 2-condensing gas drive processes.

Vaporizing Gas Drive
As shown in Figure 14, let the solvent mix with the crude to form mixture M
1
which splits
into two phases G
1
and L
1
, provided by the tie line. The gas phase G
1
is less viscous
and it runs ahead of the liquid phase L
1

to contact fresh crude. The result of this mixing
. 9
. 8
. 7
. 6
. 5
. 4
. 3
. 2
. 1
. 1
. 2
. 3
. 4
. 5
. 6
. 7
. 8
. 9
1
. 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 0
0
1
Light

Heavy

Intermediate
Oil 2
Oil 1
Solvent 2
Solvent 1
Critical Tie Line
PETE 609 - Module 4

is mixture M
2
which forms gas G
2

and liquid L
2
. The gas again contacts fresh crude to
form mixture M
3
and so forth. See animation in the Powerpoint presentation.

.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
0
0
1
C
1
C
2
-C
6
C
7
+
O
M
1
M
2
M
3
M
4
G
2
G
3
G
4
G
1
Injection Gas
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
0
0
1
C
1
C
2
-C
6
C
7
+
O
M
1
M
2
M
3
M
4
G
2
G
3
G
4
G
1
Injection Gas

Figure 14 - Vaporizing gas drive miscibility mechanism.

During these multiple contacts, the gas vaporizes intermediate components to such an
extent that it will form new mixtures at different locations (G
1
, G
2
, G
3
, ). These
mixtures approach the plait point which is first-contact miscible with the crude. The
solvent is not first-contact miscible with the crude, but it develops miscibility by
vaporization. This is the vaporizing gas drive process. The pressure required to bring
about such a process is far less than the pressure required for a first-contact miscible
process.
The mechanism for achieving dynamic miscible displacement in a vaporizing gas drive
process relies on the in-situ vaporization of intermediate molecular weight hydrocarbons
from the reservoir oil into the injected gas to create a miscible transition zone.
Miscibility by this method uses N
2
, flue gas, or natural gas, provided that the miscibility
pressure is physically attainable in the reservoir.
PETE 609 - Module 4

The mechanism by which vaporizing-gas drive miscibility is achieved is illustrated in
Figure 14 and in Figure 15. The only difference between these two figures is the
location of the successive mixtures formed by injecting gas. These locations are
determined from material balance computations which are accomplished in each
reservoir cell.

Figure 15 - Vaporizing gas drive process.

Reservoir oil "O" contains a high percent of intermediate hydrocarbons, and its
composition lies on the extension of the limiting tie line (LTL) through the critical point,
or it is located to the right hand side.
Injection gas and reservoir oil are not miscible at all proportions. Therefore, the
injection gas initially displaces oil immiscible away from the wellbore, but leaves some
oil undisplaced behind the gas front.
Suppose the relative proportions of injection gas and undisplaced oil after this first
contact are such as to give the overall composition M
1
. M
1
has equilibrium L
1
, and G
1
,
at this point obtained from the tie line. Subsequent injection of gas into the reservoir
PETE 609 - Module 4

pushes the equilibrium gas G
1
, left after the first contact, further into the reservoir,
where it contacts fresh reservoir oil. Liquid L
1
, is left behind as a residual saturation.
As a result of this second contact, a new overall composition M
2
is reached with
equilibrium compositions L
2
-G
2
. Further injection causes gas G
2
to flow ahead and
contact fresh reservoir oil and the process is repeated.
In this manner, the composition of the gas at the displacing front is altered progressively
along the dew point line until it reaches the plait point composition. The critical point
fluid is fully miscible with the reservoir oil.

As long as the reservoir oil composition lies on, or to the right of, the
limiting tie line, miscibility with natural gas that has a composition lying to
the left of the limiting tie line can be achieved by the vaporizing gas drive
process.

Condensing Gas Drive
The condensing or rich gas drive process is the opposite of the vaporizing gas drive.
Now the solvent (rich-gas B in Figure 16) and crude are on opposite sides of the critical
tie line, but reversed from case 1 on Figure 13. The miscibility is again developed, but
through condensation of the intermediate components into the liquid phase. In the first
mixing-cell, the solvent contacts crude to form M
1
, the liquid L
1
will subsequently contact
fresh solvent. This multiple contacting will result in a mixture (again near the plait point
in Figure 16) which is first-contact miscible with the crude. The process is called rich
gas because of the intermediates (rich components) added to the solvent (gas).

PETE 609 - Module 4


Figure 16 - Ternary diagram illustrating gas injection in a condensing gas drive process.

Injection gases with compositions between A & B (see Figure 16) can still miscible
displace the reservoir oil even though they are not FCM with it. In this case, dynamic
miscibility results from in-situ transfer of intermediate molecular weight hydrocarbons
from the injected gas to the oil.
Assume a gas of composition B is injected to displace the oil in Figure 16. Oil and gas
B are not miscible in all proportions because most of their mixtures fall within the two-
phase region. Suppose mixture M
1
within the two-phase region results after the first
contact of reservoir oil by gas B (this will be dictated from material balance
computations, Lever rule). Point M
1, which will be determined from the amount of gas
injected, will intersect a unique tie line. (Recall dilution lines!)

According to the tie line passing through M
1
, liquid L
1
and gas G
1
are in equilibrium at
this point in the reservoir, as shown in Figure 17. Further injections of gas B pushes the
mobile gas G
1
, ahead into the reservoir, leaving equilibrium liquid L
1
, for gas B to
contact.

PETE 609 - Module 4

.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 0
0
1
C
1
C
2
-C
6 C
7
+
B
A
O
M1
L1
G1

Figure 17 - Resulting liquid, L
1
, and gas, G
1
, from injecting gas B into the reservoir with
composition O.

By continuing injection of gas B, the composition of liquid at the wellbore is altered
progressively along the bubble curve until the plait point, or critical point, is reached.
The plait (or critical) point fluid is directly miscible with injection gas. By this multiple
contact mechanism, reservoir oil is enriched with intermediate molecular weight
hydrocarbons until it becomes miscible with the injected gas.

This mechanism is called condensing-gas drive process or enriched-gas drive process.
Sufficient gas/oil contacts must occur before the miscible transition zone is developed.
The multiple contacting mechanism creates a transition zone of contiguously miscible
liquid compositions from reservoir oil composition through compositions L
1
-L
2
-L
3
...
Plait point (P). Likewise, we have gas/oil contacts along G
1
-G
2
-G
3
... plait point. In this
transition zone, two-phase gas liquid-gas flow can occur.

PETE 609 - Module 4


For dynamic miscibility to be achieved by the condensing gas drive
mechanism with an oil whose composition lies on or to the left of the limiting
tie line (LTL) on a pseudo-ternary plot, the injected gas composition must lie
on or to the right of the limiting tie line.

Miscibility Processes Summary
The vaporizing and condensing gas drives are both dynamically developed miscibility
processes. They are fundamentally different with respect to how they perform. For
example, the vaporizing process develops miscibility in the forward contacts or the front
mixing zone, and the condensing gas drive in the rear mixing zone. In practice, these
differences are rather subtle as, indeed, are the differences between first-contact and
developed miscible displacements. Because of this, it is frequently a good
approximation to treat developed miscibility displacements as though they were first-
contact. Such is not the case in an immiscible displacement.

Immiscible Displacement
Either vaporization or condensation can occur in an immiscible displacement though not
to the extent that it develops miscibility. Figure 18 shows an immiscible displacement
on a ternary diagram. Here both the crude and solvent compositions are on the same
side (the two-phase side) of the critical tie line. Now mixing between the crude and
solvent will result in two phases, a liquid phase which mixes with fresh solvent and a
vapor phase which mixes with fresh crude. Vaporization takes place at the forward
contacts at the expense of intermediates in the original crude. This vaporization is
limited, however, by a tie line whose extension passes through the crude composition.
This must be true because any two-phase mixture which falls on this tie line will result in
phases with invariant composition when mixed with an arbitrary amount of crude.
Similarly, the intermediate extraction is limited by a limiting tie line in the reverse
contacts.

PETE 609 - Module 4


Figure 18 - Condensing gas drive process with limited miscibility.

If gas C were injected to displace reservoir oil, enrichment of the oil to composition L
would occur; but then, the enrichment would cease since further contacts would always
result in Gx, and Lx, as the equilibrium gas and liquid.
If an extended tie line passes through the composition of the injected gas, an immiscible
displacement will result. This line (orange line in Figure 18) indicates the maximum
enrichment of the oil phase in intermediate components.

