Investigation of Anisotropic Mixing
in Miscible Displacements
Olaoluwa O. Adepoju, and Larry W. Lake, SPE, The University of Texas at Austin, and
Russell T. Johns, SPE, The Pennsylvania State University
Summary
Dispersion (or local mixing) degrades miscibility in miscible-
flood displacements by interfering with the transfer of intermedi-
ate components that develop miscibility. Dispersion, however,
also can improve oil recovery by increasing sweep efficiency.
Either way, dispersion is an important factor in understanding
miscible-flood performance.
This paper investigates longitudinal and transverse local mix-
ing in a finite-difference compositional simulator at different
scales (both fine and coarse scale) using a 2D convection-disper-
sion model. All simulations were of constant-mobility and -den-
sity, first-contact miscible flow. The model allows for variations
of velocity in both directions. We analyzed local (gridblock) con-
centration profiles for various miscible-displacement models with
different scales of heterogeneity and permeability autocorrelation
lengths. To infer dispersivity, we fitted an analytical 2D con-
vection-dispersion model to the local concentration profile to
determine local longitudinal and transverse dispersivities simulta-
neously. Streamlines of simulation models were traced using the
algorithm proposed by Pollock (1988). To our knowledge, this is
the first systematic attempt to numerically study local transverse
dispersivity.
The results show that transverse mixing, which is usually
neglected in the 1D convection-dispersion model of dispersion, is
significant when the flow direction changes locally as a result of
heterogeneity. The computed streamlines, which highlight the
variation in flow directions, agree with the computed transverse-
dispersivity trends. We find that both transverse and longitudinal
dispersion can grow with travel distance and that there are several
instances in which transverse dispersion is the larger of the two.
Often, the variations in the streamlines are suppressed (homog-
enized) during upscaling. This paper gives a quantitative and sys-
tematic procedure to estimate the degree of transverse mixing
(dispersivity) in any model. We conclude that local mixing,
including transverse mixing, should be considered when upscaling
a fine-scale model for miscible displacement to ensure proper
preservation of fine-scale sweep and displacement efficiency and
ultimate oil recovery for miscible-displacement simulations.
Introduction
Miscible displacement (e.g., high-pressure CO2 flooding) recovers
oil by achieving miscibility between the injected fluid and resi-
dent oil. The resulting miscibility increases the displacement effi-
ciency and, ultimately, the oil recovery.
Dispersion has been defined as the mixing that result during
miscible displacements as a result of diffusion, velocity gradients
along pore paths, heterogeneity, and mechanical mixing within
pores (Bear 1972; Lake 1989). Hydrodynamic dispersion com-
prises molecular diffusion and mechanical dispersion (Pickens
and Grisak 1981). Molecular diffusion is the spreading of the sol-
ute particle caused by concentration gradients, while mechanical
dispersion is mixing resulting from velocity variation along and
across streamlines within the pore space. Dispersivity is used con-
Copyright V
C 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 159557) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 8–10 October 2012, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 5 June 2012. Revised manuscript
received for review 31 October 2012. Paper peer approved 20 December 2012.
February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
ventionally as a quantitative measure of dispersion. In one dimen-
sion, dispersivity is the proportionality constant between the
dispersion coefficient and the average longitudinal velocity. Bear
(1972) stated that dispersivity is a constant characteristic value of
