The 14thIranian National Chemical Engineering Congress (IChEC 2012) 04240

Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, 16-18 October, 2012

Minimum Miscibility Pressure Calculation: A comparison

Between Multi-Contact Test and Compositional Simulation
S.M. Seyyedsar*, M. Assareh, C. Ghotbi
Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Departement, Sharif University of Technology
*Corresponding Authors E-mail: seyyedsar@che.sharif.edu

Abstract
Multi-contact miscible displacement occurs in systems when either the initial tie line or the
injection tie line is a critical tie line. the oil recovery decreases sharply, with the system pressure,
below the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP). Therefore the estimation of MMP is an
important issue in reservoir fluid phase behaviour modelling for the reservoirs with miscible gas
injection. There are several approaches for MMP estimation.
In this study, multiple contact test (thermodynamic modelling) and compositional simulation (fluid
flow modelling) are compared to experimental data for their capability to estimate MMP. Phase
behaviour and MMP calculation are performed on several oil samples from published data and the
advantages and disadvantages of each method are discussed. For most of the cases, predictions of
the multiple contact test results are in better agreement with the experimental PVT data. In
addition there is no need for pseudo-component generation and detailed system information can be
preserved for both reservoir fluid and injected gas.
Keywords: Multiple Contact displacement, Compositional Simulation, Minimum Miscibility
Pressure

Research Highlights

Comparison of MCM Test and Compositional Simulation capability on MMP estimation

Investigation of effective parameters on Multi-Contact Test capability on MMP estimation
Investigation of effective parameters on Compositional Simulation capability on MMP
estimation

04240-1

Minimum Miscibility Pressure Calculation: A comparison 04240

1. Introduction
Gas injection processes are among the most effective methods of enhanced oil recovery. A
key parameter in the design of a gas injection project is the minimum miscibility pressure
(MMP), the pressure at which the local displacement efficiency approaches 100%. Local
displacement efficiency from gas injection is highly dependent on the minimum miscibility
pressure or minimum miscibility enrichment (MME) [1].
Four primary methods have been used in recent years to calculate MMPs and MMEs for real
systems: slim tube experiments, compositional simulation, mixing-cell models, and analytical
models. Each of these methods, however, has advantages and disadvantages. From an
experimental point of view the MMP is routinely determined by slim-tube displacement.
Slim-tube experiments are traditionally used to estimate MMPs because they capture the
interaction of flow in porous media with the phase behavior of crude oil [2,3].
Fine-grid compositional simulations and mixing-cell models can suffer from numerical
dispersion effects and are also time-consuming to perform. Dispersion free analytical methods
are often very fast, but like simulation and mixing-cell models, they rely on an accurate fluid
characterization by an equation of state (EoS). Because of their improved speed, however,
analytical methods offer significant promise for developing improved fluid correlations and
for use in compositional streamline simulations [4].
In this study, multiple contact test (thermodynamic modeling) and compositional simulation
(fluid flow modeling) are compared to experimental data for their capability to estimate
MMP.
2. Compositional Simulation
Compositional reservoir simulators are built on the basis of mass or molar balances of each
component. Such a balance is assumed at any moment during the fluid flow. Because of
different phases flow at different velocities in the direction that leads to a decrease in the flow
potential of each phase, the equilibrium between phases changes with time. The basis of slimtube test is that a small-diameter tube filled with an unconsolidated porous medium serves an
idealized multiple contactor for displaced and displacing gas. The displacing and displaced
fluids are assumed be in local thermodynamic equilibrium at all points. The length/diameter
ratio of slim tube is set so that non-idealities such as, fingering caused by porous medium
heterogeneities, unfavorable viscosity ratio, or gravity effects, are negligible. Thus the
efficiency of the displacement is taken to be the result of thermodynamic phase behavior of
the system and not a function of particular reservoir rock properties [5].
3. Multi-Contact Test
Pseudo ternary diagrams have traditionally been used to explain the behavior of multi contact
miscible (MCM) gas drive processes [6]. At the ternary diagram, drawn at the reservoir
temperature, miscibility between oil and gas only occurs when filed line between oil and gas
is tangent to dew curve. This is the only case in which at equal or more than miscibility
pressure the tangent line passes through critical point. Miscibility pressure for each
composition of oil and gas is independent of formation and displacement characteristics. For
ternary systems, the MMP is the pressure at which the oil lies on a critical tie-line extension.
In vaporizing-gas displacement, the injected gas is generally a relatively lean gas such as
methane or other low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons. In this approach, the composition of
injected gas is modified as it moves through the oil. Therefore it becomes miscible with the

04240-2

The 14thIranian National Chemical Engineering Congress (IChEC 2012) 04240

Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, 16-18 October, 2012

original reservoir oil. The injected gas is enriched in composition through multiple contact
with the oil, during which intermediate components in the oil are vaporized into the injected
gas. In the condensing, or enriched-gas drive, the injected gas generally contains larger
amount of intermediate-molecular-weight hydrocarbons and, thus, is more expensive. In this
approach, oil near the injection is enriched in composition by contact with the injected gas
first put into the oil reservoir [7].
4. Results and Discussion
Table 1 shows the molar composition of oil samples [8]. Because the compositional
simulation of petroleum mixture is time consumming and impractical, the oil mixture and
injected gas are treated with lumped components. The binary interaction coefficients of
hydrocarbon-hydrocarbon systems are defined by,