Simplifications: Two major assumptions were made to describe the development of
condensing-gas drive dynamic miscibility.
(1) Gas phase only moves during development of miscibility.
(2) Batch contacting of oil by rich gas.
In a porous medium, the contacting of fluids is continuous and results from both fluid
convection through a tortuous network, and from diffusion.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Two variables can be adjusted to design a condensing-gas drive process to achieve
miscibility:
- Reservoir pressure
- Injected gas composition
For a given injection gas composition, there is a minimum pressure called the minimum
miscibility pressure (MMP) above which dynamic miscibility can be achieved.
As the pressure increases, it reduces the size of the two-phase region thus a lower
concentration of intermediate molecular weight hydrocarbons in the injection gas will
achieve miscibility as reservoir pressure increases. Condensing-gas drive miscibility
pressure is below both the CB and CP (or plait point) pressure on a PX diagram.

The requirement that the oil composition must lie to the right of the limiting tie line also
implies that only oils that are undersaturated with respect to methane (C
1
) can be
displaced miscible by methane or natural gas.
Unfortunately for a great many oils the miscibility pressure with methane/natural gas is
very high for reservoir flooding.
CO
2
is not FCM with reservoir oils at normally achievable reservoir pressures. But it is
possible to achieve MMP at much lower pressure than using flue gas, N
2
or a mixture of
LPG. This is a major advantage of the CO
2
miscible process because dynamic
miscibility can be attained at reasonable pressures on a broad spectrum of reservoirs.

References for this material: Miscible Displacement SPE/AIME - Monograph 8 by Fred
Stalkup (1992).

PETE 609 - Module 4

Avoiding Immiscible Displacement
An immiscible displacement is to be avoided, if possible. Two ways to do this are to
adjust the reservoir pressure, or to enrich the solvent.
Since the latter entails some expense, it is common to inject the solvent as a slug driven
by a second fluid. This circumstance is shown schematically in a ternary space in
Figure 19. The second or chase fluid (lean gas in Figure 19) is miscible with the solvent
but not with the crude. As the displacement progresses, the front and rear mixing zones
will overlay causing the maximum intermediate concentration to fall below that which
was injected. The curved dilution paths a-c in Figure 19 are showing compositions at
successively larger times (and successively larger dilutions). Clearly, it is desirable to
inject just enough of the intermediates to avoid loss of miscibility.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Figure 19 - Dilution of solvent slug by mixing (from Stalkup, 1983).

Dilution of Solvent Slug by Mixing
In developed miscible displacements, the generation of a first-contact miscible mixture
and its subsequent highly efficient displacement of the crude is more significant than all
other oil recovery mechanisms. However, immiscible displacements can recover a
substantial quantity of the crude by,
- viscosity reduction,
- oil swelling, interfacial tension lowering,
- partial extraction,
C
ik
Heavy
hydrocarbons
Intermediate
hydrocarbons
Light component
Reservoir oil
composition
a
c
b
a
Solvent
Plait point
C
i
at b
C
i
at c
C
iI
C
iI
+ C
iK
2
Tie lines
PETE 609 - Module 4

- increased permeability, and
- solution gas drive.
Under some circumstances, these immiscible effects can be highly effective.

Solvent Flooding Experiments
Slimtube Experiments
Several different types of experiments are common in solvent flooding, but one of the
most important is the slimtube experiment. In a slimtube experiment, a crude-saturated
porous medium is flooded with a solvent in a very long and thin tube. The porous
medium employed is usually unconsolidated and, in many cases, synthetic. This
causes the medium to have quite a large permeability, and the ensuing displacement to
take place at nearly uniform pressure. The packing material is clearly unlike any
realistic porous media. Therefore, the slimtube does not simulate displacement
efficiency. It is designed, through its long length and small diameter, to have an efficient
volumetric sweep efficiency. Most slimtube experiments are water-free. Figure 20
shows the schematic of a MMP experimental apparatus.
The standard technique for determination of minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) is the
slimtube displacement. It is an experiment that is intended to isolate the effects of
phase behavior on displacement efficiency. In the long tube of small diameter, effects
of viscous instability are minimized, and hence phase behavior dominates displacement
performance.
Different investigators have used experimental designs and conditions that vary widely,
and definitions of the MMP also differ. Thus, comparison of results from different
laboratories may include inevitable uncertainty that results from the differences in
technique and interpretation. The uncertainty is larger for heavy oils at higher
temperatures.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Slimtube MMP Apparatus

Figure 20 - MMP experiment apparatus.

If we perform a series of solvent displacements of a particular crude, each at a
successively higher pressure, we might see the behavior illustrated in Figure 21. This
figure plots oil recovery at 1.2 HCPV (hydrocarbon pore volumes) injected versus the
inlet pressure of the experiment. Recovery increases with pressure up to a certain
threshold beyond which further increases in pressure cause little increase in recovery.
The pressure where crude recovery levels out is called the minimum miscibility pressure
(MMP).

PETE 609 - Module 4

%

O
i
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

a
t

1
.
2

P
V

o
f

C
O
2

i
n
j
e
c
t
e
d
Test Pressure
MMP
%

O
i
l

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

a
t

1
.
2

P
V

o
f

C
O
2

i
n
j
e
c
t
e
d
Test Pressure
MMP

Figure 21 - Definition of MMP according to Yellig and Metcaf, 1980.

Minimum Miscibility Pressure
The ternary interpretation of the MMP is straightforward. For pressures lower than the
MMP the displacement is immiscible. As pressure increases, the displacement
becomes less immiscible, and attains completely developed miscibility at the MMP.
Above the MMP there is no character to the recovery-pressure curve because the
distinction between developed and first-contact miscibility is so subtle. Recalling from
Module 3 that the two-phase region shrinks with increasing pressure, the MMP
corresponds to the pressure at which the critical tie line in passes over the crude
composition as sketched in Figure 22.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Figure 22 - Illustration of the MMP on a ternary diagram.

MMP Correlations
Because the minimum miscibility pressure at maximum recovery is an important design
variable, several correlations have been evolved for its prediction. One of the first was
the 1976 correlation for a CO
2
solvent by HoIm and Josendal shown in Figure 23. This
figure plots MMP versus temperature with the C
5
+
molecular weight of the crude as a
parameter. MMP increases with temperature and C
5
+
molecular weight. The latter
trend is because the solvent has more difficulty vaporizing intermediates when they are
heavy.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Figure 23 - MMP correlations for CO2 flooding, Holm and Josendal, 1976.

Next we review correlations that are commonly used to estimate MMP's for CO
2
/crude
oil displacements. Many correlations have been proposed. Those reviewed here
produce reasonable estimates, but the correlations differ among themselves
substantially, particularly for heavy oils.

Effect of contaminants in injection fluid on MMP.
In many CO
2
projects, produced CO
2
is separated from produced oil and gas and
reinjected. Depending on the gas processing facilities used, the recycle CO
2
may
contain contaminants, and the question inevitably arises whether the contaminants
change the MMP. Some contaminants may increase the MMP (N
2
, C
1
), and others may
decrease the MMP (H
2
S). For more in-depth reading, see Stalkups Miscible
Displacement monograph.

MMP Correlation for CO
2
flooding Holm and Josendal
Miscible Displacement SPE Monograph 1992, Stalkup
PETE 609 - Module 4

Effect of dissolved gas on MMP.
We can also examine the effect of gas dissolved in the crude oil on the development of
miscibility. Calculations using the Peng-Robinson EOS to calculate phase behavior,
indicate that dissolved methane has small effect on development of miscibility because
methane partitions so strongly into the more mobile vapor phase that the methane flows
at the leading edge of the transition zone between injected fluid and original oil. The
injected CO
2

then encounters oil that contains no C
1
.

Extrapolated vapor pressure of CO
2
as a MMP Correlation
Figure 24 sketches the vapor pressure of CO
2
and its extrapolated line which is used to
estimate the MMP.

The extrapolated vapor pressure is given by

(
+
+
= 91 . 10
15 . 273
2015
exp 7 . 14 ] [
T
psia EVP (1)

) 32 (
9
5
] [ = = F C T (2)

For example, for T=200 F the CO
2
extrapolated vapor pressure is,

psia psia EVP 29 . 293 , 3 91 . 10
) 32 200 (
9
5
15 . 273
2015
exp 7 . 14 ] [ =
(
(
(
+
+
=
(3)
PETE 609 - Module 4


Figure 24 - CO
2
critical point in a p-T diagram.

The EVP is a good estimate of the MMP for light oils as long as the temperature is low
(< 120F). At lower temperatures, two liquid phases or three phases (LLV) may appear.
At low temperatures, oil composition variations have small effect on MMP. The CO
2

density increases so sharply at the EVP that all but the heaviest of oils show
approximately the same MMP.
EVP can be used to estimate MMP at higher temperatures but the uncertainty is larger.
This method should be used only if oil composition information is not available.