the permeable medium. However, it has been shown that disper-
sivity is not constant, but scale-dependent (Pickens and Grisak
1981; Arya et al. 1988; Mahadevan et al. 2003; John et al. 2010;
Jha et al. 2009; Garmeh et al. 2009).
Dispersion (or local mixing) degrades miscibility in miscible-
flood displacements [for both first-contact-miscible (FCM) and
multicontact-miscible displacements] by lowering the concentra-
tion of the injected solute at the displacement fronts (Johns et al.
2000). Local mixing is the dispersion estimated at a point as the
tracer or solute flows along the medium. It is a better indicator of
mixing compared with dispersion estimated from transmission or
interwell tracer test (Mahadevan et al. 2003; Garmeh et al. 2009).
Dispersion from an interwell tracer test can be smeared by spread-
ing because of channeling and the effect of solute particles travel-
ing along different streamlines of different velocities (John et al.
2010). Streamlines are lines that are tangent everywhere to a ve-
locity field. For incompressible flow, they indicate the path fluid
particles travel as they move through porous media. In miscible
displacements, solute particles mix along streamlines and across
adjacent streamlines because of varying concentration gradients.
The study of dispersion is compounded by the presence of nu-
merical dispersion in reservoir simulators. Numerical dispersion
or truncation error increases the apparent level of mixing in the
reservoir model (Solano et al. 2001; Parakh and Johns 2004). Nu-
merical dispersion, just like local dispersion, has the effect of
degrading miscibility by driving the composition route farther
into the two-phase region (Haajizadeh et al. 2000). Numerical dis-
persion increases with increasing gridblock size. It is often
thought to be significantly larger than physical dispersion (Haaji-
zadeh et al. 1999; Lantz 1971; Fanchi 1983). However, dispersion
in a highly complex flow field is poorly known; therefore, exactly
how much larger the numerical dispersion is remains unknown.
Therefore, there is a need to quantify the effect of total dispersion
in reservoir simulation.
Fine-scale geological models contain detailed description of res-
ervoir properties (e.g., porosity, permeability, and fluid saturations).
However, they are often too computationally demanding for routine
numerical simulation. Fine-scale models must be coarsened to
manageable sizes while maintaining the gross behavior of the fine-
scale model. Upscaling is the process of using an equivalent coarse
homogeneous gridblock to replace a number of heterogeneous fine
gridblocks. Significant research has been conducted on various
methods of upscaling (Qi and Hesketh 2005; Durlofsky et al. 1996;
Begg et al. 1989). However, local mixing is rarely considered in
these procedures.
Conventional upscaling procedures homogenize the medium
by combining groups of fine-scale cells into a single cell, thereby
reducing velocity variations in the upscaled model. This reduction
in velocity variations results in less mixing compared with the
original fine-scale model (Garmeh et al. 2009). Conversely, the
increased size of the upscaled gridblock introduces greater numer-
ical dispersion compared with the smaller gridblock sizes in the
fine-scale model. Therefore, the net dispersion in the two scales
(fine and coarse scales) may not be equivalent.
This paper investigates longitudinal and transverse local mix-
ing in a finite-difference compositional simulator at different
85
 Numerical Dispersion
Global Mole Fraction(SOL) 2000-01-01 J layer: 1
because of a localized source, crossflow, or change in the flow
10 20 30 40
File: case_041511_00 direction caused by heterogeneity, transverse dispersion may
User: ooa264
Date: 4/20/2011
Scale: 1:57.182333
become significant.
Z/X: 1.00:1
Axis Units: ft
The 2D CDE, with the assumption of constant velocity and
dispersion coefficient in both the longitudinal and the transverse
1.00 direction, is given as
–30