(1)
where, and , are the critical volume of components, i and j, respectively in the mixture,
and n is a constant which examining the paraffin-paraffin
of Oellrich et al (1981) shows
that they could roughly be correlated using this equation with
[9].
Table 1. Molar Composition of Oil Samples
Components
Hydrogen sulfide
Nitrogen
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
Cut C6
Cut C7
Cut C8
Cut C9
Cut C10
Cut C11
Cut C12
Cut C13
Cut C14
Cut C15
Cut C16
Cut C17
Cut C18
Cut C19
Cut C20+

F3
0.000
0.450
1.640
45.850
7.150
6.740
0.840
3.110
1.030
1.650
2.520
3.770
4.280
2.700
1.690
1.810
1.470
1.450
1.280
1.150
0.910
0.820
0.800
0.710
6.180

F4
0.000
0.350
3.140
54.260
8.570
5.720
0.760
2.450
0.750
1.200
1.530
2.600
3.020
2.100
1.740
1.360
1.100
1.110
0.950
0.860
0.680
0.600
0.560
0.510
4.080

04240-3

F5
0.383
0.450
2.070
26.576
7.894
6.730
1.485
3.899
1.937
2.505
3.351
4.311
4.133
3.051
2.033
2.635
2.285
2.364
2.038
1.752
1.589
1.492
1.263
0.812
12.962

F6
0.000
0.000
0.774
36.203
9.736
6.745
1.287
3.672
1.557
2.337
3.290
3.508
3.606
3.334
2.657
2.481
2.067
1.917
1.469
1.215
1.158
0.985
0.952
0.903
8.147

F12
1.490
0.320
2.800
45.290
9.110
5.500
1.060
3.070
1.240
1.820
2.380
2.840
2.830
2.490
2.150
1.740
1.420
1.310
1.150
1.000
0.880
0.760
0.690
0.620
6.040

Minimum Miscibility Pressure Calculation: A comparison 04240

To perform the multiple contact miscibility test, at first, one should draw P-T diagram for oil
sample in order to have saturation pressure of each sample in reservoir temperature. The
saturation pressure helps to recognize the two-phase region in the beginning of MCM test. It
also cause not to get into trouble in calculating real MMP and leads one to calculate a reliable
MMP for reservoir.
MCM calculations are dependent to defined pressure steps, and for these calculatons, different
MMPs maybe reached. For this reason to get the correct MMP that is less than pressure at
which miscibility occurs, the pressure steps have been defined very small (1 kPa) and about
50 steps have been chosen.
In compositional simulation, 60 grids are defined which all have same properties, and there is
no interaction between fluid and media which fluid flows in. Note that the effects of rock on
fluid and adsorption of fluid on porous media have been neglected. The displacement is
terminated after injecting 1.2 pore volume of gas, and the recovery at that point refers to
ultimate recovery.
Six injected gases samples (table 2) from PVT data bank of Jaubert are selected. These
samples are F3 &G3, F4&G4, F5&G5a, F5&G5d, F6&G6b and F12&G12
which all are oil samples [8].
Table 2. Molar Composition of Injected Gas Samples
Components
Hydrogen sulfide
Nitrogen
Carbon dioxide
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Isobutane
n-Butane
Isopentane
n-Pentane
n-Hexane
n-Heptane
n-Octane
n-Nonane

G3
0.000
0.490
1.820
81.390
9.150
4.670
0.500
1.240
0.200
0.260
0.090
0.060
0.130
0.000

G4
0.000
0.410
1.650
81.710
9.160
4.540
0.480
1.210
0.190
0.260
0.130
0.120
0.130
0.010

G5a
0.000
0.000
0.000
88.000
7.000
3.000
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

G5d
1.070
1.010
4.240
56.470
15.150
10.760
1.920
4.230
1.440
1.530
1.140
0.750
0.290
0.000

G6b
0.000
0.450
2.190
76.650
12.020
5.260
0.740
1.490
0.330
0.410
0.260
0.120
0.080
0.000

G12
3.810
0.200
7.570
64.900
15.030
5.760
0.630
1.290
0.250
0.280
0.150
0.100
0.030
0.000

The results of MCM test and compositional simulation are shown in table 3. For rich gases,
even in the region of immiscible displacement, high quantity of oil recovery is reached. In
MCM test, when Soave-Redlich-Kwong EoS (SRK) is used, the MMPs are more than the
time that Peng-Robinson EoS (PR) is applied [10]. The MMPs which are calculated through
PR EoS are more reliable in comparison with experimental MMPs.
Relative error is defined as the absolute error divided by the true value to compare deviations
of predicted MMPs from experimental data. Relative error is determined by using the
following formula:
(2)