Orr & Silva MMP Correlation ( SPERE 2,479-491, 1987)
This correlation requires the oil composition. The procedure involves the following
steps,
1 - Calculate weighted composition parameter.
Temperature
Pressure
Critical Point
T
c
=87F
p
c
=1069 psi
PETE 609 - Module 4


=
Nc
i i
w K F
2
(4)

where
F = normalized partition coefficient
w
i
= weight fraction of carbon number i (normalized to remove methane)
i = carbon number
N
c
= number of components in the mixture

2 - Calculate

761 . 0 0418 . 0 ) log( + + = i K
i
(5)

3 - Calculate density of CO
2
at the MMP.

1.467 F , 189 . 1 542 . 0 < + = F
MMP
(6)
1.467 F , 42 . 0 > =
MMP
(7)

4 - Use EOS or density tables to find pressure at which
MMP CO
=
2
at a given
temperature. (Note: for the homework you can use the CO
2
data from Figure 3).

Glaso's MMP Correlation for Condensing Gas Drives
This correlation may provide quite different MMPs from Orr and Silva. We will see this
in an exercise. This correlation requires to evaluate the following parameters,

PETE 609 - Module 4

588 . 6
846 . 0
7
622 . 2
(
(
=

+
C
y (8)

Variables:

MW = molecular weight of C
2
-C
6

in the injection gas
z = mole percent methane in injection gas.
T = temperature F

T e y
z y y
zy
) 10 127 . 1 (
) 185 . 0 745 . 46 ( 41 . 25 6329
34] MW for [psig MMP
703 . 1
8 . 319 258 . 5 12

+
+
= =
(9)

T e y
z y y
zy
) 10 7 . 1 (
) 273 . 0 913 . 80 ( 238 . 19 5503
058 . 1
567 . 13 73 . 3 9

+
+
= =
(10)

T e y
z y y
zy
) 10 92 . 4 (
) 214 . 0 515 . 73 ( 703 . 25 7437
109 . 1
706 . 21 52 . 5 14

+
+
= =
(11)

PETE 609 - Module 4

Estimation of Lean Gas or Nitrogen MMP
Stalkup provides several figures as a correlation for MMP's for condensing gas drives
see Figure 25 to Figure 28.

Condensing gas drive miscibility pressure correlation

Figure 25 - Condensing gas drive miscibility pressure correlation at T=100 F.

PETE 609 - Module 4


(Miscible Displacement SPE Monograph 1992, Stalkup)
PETE 609 - Module 4


Stalkup also provides a graphical correlation form MMPs using different slug/driving
gas combinations. This is indicated in Figure 28.

(Miscible Displacement SPE Monograph 1992, Stalkup)
PETE 609 - Module 4

Figure 28 - Minimum pressure for miscibility, miscible slug/driving-gas combinations.

Figure 29 shows some locations of natural CO
2
deposits in the US.

MMP Correlation Miscible slug/driving gas combinations
PETE 609 - Module 4

Figure 29 - Location of natural CO
2
deposits in US. (Stalkup, 1992)

Firoozabadi and Aziz (SPERE, Nov. 1986, 575-582)
Firoozabadi and Aziz give an MMP correlation that can be used either for nitrogen or
lean gas.

X
2-5
= mole percent intermediates, ethane through pentane.

2
25 . 0
5 2
3
25 . 0
5 2
3
7 7
10 1430 10 188 9433
(
(
+
(
(
=
+ +

T M
x
T M
x
MMP
C C
(12)

Location of Natural CO
2
Deposits (Stalkup, 1992)
PETE 609 - Module 4

MC
7
+
= molecular of heptane plus fraction. Firoozabadi and Aziz suggest that the
correlation is intended primarily for lean gas. It may be less accurate for nitrogen
systems.

MMP goes down with increasing temperature for oils with significant intermediate
fractions probably because the volatility of intermediates increases with the
temperature. Heavier oils (with higher nitrogen) MMP's show a slight increase with
temperature.
MMP goes down as the mole fraction of methane in the oil goes up. Methane behaves
like an intermediate component and is vaporized effectively by nitrogen.
For light oils at high temperature, MMP's for nitrogen, methane and carbon dioxide are
similar.

Solvent Displacement Mechanisms
Mixing
Solvent displacements are subject to mixing between the crude and the solvent. One
mixing is due to fractional flow effects, and another by dispersion, which is caused by
molecular diffusion and local fluctuations in the velocity field of a porous medium.
Dispersion, therefore, is large when these fluctuations are large (local heterogeneity is
large). Diffusion is negligible under typical conditions. The same is true of capillary
pressure except, perhaps, for an immiscible displacement far removed from the critical
point.

Segregation
Other effects exist which will cause the solvent to separate from the crude. One such
effect is gravity. A solvent injected into a reservoir will tend to be lighter than the crude
and much lighter than the connate water. If the gravity number and vertical
communication is good, this will cause the solvent to flow to the top of the reservoir.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Figure 30 - Gravity effect when displacing fluid density is lower than displaced oil.

Such tonguing (Module 2) will leave the bottom portion of the reservoir unswept with a
corresponding loss of recovery. Gravity segregation can also occur when water is
injected simultaneously with the solvent. In this case, solvent flows to the top and water
to the bottom of the reservoir.
The importance of gravity varies from reservoir to reservoir. However, another type of
segregation phenomenon viscous fingering is so pervasive that we devote a
separate section to it.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Dissipation in Miscible Displacements
Viscous Fingering

You may be surprised about the discrepancy between the very high recoveries quoted
above in developed miscible floods and the about 15-20% recoveries actually observed
in field floods. Probably the single most important source of this discrepancy is viscous
fingering. We give only the barest details of this interesting phenomenon and a few
quantitative relations.

Actual fingering is quite chaotic as is shown in Figure 31, a reproduction of fingering
patterns in a scaled model experiment. Once the solvent breaks through to the
producers (this instant is shown in the right sketch of Figure 31), large-scale bypassing
begins and successively more solvent cycling must be done to recover a given amount
of crude. It is clearly an effect to be avoided or at least anticipated.

Figure 31 - Viscous fingering.

Though the phenomenon is chaotic, it is not random and its most important features can
be illustrated with simple models.
PETE 609 - Module 4


Flow regimes in miscible displacement depend upon mobility ratios and dimensionless
groups characterizing the ratio of viscous to gravity forces (R
v/g
)

Ratio Mobility = M

o
s
M

= =
fluid displaced mobility
fluid displacing mobility
(13)

o o
s s
k
k
M

=
/
/
(14)

when mobile water is present,

o
w
S
w
w
o
o
S
w
w
s
s
k k
k k
M
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
= (15)

The ratio of viscous to gravity forces is,

o
v / g
o s
u L
R
k ( ) h
| |
=
|

\ .
(16)

In oil field units,
PETE 609 - Module 4


o
v / g
u[B / D ft ] [cp] L[ft ]
R
k[md] [g / cm ] h[ft ]
2
3
2050 | |
=
|
A
\ .
(17)

The sweepout efficiency at breakthrough has been correlated with the viscous gravity
force ration R
v/g
and the mobility M, as indicated in Figure 32.

40
20
60
80
100
0
1 10
100 1,000 10,000 100,000
II III IV
I
III IV
II
I
M=1.35
M=6.5
M=27
Viscous Gravity Force Ratio R
v/g
B
r
e
a
k
t
h
r
o
u
g
h

S
w
e
e
p
o
u
t

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
,

%

Figure 32 - Flow regimes in a 2-D, uniform linear system - Schematic. From Stalkup,
1983.

Figure 32 illustrates conceptually the different flow regimes observed in a vertical cross-
sectional laboratory model packed with glass beads (Crane et al, 1963.) At very low
PETE 609 - Module 4

values of R
v/g
, the displacement is characterized by a single gravity tongue overriding
the oil. At higher values of R
v/g
, vertical sweepout becomes independent of the
particular value of R
v/g
until a critical value is exceeded (see Figure 33, Regions I and
II.) Beyond this critical value, a transition region is encountered (see Figure 34, Region
III), where secondary fingers from beneath the main gravity tongue develop. Finally, at
even higher values of R
v/g
, the displacement is entirely dominated by multiple fingering
in the cross section, and vertical sweepout again becomes independent of the particular
value of R
v/g
, (see Figure 35, Region IV.)

Figure 33 - Flow regimes for miscible displacements in a vertical cross section: Regions
I and II.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Figure 34 - Flow regimes for miscible displacements in a vertical cross section: Region
III.