–30
0.90

0.80 @c @c @c @2c @2c

þ vx þ vy ¼ DL 2 þ DT 2 ; . . . . . . . . . . . . ð3Þ
0.70 @t @x @y @x @y
0.60

0.50 where DL and DT are the longitudinal and transverse dispersion

coefficients, respectively. The diagonal-dispersion coefficient is
–20

–20
0.40

0.30 assumed to be negligible because velocity is considered dominant

0.20 in the longitudinal direction. Cleary and Ungs (1978) gave the so-
0.00 3.50 7.00 feet
0.10 lution for the 2D CDE for a strip source (line source) in an infinite
0.00 1.00 2.00 meters
0.00
medium. This solution was extended to a finite-volume source by
10 20 30 40
integrating the solution in the x-direction (Appendix A) to obtain
    
Fig. 1—Model at initial time with a cell having 100% concentra- cj x2  x þ vx t x1  x þ vx t
cðx; y; tÞ ¼ erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi :
tion of the solute in a single cell. 4 4DL t 4DL t
  rffiffiffiffiffiffi  rffiffiffiffiffiffi
y2  y vy t y1  y vy t
scales (both fine and coarse scale) using a 2D convection-disper-  erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ  erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
2 DT t 2 DT 2 D T t 2 DT
sion model. All simulations are of incompressible, constant-
mobility and -density flows within a single phase. The model allows                    ð4Þ
for variations of velocity in both directions. We fitted an analytical
The longitudinal- and transverse-dispersion coefficients (includ-
model to local concentration histories to determine simultaneously
ing numerical dispersion) are expressed in terms of their respec-
local longitudinal and transverse dispersivities. Solute-concentra-
tive dispersivities (a), respectively, as
tion contours superimposed on model streamlines provide qualita-
tive insight into anisotropic mixing and overall flow behavior. Do v2 v2y 1
DL ¼ þ aL x þ aT þ vx ðDx þ vx DtÞ
s jvj jvj 2
Dispersion Models : . . . . . . . . ð5Þ
Do v2y v2 1
This section presents the analytical model used in fitting local DT ¼ þ aL þ aT x þ vy ðDy þ vy DtÞ
concentrations to estimate the longitudinal and transverse disper- s jvj jvj 2
sivity. The analytical model is validated using known input for a
homogeneous model.
Model Validation. Eq. 4 was validated by fitting it to the con-
centration profile of flow in a homogeneous model with specified
Analytical Model. Dispersion is important in aquifer contami- input dispersivity. The 2D homogenous model consists of a single
nant transport and in enhanced oil recovery. The convection- gridblock initially filled with 100% concentration of the solute of
dispersion equation (CDE) is the governing equation of solute the same density and mobility as the resident fluid. The solute and
transport in permeable media (Pickens and Grisak 1981). Assum- the resident fluid are FCM. A uniform flow field is generated in
ing single-phase incompressible flow, constant porosity, negligi- the model by constant-rate injection and production at the exit
ble adsorption, no chemical reaction, and FCM displacement, the boundaries. A schematic of the model is shown in Fig. 1.
CDE is expressed in vector form as Because the model is homogeneous, the observed spreading of
@c ~ the solute is entirely the effect of the input dispersivity and nu-
þ r  c~ ~  rcÞ ¼ 0; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð1Þ
v  r  ðD merical dispersion. The input longitudinal dispersivity is 1.0 ft,
@t
while the input transverse dispersivity is 0.5 ft. Fanchi (1983)
where c is the concentration (usually mass per unit volume) of derived equations for estimating numerical dispersion in multiple
~~ is the dispersion dimensions. The numerical-dispersion coefficient in two dimen-
solute, ~
v is the interstitial velocity vector, and D
sions using upstream weighting and implicit and backward differ-
tensor. Ogata and Banks (1961) gave the solution for the 1D CDE
ence schemes is shown in the second part of Eq. 5, where vx and
equation with the additional assumption of constant velocity (vx)
vy are the interstitial velocity in the x- and y-direction, respec-
in the longitudinal x-direction and constant longitudinal-disper-
tively, and Dt is the timestep size. The dispersion coefficient is
sion coefficient (DL) as
proportional to the velocity in the longitudinal direction. There-
   vx x   fore, the longitudinal and transverse numerical dispersivities can
cj x  vx t D
x þ vx t
cðx; tÞ ¼ erfc p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ e erfc
L p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; . . . . . ð2Þ be expressed, respectively, as
2 2 DL t 2 DL t
Dx vx Dt
where cj is the initial solute concentration. aLnum ¼ þ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6aÞ
Conventionally, dispersion is measured in the laboratory by fit- 2 2
 
ting the solution of the 1D CDE to the effluent concentration from Dy vy Dt
a coreflood. The concentration is averaged over the cross section aTnum ¼ vy þ vx : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ð6bÞ
2 2
of the core. However, in more complicated flow, dispersion is ani-
sotropic and mixing occurs in both longitudinal (the main direc- For the simulations in this work, the average timestep size is
tion of flow, here the x-direction) and transverse directions 0.1 days, vx is 0.296 ft/D, and vy is negligibly small (approxi-
(perpendicular to the x-direction, here the y-direction). Transverse mately 0 ft/D). Therefore, the numerical dispersivities are eval-
dispersion is significantly smaller than longitudinal dispersion in uated as 0.515 and 0 ft in the longitudinal and transverse
media (e.g., core plugs) where concentration can quickly equili- direction, respectively.
brate across the cross section (Jha et al. 2009). In such cases, esti- The total dispersion is the sum of the numerical dispersion and
mated longitudinal dispersion from the 1D solution of the CDE input dispersion. The total longitudinal dispersivity is 1.52 ft,
indicates Eq. 2 is accurate. However, where there is possibility of while the total transverse dispersivity is 0.5 ft. The analytical
significant concentration gradients in the transverse direction, model was fitted to the local (gridblock) concentration profile by