04240-4

The 14thIranian National Chemical Engineering Congress (IChEC 2012) 04240

Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, 16-18 October, 2012

where,
,
, and
. Relative
error is often expressed as percentage. In this case, is the experimental slim tube test result
for each sample, and
is the result of MCM or compositional simulation tests for each
sample.
Table 3. MCM Test and Compositional Simulation Results

Samples

T (K)

F3&G3
F4&G4
F5&G5a
F5&G5d
F6&G6b
F12&G12

387.45
388.15
394.25
394.25
383.15
376.45

Slim Tube
Test
Experimen
t
(bar)

MCM
Test
PR
EoS
(bar)

MCM
Test
SRK
EoS
(bar)

Comp.
Simulation
PR EoS
(bar)

Comp.
Simulation
SRK EoS
(bar)

376
379
366
256
309
327

320.1
371.0
379.3
341.2
332.0
319.0

395.5
387.2
400.5
357.4
335.6
402.0

307.6
348.2
394.1
229.9
338.4
357.1

292.1
301.0
338.3
220.4
326.5
285.6

Comp.
Simulation
Dispersion
Free
PR EoS
(bar)
374.6
419.2
334.5
272.7
317.7
403.6

Comp.
Simulation
Dispersion
Free
SRK EoS
(bar)
384.5
393.9
365.5
317.2
356.9
400.8

In compositional simulation errors of calculations for SRK EoS is less than PR EoS, because
the SRK EoS in spite of PR EoS has less fixed parameters for thermodynamic properties
calculations.
Generally in compositional simulation with consideration of dispersion error, errors of results
are decreased and calculated results have a sufficient compatibility with experimental results.

Figure 1. Percentage Error of MMP Estimation by MCM Test and Compositional Simulation

As it can be seen in most of the cases, the errors of calculated MMPs in MCM test are less,
compared to compositional simulation. If selected initial pressure in MCM test was suitable
and fluid was in single phase and also steps were selected well enough, MCM test had high

04240-5

Minimum Miscibility Pressure Calculation: A comparison 04240

speed and gave more exact and reliable results, But in compositional simulation, in addition to
errors caused by assumptions and constraints, error of selecting most appropriate data existed
as well. So the calculated MMP based on this data differed from experimental data.
If the injected fluid was a rich gas, the MCM test was not be able to calculate proper and
exact MMP and calculated MMP in this situation was be more than experimental one. The
reason is if injected fluid is rich, it cause a considerable reduction in quantity of MMP,
compared to state which injected fluid is lean. In this situation results from Compositional
Simulation be more reliable. In addition, MCM test also can predict First Contact Miscibility
(FCM) pressure. Required time for MMP calculation in MCM is less than compositional
simulation.
5. Conclusions
In order to compute MMP, the calculations should get started at the pressures that are more
than oil saturation pressure.
For most of the cases, MCM test calculates MMP and miscibility drive with less error and
faster in comparison with experimental data and also it requires less time for calculation and
gives more reliable results, compared to compositional simulation. In the case of rich gas
injection, MCM test cannot calculate reliable MMP and compositional simulation gives more
reliable outputs. Results of MCM test are better and more reliable if PR EoS is used as
equation of state instead of SRK EoS.
With consideration of dispersion error in compositional simulation, results of this test are
better and quantity of errors are decreased. In the compositional simulation test which has
been carried out on six samples, when SRK EoS is used and the dispersion error is taken into
consideration, the results are more reliable compared to others.
References
[1] Green, Don W., Willhite, G. Paul, Enhanced Oil Recovery, Society of Petroleum Engineers, 1998.
[2] Yellig, W.F., Metcalfe, R.S., Determination and Prediction of CO2 Minimum Miscibility
Pressures, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1980.
[3] Johns, R.T., Orr, F.M., Miscible Gas Displacement of Multicomponent Oils, Society of
Petroleum Engineers Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1996.
[4] Rossen, William R., Russell, T Johns, Gray, A. Pope., Development of More Efficient Gas
Flooding Applicable To Shallow Reservoirs, The University of Texas at Austin Center for Petroleum
and Geosystems Engineering, 2003.
[5] Shtepani, E., Thomas, F.B., Bennion, D.B. New Approach in Gas Injection Miscible Process
Modeling in Compositional Simulation, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 2003.
[6] Dumore, J.M., Hagoort, J., Risseeuw, A.S., An Analytical Model for One-Dimensional, ThreeComponent Condensing and Vaporizing Gas Drive, Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, Vol. 24,
No. 2, 1984.
[7] Zick, A.A., A Combined Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism in the Displacement of Oil by
Enriched Gas, SPE 61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 1986.
[8] Jaubert, Jean-Noel, Laurent, Avaullee, Souvay, Jean-Francois, A Crude Oil Data Bank
Containing More Than 5000 PVT and Gas Injection Data, Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2002.
[9] Computer Modeling Group Ltd., Winprop, Uders Guide, 2002.
[10] Robinson, D.B., Peng, D.Y., The Characterization of Heptanes and Heavier Fraction for The
GPA Peng-Robinson Program, Industrial Engineering Chemical Fundamentals, 1978.

04240-6