Figure 35 - Flow regimes for miscible displacements in a vertical cross section: Region
IV.

For a five-spot flow, Darcy's velocity (line driven flow) is calculated as

PETE 609 - Module 4

hL
i
u
25 1.
= (18)

where, i is the injection rate B/D per well

Examples
Problem 1
Calculate the viscous/gravity ratio for vaporizing-gas drive flooding in a reservoir that has
not been waterflooded previously. Assume these data: 40-acre five-spot pattern, i=2,000B/D
(gas injection at reservoir conditions), o=0.4 cp, k=75 md, h=35 ft, L=933 ft, A=0.4
g/cm3, M=25, and kv/kh=1.

Solution 1
2
/ 0766 . 0
) 933 ( 35
) 000 , 2 ( 25 . 1
ft D B u = ~
and
56
) 35 )( 4 . 0 ( 75
) 933 )( 4 . 0 )( 0766 . 0 ( 050 , 2
/
= =
g v
R

Therefore, from Figure 32, flow is dominated by gravity tonguing.

Problem 2
Calculate the viscous/gravity ratio for CO2 flooding in a reservoir that has not been
waterflooded previously. Assume these data: 40-acre five-spot pattern, i=500B/D (CO2
PETE 609 - Module 4

injection at reservoir conditions), o=1.9 cp, k=4 md, h=25 ft, L=933 ft, A=0.1 g/cm3,
M=25, and kv/kH=1.

Solution 2
2
/ 0268 . 0
) 933 ( 25
) 500 ( 25 . 1
ft D B u = ~
and
734 , 9
) 25 )( 1 . 0 ( 4
) 933 )( 9 . 1 )( 0268 . 0 ( 050 , 2
/
= =
g v
R

Therefore, from Figure 32, flow is dominated by viscous fingering.

Modeling Viscous Fingering
The displacement of oil by FCM in homogeneous porous media is simple, when the
solvent oil M s 1 and when gravity segregation does not influence the displacement by
segregating the 2 fluids. In those cases, the oil is displaced efficiently ahead of the
solvent, and the solvent does not penetrate into the oil except as dictated by dispersion.
The displacement front is stable, and a mixed zone develops and grows.

For M > 1, the solvent front becomes unstable, and numerous fingers of solvent develop
and penetrate into the oil in an irregular fashion. These cause a much inefficient oil
recovery. The problems that arise are: Earlier solvent breakthrough; and, poor oil
recovery.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Figure 36 - Example of viscous fingering in Hele-Shaw cell.

Simplified Model of Frontal Instability

Consider a piston-like displacement of fluid 1 (crude) by fluid 2 (solvent) as in Figure 37.
Upon its front, between fluids 1 and 2, a small perturbation c occurs. To determine the
conditions under which viscous fingering will occur, we inquire about the rate growth of
c.

PETE 609 - Module 4

X
f+c
X
f
L

Figure 37 - Simplified model of frontal instability (Collins, 1961).

Velocities of undisturbed front and disturbed front:

| |
f f s
f
x x L M
P k
dt
dx
+ |
A
=
) (
(19)
where
s
o
M

=

| | ) ( ) (
) (
c + + c |
A
=
c +
f f s
f
x x L M
P k
dt
x d
(20)

It follows,
PETE 609 - Module 4


| |
f s
x M ML
M P k
dt
d
) 1 (
) 1 (
+ |
c A
=
c
(21)

If c << x
f
,

| |
)
+ |
A
= c
2
) 1 (
) 1 (
exp
f s
x M ML
M P k
(22)

if M > 1, c | t
if M < 1, c + t

Therefore, c will either grow or decay exponentially with time depending upon the value
of M.

Finger initiation is attributed to microscopic permeability heterogeneities.

Critical Finger Wavelength (width)

u
|
|
.
|
\
|

+
t =
t
s o
s o
c
k
2 / 5
2 [cm] (23)

If fingers develop with:
<
c
, they will be attenuated by dispersion.
>
c
, they will grow.
PETE 609 - Module 4


Kovals Model for Finger Growth

Koval developed mathematical treatment analogous to Buckley-Leverett model for
immiscible displacement.

For linear flow,

|
|
.
|
\
|
|
= v =
|
.
|
\
|
S
S t
S
S
dS
df
A
q
dt
dx
S
S
(24)

Assume linear volume blending,

H S
S
f
oeff
Seff
S
S
S
1 ) 1 (
1
1
|
|
.
|
\
|

+
= (25)

E
oeff
Seff
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
(26)

4
4 / 1
22 . 0 78 . 0
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ =
s
o
E (27)

PETE 609 - Module 4

ity heterogene rock = H (28)

Characterization of Rock Heterogeneity H

Figure 38 - Characterization of rock heterogeneity

Solution of Equations (24) and (25) for pore volumes of solvent injected at solvent
breakthrough provide,

EH
V
BT PD
1
:
= (29)

Characterization of Rock Heterogeneity H
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6
H
%

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

a
t

o
n
e

V
p

i
n

M
a
t
c
h
e
d

V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

F
l
o
o
d
PETE 609 - Module 4

PD:BT
V pore volumes solvent injected
at solvent breakthrough
=

The oil recovery after breakthrough,

( )
/
PDi PDi
PV
EHV V
N
EH
1 2
2 1
1
(

=
(30)

Where V
PDi
is the number of pore volumes injected, and N
PV
is the oil recovery as a
fraction of the pore volume.
The solvent fractional flow in the effluent is given by

/
PDi
Se
EH
EH
V
f
EH
1 2
1
| |
|
\ .
(31)

Total length of fingered region,

m
x
x
K
K l
m
|
.
|
\
|
= A
1
(32)

EH K = (33)

x
m
= mean displacement distance calculated as if the displacement had been piston
like.
PETE 609 - Module 4


For radial flow,

|
.
|
\
|
= A
K
K r r
m
1
(34)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
V
PDi
%

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Experimental
Predicted
Parameter =
o
/
s
5
86
375
150
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
V
PDi
%

R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
Experimental
Predicted
Parameter =
o
/
s
5
86
375
150

Figure 39 - Comparison of Blackwell's experimental data with predictions based on K-
factor method; Stalkup, 1983.

Suggested additional reading: Chapter 3 of Miscible Displacement, monograph by
Stalkup, 1993.
PETE 609 - Module 4

Simulation of Miscible Flood Performance
The design of a field-scale miscible flood is very likely to include some sort of simulation
effort as part of the assessment of project economics. In this section, we review the
types of reservoir simulators currently used to make such predictions.
Two types of simulators are widely used: miscible and compositional.
Miscible Simulators
These ignore the compositional behavior of the fluids. The implicit assumption in such
simulators is that the development of miscibility takes place over such a short fraction of
the reservoir length that the details of that development need not be represented.
Miscible simulators include an empirical representation of the effects of viscous
instability. The scheme used is related to Koval's model. Some versions of these
simulators include a limited representation of compositional behavior when the pressure
falls below the MMP.
Compositional Simulators
Compositional simulators use an EOS to calculate how individual components (C1,
C2) and pseudocomponents present in the solvent and the oil partition between
whatever phases are present. Fluid properties of phases are calculated from their
compositions, pressure and temperature in each grid block.
Compositional simulators use an equation of state in conjunction with a finite difference
solution of the flow equations. Thus, the details of component partitioning are
represented. Compositional simulators do not represent the effects of viscous fingering,
and numerical dispersion may cause problems. Numerical dispersion arises from
truncation error in the representation of the flow terms in the differential equations. It
can cause difficulties in compositional simulations because it alters the composition
path of the displacement. Since the composition path strongly influences displacement
performance in multicontact miscible floods, control of numerical dispersion may be
important.

PETE 609 - Module 4

None of the simulators currently used to model miscible floods models all of the process
mechanisms known to influence process performance. Thus, the limitations of the
simulator used should he kept in mind when simulation results are considered. If
mechanisms other than those modeled dominate process performance, the simulator
predictions will not be accurate. In addition, many uncertainties remain to he resolved
about the representation of reservoir heterogeneity and its interactions with other
process mechanisms.
Despite the limitations, however, simulation predictions are the best available technique
for estimation of the amount and timing of recovery, and they can he invaluable as a
tool for assessment of the sensitivity of process performance to unknown parameters.
Thus, intelligent use of simulation is an essential part of the design of most miscible
floods.

Reservoir Simulators
All simulators simply perform material balance calculations.
Divide portion of the reservoir to be simulated into grid blocks.

For each grid block:
block) the of out flows that componet of (amount
- block) the into flows that componet of (amount
) at present componet of (amount
- ) at present componet of (amount
i
i
t i
t t i
+
+

A component may be:
- oil, gas, water, or solvent.
- C
1
, C
2
, CO
2
, heavier hydrocarbons.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Simulators differ appreciably in the assumptions made about how the fluids mix within a
grid block and flow to adjacent blocks.

Miscible Flood Simulators

Three-Component Todd-Longstaff Models
Treat the injected solvent as first-contact miscible with the oil. They use an empirical
model of the effects of viscous instability to determine the "effective" fluid properties.
Components are solvent, oil, and water (three-component version) or solvent, gas, oil,
and water (four-component version).
Solvent is treated as miscible with the oil. There is no representation of phase behavior.
(Miscibility develops over a length that is short compared to the displacement length.)
Calculate effective viscosities and densities for two pseudophases, oil and solvent.

The effective oil viscosity is,

e e
=
m o oe
1

(35)
The effective solvent viscosity is,

e e
=
m s se
1
(36)

where the mixture viscosity is defined as,

PETE 609 - Module 4

4
4 1 4 1
1 1

(
+
+
=
o S
o
o
o S
S
s
m
S S
S
S S
S
/ /
(37)

limits:

mixing No 0
s se o oe
= = = e , (38)

mixing Complete 1
m se m oe
= = = e , (39)

These viscosities are then used in standard fractional flow expressions.

e
o
S
S
oe
o
se
S
se
S
TL
S
M
S
S
S
S S
S
f
+
=
= (40)

where

S
o
= oil saturation
S
S
= solvent saturation
f
s
TL
= Fractional flow of solvent as predicted by Todd-Longstaff
M
e
= Effective mobility ratio

Choosing the Value of the Mixing Parameter
Calculated results are quite sensitive to the value of e. In one-dimensional flow,
breakthrough occurs at
PETE 609 - Module 4


e
(
= =
1
1
o
s
e
D
M
t (41)

and the displacement is complete at

e
(
= =
1
s
o
e D
M t
(42)

Hence, the length of the transition zone depends quite strongly on the value of e.

The Todd-Longstaff model reproduces Koval's fractional flow expression if e is chosen
to be

|
|
.
|
\
|
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
= e
s
o
s
o
log
. . log
/ 4 1
22 0 78 0 4
1 (43)

Both the Todd-Longstaff and Koval models predict that transition zones grow linearly
with displacement length. That prediction is roughly in accord with experimental
observations of fingering behavior.

Todd and Longstaff (JPT, 1972) recommended:

PETE 609 - Module 4

3 2 scale Laboratory / = e

3 1 scale Field / = e

Most simulations reported in recent years have used values between 1/2 and 2/3.

For field-scale simulations some investigators have attempted to determine an
appropriate value of e by matching pilot performance.

Four-Component Todd-Longstaff Models
The components are solvent, gas, oil, and water.
Limited compositional capability. Pseudo K-values can be defined for pressures below
the minimum miscibility pressure for the solvent, gas, and oil components
Choose
Ks =Ks(P)
Ko =0
Kg =Kg(P).
Using those K- values, the oil stays in the oil phase, the gas and solvent can dissolve in
undersaturated oil, and any excess gas phase is a mixture of initial equilibrium gas and
injected solvent.

SimpIe mixing rules can be used to determine oil phase properties:

( )
=
= s
3
1
b
p p when
i
oi i o
p x (44)

PETE 609 - Module 4

( )
=
= >
3
1
b
p p when
i
b oi i b o o
p x p p c ) ( (45)

( )
=
=
3
1 i
oi i o
p x ln (46)

The bubble point pressure can be determined as the pressure at which

1 = + ) ( ) (
b g g b s s
p K z p K z (47)

For pressures above the miscibility pressure, fractional flows are estimated as in the
three-component model.

Modifications to the Three-Component Todd-Longstaff Model

Define a constant miscibility pressure, P
m
. When block pressure exceeds P
m
use the
mixing parameter formulation.

When P < P
m
use conventional relative permeabilities and viscosities for the oil and gas
phases.

The transition from "immiscible" to "miscible" flow can be modeled by interpolating the
fractional flow expressions:

g g g
f f f ) ( o + o = 1 (48)

PETE 609 - Module 4

where

i m
m
P P
P P
= o (49)

and P
i
is an estimated pressure at which flow is essentially immiscible. When water is
present,

TL
s w s
f f f ) ( = 1 (50)

Many formulations also include a residual saturation for miscible displacement, S
orm
,
typically 5% or less. Its inclusion is empirical recognition that heterogeneity, viscous
fingering, crossflow, and phase behavior reduce local displacement efficiency below
that for FCM flow.

Water blocking: The value of S
orm
can be made a function of water saturation. One
such function is

rw
ro
orw
orm
k
k
S
S
| +
=
1
(51)

A value of | = 1 has been recommended for water-wet systems and | = 5 for
intermediate to oil-wet systems. These formulations are strictly empirical - there is no
physical justification for the form of the functions.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Todd-Longstaff Calculations for WAG Injection

Calculations for tertiary miscible displacement (no WAG) are typically performed with e
slightly less than 2/3.

WAG injection should partially stabilize the flood (depending on M, WAG ratio, gravity
effects, injection rates, )

It is not obvious how to select the appropriate value for 2D and 3D floods, however.

In one dimension, the optimum WAG ratio is of order 1. In terms of solvent utilization, it
is better to err on the side of more water injection. The selection of the optimum WAG
ratio is clearly a question to be investigated by simulation. Unfortunately, the fact that
the appropriate value of e depends on WAG ratio makes the determination of the
optimum uncertain.

Gravity Segregation in Todd-Longstaff Models

Gravity segregation of the injected fluid is frequently quite important in field-scale
displacements.

The fractional flow equation for flow in the vertical direction is

(

+ =
o
oe v
se oe v
TL
s
vert
s
S
q
g k
f f
) (
1 (52)

when k
v
is relatively large or when q
v
is small, these fractional flow assumptions
generate considerable gravity segregation.
PETE 609 - Module 4


Todd and Longstaff chose the values of
oe
and
se
to be consistent with the definitions
of the effective viscosities.

s oo o oo oe
S S + = ) (1 (53)

s os o os se
S S + = ) (1 (54)

where the values of S
oo
and S
os
are calculated from the quarter power viscosity blending
rule.

1
4 / 1
4 / 1 4 / 1
=
s
o
oe
o
s
o
oo
S (55)

1
4 / 1
4 / 1 4 / 1
=
s
o
se
o
s
o
os
S (56)

Todd and Longstaff attempted to model the effects of viscous fingering by modifying the
fractional flow expression.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Their approach modifies the convective part of the differential equation. Hence, the
transition zone grows linearly with the distance traveled. The modifications simply affect
the rate of growth.

In 2D experiments, at least, given solvent concentrations are observed to move at
approximately constant velocity. Hence an appropriate fractional flow model is a
reasonable representation of the average flow behavior.

Other fractional flow models

Koval's model assumes that a solvent/oil mixture with fixed composition displaces pure
oil.
Fayers' model builds a fractional flow expression from a physical picture of a finger that
grows in width from its tip to its tail.
Koval's model gives reasonable agreement with Blackwell's 2D recovery curves, but it
does not produce physically realistic total fluid mobilities.
Fayers' model and the Todd-Longstaff formulation give reasonable mobility predictions.
The representation of gravity effects in Fayers' model has better physical justification
than does the Todd-Longstaff model.

Fayers Model of Viscous Fingering

Assume that solvent fractional flow can be related to a finger width function A: Where
k
rse
= A , and k
roe
= 1 - A

o
+ = A
s
bS a (57)
PETE 609 - Module 4


where the growth exponent a is given by

4 0
42 0
.
. M = o (58)

The effective viscosity in the finger is taken to be

4
4 1 4 1
1

(
=
/ /
o
s
s
s
se
S S
(59)

The fractional flow expression is then

o
se
s
s
S
f
A + A
A
=
) (1
(60)

Effective densities are assumed to be

o s s s se
o oe
S S + =
=
) 1 (
(61)

The resulting total mobility expression is

o se
t

A
+
A
=
1
(62)
PETE 609 - Module 4


Formulation of the Multiphase Multicomponent
Reservoir Simulation Equations

Let us derive a generalized formulation for the reservoir simulation equations for
multicomponent multiphase systems as follows.

The more general case is to consider the pore space filled with gas (g), oil (o), and
water (w), and that a component j exists in these three phases.

Recall the following definitions

Oil Saturation
w g o
o
o
V V V
V
S
+ +
=
(63)

Gas Saturation
w g o
g
g
V V V
V
S
+ +
=
(64)

Water Saturation
w g o
w
w
V V V
V
S
+ +
=
(65)
PETE 609 - Module 4


Pore space volume
w g o f
V V V V + + =
(66)

An obvious constraint is

1 = + +
w g o
S S S
(67)

Porosity is the ratio of pore volume and bulk volume

b
w g o
V
V V V + +
= |
(68)

Darcys Law

x
P k
v
x
P k
v
x
P k
v
w
w
w
wx
g
g
g
gx
o
o
o
ox
c
c
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
c
c
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
c
c
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
Water
Gas
Oil
(69)

PETE 609 - Module 4

the velocity of phase o/w/g along x coordinate is proportional to the pressure
gradient along the x coordinate, the permeability to the phase k (o/w/g), and
inversely proportional to the viscosity of phase (o/w/g)

Mass Balance for Component j

Consider a control volume

z y x V
b
A A A =
(70)

( ) ( )
j of cumulation Ac
of Rate Mass j of Rate Mass - j of Rate Mass
OUT IN
=

Lets define the concentration of component j in phase i as a mass fraction

c
N
j
ij
ij
ij
, N j o,g,w i
m
m
C
c
1 and
1
= = =
=
(71)

PETE 609 - Module 4


Note that mass fractions are not the same as a mole fraction.

Applying the conservation equation for component j in the control volume we have:

wj w w gj g g oj o o
x
x
wj w wx gj g gx oj o ox
x
C V C V C V
t
C v C v C v
C v C v C v
z y
+ +
c
c
=
=
(
(
+ +
+ +
A A
A +

(72)

Dimensional Analysis:
| |
( ) | |
time
mass
length
length
mass
time
C V
t
RHS
time
mass
length
mass
time
length
length length C yv x LHS
oj o o
oj o ox
= =
c
c
= = A A
3
3
3
1

The oil, gas, and water volumes can be expressed using the following relations
PETE 609 - Module 4


z y x S V S V S V
o b o f o o
A A A | = | = =
(73)
z y x S V S V S V
g b g f g g
A A A | = | = =
(74)
z y x S V S V S V
w b w f w w
A A A | = | = =
(75)

Replacing into the conservation equation

x
x
x
C S C S C S
t
z y x
C v C v C v
C v C v C v
z y
| + | + |
c
c
A A A
=
(
(
+ +
+ +
A A
A +
(76)
Simplifying terms and letting
0 Ax

( ) | |
( )
C S C S C S
t
C v C v C v
x
| + | + |
c
c
=
= + +
c
c

(77)

Next substitute the velocities using Darcys expression
PETE 609 - Module 4


( )
wj w
w
w
w
gj g
g
g
g
oj o
o
o
o
C S C S C S
t
C
x
P k
C
x
P k
C
x
P k
x
| + | + |
c
c
=
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
+
c
c
+
c
c
c
c

(78)
At this point we must determine the number of independent variables in the system. For
Nc components this is

Unknowns Number
C
ij
3N
c

P
i
3
S
i
3
i
3
i
3
k
i
3
Total 3N+15

In order to solve this system uniquely we must have 3N+15 INDEPENDET
RELATIONSHIPS

Relationships can be algebraic or differential. These come from various sources,
1. Differential equations
2. Phase Equilibria Relations (EOS, correlations)
3. PVT Data/Correlations
4. Relative Permeability Data /Correlations)
5. Conservation Principles
PETE 609 - Module 4

6. Capillary Pressure Data/Correlations

Lets develop the necessary correlations
#Eq Count

Description Relationship

Nc

N
c

One mass conservation
equation for every
component

Conservation equation (78)
1 N
c
+ 1 Fluid phase saturations must
always sum to one
1 = + +
w g o
S S S

3 N
c
+ 4 Sum of mass fractions in
each phase must add to one
c
N
j
ij
N 1, j g w, o, i C
c
= = =
=
1
1

3 N
c
+ 7 Phase densities can be
obtained from data, EOS, or
from correlations.
c
N 1, j g w, o, i th wi
) , , (
= =
=
i ij i i i
T C P f

3 N
c
+ 10 Phase viscosities can be
obtained from data,
EOS+constitutive equations,
or from correlations.
c
N 1, j g w, o, i th wi
) , , (
= =
=
i ij i i i
T C P g

3 N
c
+ 13 Relative permeability can be
obtained from data or from
correlations.
c
N 1, j g w, o, i with
) , (
= =
=
i i i i
T S h k

2 N
c
+ 15 Capillary pressure can be
obtained from data of from
correlations
g w, o, i ) T , S ( F P P P
g w, o, i ) T , S ( F P P P
i i i ow , c w o
i i i go , c o g
= = =
= = =

2N
c
3N
c
+15 Phase equilibria relations
governing the distribution of
a component among phases
is obtained from correlations
or from EOS.
c j , gw
wj
gj
c j , go
oj
gj
N 1, j ) K ( f
C
C
N 1, j ) K ( f
C
C
= =
= =
2
1

PETE 609 - Module 4


We therefore have 3Nc+15 independent relations and 3Nc+15 unknowns which can be
used to solve the system.

In practice several simplifying assumptions can be made to make the problem more
amenable to solution these are the following

Simplifications
1. Capillary pressure between oil and gas is generally neglected
2. The mass fraction of hydrocarbon components in water is usually very small
and can be neglected
3. Components are usually lumped together into hypothetical components which
must be PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED.

Sources & Sinks
The basic equation derived for the linear compositional model did not include sources or
sinks. These can be simply included as.

|
|
.
|
\
|
|
c
c
= o o
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c

= = =
oj o o
i i
ij i
i
ij i
i
i
i
C S
t
x q C
x
P k
x
3
1
3
1
3
1
) (
(79)

Where

=
i
q
Mass injection of phase i in suitable units
= o
ij Mass fraction of component j in i
th
phase
PETE 609 - Module 4

= o ) x (
Dirac delta function which is defined as

= o ) x (
1 Production or injection in cell at x

= o ) x (
0 No Production or injection in cell at x

The solution of the compositional reservoir system is by far the most difficult problem in
reservoir simulation.

Solution Technique
The equations shown are a large nonlinear set of equations that can be solved by
Newton-Raphson iterations the algorithm used in a sequential calculation is
1. Calculate new pressures from overall material balance equations using
compositions and saturations from the previous time step.
2. Calculate flow in and out of each grid block using new pressures and old
compositions and saturations. Obtain new overall composition in each grid
block.
3. Perform a flash calculation to obtain new phase compositions, saturations
densities and viscosities.

Some compositional simulators perform all three steps at once.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Dissipation in Solvent Flooding
The most important dissipation mechanisms in miscible displacements are by
dispersion
viscous fingering
In this section we will discuss the effects of dispersion on a miscible front in a one-
dimensional, homogeneous permeable medium. Dispersion is the mixing of two
miscible fluids caused by diffusion, local velocity gradients (as between a pore wall and
the center of the pore), and mechanical mixing in the pore bodies.
Recall the definition of dimensionless variables in Module 2.
D
x
x
L
= (80)

t t
D
p o o
udt qdt
t
L V
= =
|
} }
(81)

Where V
p
is the pore volume
Modeling Dispersion
Assumptions
Isothermal miscible displacement
Incompressible rock and fluid
1-D
Homogeneous
Single phase

PETE 609 - Module 4

Under these assumptions the convection-diffusion equation describes conservation of
displacing component 'i' with mass concentration C
i
.

i i i
C C C
u -
t x x
2
2
0
c c c
| + |K =
c c c
(82)

where K is the longitudinal dispersion coefficient.

Using the dimensionless Variables,

t
i iI
Di D D
iJ iI
C C x udt
C ; x ; t
C C L L
u =superficial velocity
u =interstitial velocity
0
=
= =
|
|
}
(83)

Where the subscripts indicate
I = Initial concentration
J = Injection concentration

Equation (82) in dimensionless form becomes.

Di Di Di
D D e D
C C C
-
t x Np x
2
2
1
0
c c c
+ =
c c c
(84)

PETE 609 - Module 4

This is a second order partial differential equation (PDE) that requires one initial
condition (I.C.) and two boundary conditions (B.C.) to be solved.

I.C.
Di D D
C ( x , ) x 0 0 0 = > (85)

B.C.1
Di D D D
C ( x ,t ) t 0 0 = > (86)

B.C.2
Di D D D
C ( x ,t ) t * 1 0 = > (87)

*Original B.C. (X
D
=0) changed as an artifact to build an analytical solution which is
approximate and valid for large t
D
or N
pe
.

The Peclet number is dimensionless and is defined as

e
uL convective transport
Np
K dispersive transport
=
|
(88)

goal find ( ,t )
Di D D
C x

The resulting analytical approximation valid for large t
D
or large Np
c
large distances
from inlet boundary.
To solve Equation (84), use same techniques as for the heat transfer equation (Carslaw
& Jaeger, 1959).
Define a moving coordinate system

PETE 609 - Module 4

Let
D D D
x ' x t = (moving coordinate)

The differential of C
i
can be expressed in terms of two different coordinate systems.

D D
Di Di
Di D D
D D
t x
C C
dC dx dt
x t
| | | |
c c
= +
| |
c c
\ . \ .
(89)

or

D D
Di Di
Di D D
D D
t x '
C C
dC dx ' dt
x ' t
| | | |
c c
= +
| |
c c
\ . \ .
(90)

Equation (89) = Equation (90) and after substituting

D D D
dx ' dx - dt = (91)

D D
D D D
Di Di
D
D D
t t
Di Di D
D
D D D
x x ' t
C C
- dx +
x ' x
C C C
- + dt =0
t t x '
(
| | | |
c c
(
| |
c c
(
\ . \ .

(
| | | | | |
c c c
(
| | |
c c c
( \ . \ . \ .

(92)
PETE 609 - Module 4


Since Equation (92) = 0 v
D D
dx , dt the brackets are = 0

This results in the following equalities

D D
Di Di
D D
t t
C C
=
x x '
| | | |
c c
| |
c c
\ . \ .
(93)

D D D
Di Di Di
D D D
x x ' t
C C C
= -
t t x '
| | | | | |
c c c
| | |
c c c
\ . \ . \ .
(94)

Substitute Equation (93) and Equation (94) into the Diffusion-Convection equation

D D D
Di Di Di
D D e D
x t t
C C C
t x Np x
| | | | | |
c c c
+ =
| | |
c c c
\ . \ . \ .
2
2
1
0 (95)

D D D D
Di Di Di Di
D D D e D
x ' t t t
C C C C
t x ' x ' Np x '
| | | | | | | |
c c c c
+ =
| | | |
c c c c
\ . \ . \ . \ .
2
2
1
0 (96)

D D
Di Di
D e D
x ' t
C C
t Np x '
| | | |
c c
=
| |
c c
\ . \ .
2
2
1
0 (97)

PETE 609 - Module 4

Equation (97) looks like the heat conduction equation whose solution may be obtained
by the method of combination of variables. To do this define another dimensionless
variable

D
D
e
t
=x '
Np
q 2 (98)

Redefine Equation (97) in terms of q (exercise) and redefine B.C. and initial condition.
The goal was to transform the PDE into an ODE (ordinary differential equation). This
transformation is sometimes called the Boltzmanns transformation.
You should end up with the following equation

Di Di
dC d C
+ =0
d d
2
2
2q
q q
(99)

Di
Di
C ( ) =
C ( ) =1
q
q
0
(collapsed B.C.)

Equation (99) is integrated twice to give

u
Di
1 2
C 1- e du
2
error function
2
0
q

| |
|
| =
t
|
|
\ .
}
(100)

PETE 609 - Module 4

Once we substitute the definitions of q and '
D
x we have the final form of the
approximate analytical solution [Equation (101)].

D D
Di
D
e
1 x t
C = erf
2
t
Np
1
2
(
| |
( |
( |
( |
( |
|
(
\ .

(101)

Or using the properties of the error function.

D D
Di
D
e
1 x t
C = erfc
2
t
Np
2
| |
|
|
|
|
|
\ .
(102)

where erfc( ) is the complementary error function.
The exact analytical solution as derived by Laplace transforms is,

D e
x Np
D D D D
Di
D D
e e
1 x t e x t
C = erfc + erfc
2
t t
Np Np
(
| | | |
( | |

( | |
( | |
( | |
| |
(
\ . \ .

2
2 2
(103)
PETE 609 - Module 4

It can be seen that the second term will approach zero exponentially for large x
D
and
Np
e

The following plot shows the error and the erfc(x) function. Excel has these functions
built in. You need to install them using the adds-in tool. Notice the asymptotic behavior
of these functions.
Erf (x) and Erfc(x)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
x
E
r
f
(
x
)
,

E
r
f
c
(
x
)
Erfc(x) Erf(x)

Properties of the error function

x
t
0
2
erf ( x) e dt
2
=
t
}
(104)
and
t
x
2
erfc( x) erf ( x) e dt
2
1

=
t
}
(105)

PETE 609 - Module 4

The functions have the following limiting values and symmetries:
erf ( ) 0 erf ( ) 1 erf ( x) - erf ( x) 0 = = = (106)
erfc( ) 1 erf ( ) 0 erfc( x) 2- erfc( x) 0 = = = (107)
A useful web link
http://ece-www.colorado.edu/~bart/book/gaussian.htm#error
(capture it before it breaks or it changes!)

Figure 40 shows the variation of C
Di
versus x
D
and t
D.

Figure 40 - Dimensionless concentration profiles at different t
D
for a fixed Peclet
Number. (Lake 1989)
PETE 609 - Module 4


The dimensionless mixing zone is defined as the distance between the distances where
C
Di
= 0.1 and C
Di
= 0.9.

Mixing zone =
D
x A

Di Di
D D D
C . C .
x x x
0 1 0 9 = =
A =
for a given t
D
(108)

D
D
e
t
x .
Np
A = 3 625 (109)

Suggested exercise:
Find
9 0 1 0
and
. . = =
Di Di
C D C D
x x for different times.

Equation (109) indicates that the dispersive mixing zones grow in proportion to the
square root of time. Immiscible mixing zones grow in proportion to time.
Figure 41 shows dimensionless concentration profiles at different N
pe
at a fixed
dimensionless time (Lake 1989).

PETE 609 - Module 4

0.2 0.4 0.
6
0.8 1.0
0
Dimensionless distance (x
D
)
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
C
D
i
)
N
pe
= 10
N
pe
= 100
N
pe
= 1000
N
pe
=
t
D
= 0.5
0.2 0.4 0.
6
0.8 1.0
0
Dimensionless distance (x
D
)
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.0
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s

c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
C
D
i
)
N
pe
= 10
N
pe
= 100
N
pe
= 1000
N
pe
=
t
D
= 0.5

Figure 41 - Dimensionless concentration profiles at different Np
e
at a fixed
dimensionless time (Lake 1989).

Evaluation of Displacement Efficiency
The displacement efficiency for the displacing component is given by

PETE 609 - Module 4

D Di Di D D
D e D
D
e
D
e
E C C ( x , t ) dx
t Np t
t
ierfc ierfc
Np
t
Np
1
0
1
2
2
= = =

| |
|
| |

|
|
`
|
|
\ .
|
|

\ .
)
}
(110)

where

( )
x
ierfc( x) erfc d
=
}
(111)

Where iercfc is an extensively tabulated quantity that can you can evaluate numerically
using the code provided to evaluate the complementary error function.
For a given time the displacement efficiency will decrease as dispersion increases
(lower N
pe
). Figure 42 illustrates these results for a one-dimensional miscible
displacement.
PETE 609 - Module 4

Figure 42 - Displacement efficiency for one-dimensional miscible displacements.

Dispersivity Models
Recall that
e
uL
Np =
K |

e
Np requires K
Most values for the dispersivity are experimental findings or from empirical correlations.
For one-dimensional flow, the longitudinal dispersion coefficient is given by

N
pe
= 10
N
pe
= 100
N
pe
> 1000
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
E
D
)
Dimensionless time (t
D
)
N
pe
= 10
N
pe
= 100
N
pe
> 1000
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

(
E
D
)
Dimensionless time (t
D
)
PETE 609 - Module 4

p
o o
D
K
C C
D D
1 2
|
| | v
= +
|
\ .
(112)

where
,
C , C
1 2
| = properties of permeable medium and flow regime
o
D = effective binary molecular diffusion coefficient between
miscible displaced and displacing fluid
p
D = average particle diameter

For slow flow regime ( < cm/day) 3 v ,

o
K
C
D F
1
1
= =
|
(113)

where F is the electrical formation resistivity factor.

For faster displacement the second term of Equation (112) cannot be neglected

If ( > cm/day) 3 v

p
o
o e
o
v D
D
K C D v
F D
2
|
| |
~ + ~ o
|
|
\ .
(114)

PETE 609 - Module 4

Experimentally =1-1.25 | (Pirson 1983)

Flow is in the local mixing flow regime where the dispersion coefficient is proportional to
local interstitial velocity ( ) v .
e
o is a measure of heterogeneity of the permeable medium. "Longitudinal dispersivity
of permeable medium". It is used for scaling-up, that is

e e
field lab
L L
o o
| | | |
=
| |
\ . \ .
(115)

Figure 43 shows the three different flow regimes according to several references and
Perkins and Johnston (1963).

Figure 43 - Longitudinal dispersion coefficients in permeable media flow (from Perkins
and Johnston, 1963).
PETE 609 - Module 4

Figure 44 shows some field-measured dispersivities (

o ) for various types of
formations plotted against the scale it was measured over. Despite the clear scatter
there is a clear trend of increasing
o with measurement distance.

Figure 44 - Field and laboratory measured dispersivities (from Arya et al., 1988).
PETE 609 - Module 4


Dispersion and Slug Process

The objective is to describe how a miscible solvent behaves during oil displacement.

The dilution path (concentration of species "i") in a FCM displacement is given by

iJ iI D D
i iI
D
e
(C C ) x t
C C erf
t
Np
1
2
2

| |
|

|
= +
`
|

|
|

\ .
)
(116)

Recall that this equation is valid in absence of:
viscous fingering
layering
gravity tonguing

Additionally, it requires constant viscosity and density, and it is 1-D.

Equation (116) is valid for all species.
In a pseudoternary diagram we will label
1 = Heavy
2 = Intermediate
3 = Light
PETE 609 - Module 4


Therefore

I I I
J I J I J I
C C C C C C
C C C C C C
1 1 2 2 3 3
1 1 2 2 3 3
| | | | | |

= =
| | |

\ . \ . \ .
(117)

i.e., dilution paths are straight lines in a pseudoternary plot.

Superposition Principle
Solvents are too expensive to inject continuously. Thus a typical displacement consists
of a finite amount or slug of solvent followed by a chase fluid. We will analyze a single
solvent slug displaced by a less expensive chase fluid.

Let I = Initial concentration
J = Injection concentration
K = Chase concentration

The principle of superposition applies to linear PDE. Superposition states that the sum
of individual solutions to a linear differential equation is also a solution to the equation.
However, we must be careful in selecting the boundary conditions of the individual
solutions to give the correct composite solution.
Figure 45b shows the influent or imposed boundary conditions of the single front
problem ( Figure 45c) and that of the composite solution ( Figure 45a).
The composed solution gives the solution for the imposed conditions in Figure 45a.
Which is just the sum of the solutions to the conditions in part b and c of Figure 45,
respectively.
PETE 609 - Module 4

C
iI
C
iJ
C
iK
t
D
Inlet
Concentration
(a) Slug Condition
C
iI
C
iJ
t
D
Inlet
Concentration
(b) Continuous Condition
(C
iK
- C
iJ
)
t
D
Inlet
Concentration
(c) Delayed Continuous Condition

Figure 45 - Schematic of influent boundary conditions for slugs.

That is the solution to the conditions in Figure 45b plus solution to the conditions in
Figure 45c gives the solution to the conditions in Figure 45a.

PETE 609 - Module 4

Solution to Continuous Condition (Case 6b)
iJ iI D D
i iI
D
e
(C C ) x t
C C erf
t
Np
1
2
2

| |
|

|
= +
`
|

|
|

\ .
)
(118)

Solution to Delayed Continuous Condition (Case 6c)
( )
D D DS
iK iJ
i
D DS
e
x t t
C C
C erfc
t t
Np
2
2
| |
|

|
=
|
|
|
\ .
(119)

Combined Solution (Case 6a)
( )
iI iK iI iJ D D iJ iK
i
D
e
D D DS
D DS
e
C C C C x t C C
C erf
t
Np
x t t
erf
t t
Np
2 2 2
2
2
| |
|
+
| | | |
|
= + +
| |
|
\ . \ .
|
|
\ .
| |
|

|
|
|
|
\ .
(120)
for
D DS
t t > (121)
PETE 609 - Module 4


Frequently we are interested in the mid point concentration
i
C

Between
D D
DS
D D
D D DS
x t
t
x t
x t t 2
=

=
`
=
)

Replace
D
x in Equation (120) by
DS
D D
t
x t
2
=

iI iK DS DS
i iJ
D D
e e
C C t t
C erf C erf
t t
Np Np
1
2
4 4
( (
| | | |
( ( | |
+
( ( | |
= +
( ( | |
( ( | |
| |
( (
\ . \ .

(122)

The midpoint concentration is usually called the peak concentration.
Figure 46 shows experimental concentration profiles from a miscible slug displacement
at different throughputs. This figure shows the experimental concentrations profiles
normalized to the midpoint dimensionless position.
The areas under the curves are all the same (material balance preserved), but the peak
concentration falls as the number of passes (travel distance) increases. Figure 47
shows the unnormalized profiles. This figure shows that the decay in the peak
concentration is approximately proportional to the square root of time in experimental
floods.
The midpoint concentrations at successive times (a, b, and c) is indicated in Figure 48.

PETE 609 - Module 4


Figure 46 - Slug concentration profiles normalized to slug midpoint.

Figure 47 - Miscible slug concentration profiles for matched viscosity and density
displacements (from Koch and Slobod, 1956).
PETE 609 - Module 4


Figure 48 - Dilution of solvent slug by mixing (from Stalkup, 1983).

Additional Reading
Lake (1989). Chapter 7. "Solvent Methods".
Koch and Slobod, "Miscible Slug Process", Transaction AIME 210 (1956), p 40-47.
Pinson, "Geologic Well Log Analysis - Gulf" (1983).
Stalkup, "Miscible Flooding Fundamentals", Monograph (1983).

C
ik
Heavy
hydrocarbons
Intermediate
hydrocarbons
Light component
Reservoir oil
composition
a
c
b
a
Solvent
Plait point
C
i
at b
C
i
at c
C
iI
C
iI
+ C
iK
2
Tie lines
PETE 609 - Module 4

Suggested Reading

Stalkup Jr., F.I., "Miscible Displacement", SPE Monograph Volume 8 - Henry L. Doherty
Series, 1983.

Benham, A.L., Dowden, W.E., and Kunzman, W.J., "Miscible Fluid Displacement-
Prediction of Miscibility," Transactions AIME, vol. 219, 229-37.

Gardner, J.W., Orr, F.M., and Patel, P.D., "The Effect of Phase Behavior on CO2- Flood
Displacement Efficiency," Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 33 (November 1981),
2067-81.

Gardner, J.W., and Yoma, J.G.J., "An Investigation of Phase Behavior-Macroscopic
Bypassing Interaction in CO2 Flooding," SPE/DOE 10686, presented at Third Joint
Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 14-7, 1982.

Holm, L.M. and Josendal, V.A., "Mechanisms of Oil Displacement by Carbon Dioxide,"
Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 26(12) (December 19714), 11427-38.

Holm, L.M. and Josendal, V.A., "Effect of Oil Composition on Miscible-Type
Displacement by Carbon Dioxide," Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, vol. 22
(1982), 87-98.

Hutchinson, C.A., Jr., and Braun, P.H., "Phase Relations of Miscible Displacement in Oil
Recovery," A.l.Ch.E. Journal, (March 1961) 614-72.

Johnson, James P., and Poll in, James S., "Measurement and Correlation of CO2
Miscibility Pressures, SPE 9790, presented at the 1981 SPE/DOE EOR Symposium,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 5-8.
PETE 609 - Module 4


Koval, E.J., "A Method for Predicting the Performance of Unstable Miscible
Displacement in Heterogeneous Media," Society of Engineers Journal, vol. 3 (June
1963), 1145-514.

Orr, F.M., Jr., and Silva, M.K., and Pelletier, M.T., "Laboratory Experiments to Evaluate
Field Prospects for CO2 Flooding," Journal of Petroleum Technology, vol. 34(14),
(1982).

Sebastian, H.M., Wenger, R.S. and Renner, T.A., "Correlation of Minimum Miscibility
Pressure for Impure CO2

Streams," SPE/DOE 126148 presented at the SPE/DOE
Fourth Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 15-18,
19814.

Tiffin, D., and Yell ig, W.F., "Effects of Mobile Water of Multiple Contact Miscible Gas
Displacements," SPE/DOE 10687 presented at Third Joint SPEIDOE Symposium on
EOR, Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 14-7, 1982.

Todd, M.R., and Longstaff, W.J., "The Development, Testing, and Application of a
Numerical Simulator for Predicting Miscible Flood Performance," Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 214(7) (July 1972), 8714-82.

Vulkalovich, M.P., and Altinum, V.V., Thermodynamic Properties of Carbon Dioxide,
Collet's Publishers, London, 1969.

Module 4 - Solvent Flooding

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module 4 - Solvent Flooding

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PETE 609 - Module 4

Solvent Flooding Copyright 1998-2001: Maria Barrufet

o with measurement distance.

You might also like