86 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 2.0 0 to 0.00005
0.00005 to 0.0001

Dispersivity (ft)
1.5 0.0001 to 0.001
0.001 to 0.01
1.0 0.01 to 0.1
αL
αT
0.1 to 0.3
0.5 0.3 to 0.6
0.6 to 1
0.0
0 50 100 150
Time (days)

Fig. 2—Matched longitudinal dispersivity (aL) and transverse

dispersivity (aT) from global concentration for a homogeneous
cross section with input longitudinal and transverse dispersiv-
ity of 1.0 and 0.5 ft, respectively. The inferred dispersivities Analytical Model at Time = 40 Days
agree well with the input longitudinal (numerical) and trans-
verse values.

minimizing the sum of the square of residuals between simulated

and model concentration. The global concentration contour at
selected times was also fitted to the analytical model by the same
approach. The analytical model converged closely to the expected
total longitudinal and transverse dispersivities. The results are Simulation Model at Time = 40 Days
shown in Figs. 2 through 5.

Heterogeneous Medium. A heterogeneous medium results in a

spatially varying velocity field that enhances mechanical disper-
sion. The presence of heterogeneity also increases the order of the
truncation error (Yang 1990). This variation in velocity causes
increased mixing (Jha et al. 2006). Analytical Model at Time = 120 Days
An estimate of the average solute-particle velocity is required
to estimate dispersion in heterogeneous media. The local velocity
of each gridblock from finite-difference simulation is not the
same as the average travel velocity of the particle. We used the
average particle travel time determined from the local concentra-
tion profile to determine the average solute-particle velocity. The
mean speed of the particle can be estimated using the time of ar- Simulation Model at Time = 120 Days
rival of the center of mass of the solute plume at the target cell
from the source cell. For a Gaussian concentration distribution, Fig. 3—Concentration contour of the simulation and matched
the average travel time is the time at the peak concentration. analytical model at 40 days and 120 days. The red grid shows
For the case of a continous source, in which the concentration the initial position of the solute.
distribution is S-shaped, the average travel time is the time at
the midconcentration (where dimensionless concentration is 0.5).
Fig. 6 gives a schematic to estimate the average solute-particle positive in the longitudinal direction because flow is dominant in
travel time. The average speed between the target cell at which that direction, but the direction of the velocity in the transverse
dispersion is being estimated and the source cell that contains the direction depends on the average local transverse velocity of the
solute initially is the ratio of the distance between the two cells to flow regions around the source and target cells and can be nega-
the average solute-particle travel time. The velocity is usually tive locally.

3
2 Analytical Solution
Simulation
2.5
Dimensionless Concentration

1.5
Dispersivity (ft)

2
αL
1
αT 1.5

0.5 1

0.5
0
10 20 30 40 50
0
Longitudinal Distance (ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time (Days)
Fig. 4—Average of estimated local (gridblock) longitudinal dis-
persivity (aL) and transverse dispersivity (aT) across vertical Fig. 5—Analytical sample fit of local concentration history.
cross section. The matches validate the model. Concentration profile at y 5 4.75 ft and x 5 24 ft.

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 87

 4.E–04 1.6

3.E–04 1.2
Concentration

Dispersivity (ft)
Vdp = 0.8
2.E–04 0.8 Vdp = 0.6
Vdp = 0.4
1.E–04
0.4

0.E+00
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400
0
0 20 40 60 80
Time (Days)
Longitudinal Distance (ft)
1
Fig. 7—Average longitudinal dispersivity for uncorrelated het-
erogeneous medium. Dispersivity increases with distance trav-
eled and appears to approach an asymptotic value.
Concentration

0.5 mated transverse dispersivity also increases with increasing level

0
0 40 80
Time (Days)
Fig. 6—Estimate of the average travel time from solute-concen-
tration histories. The arrow points to the average travel time.
Results and Discussion
All simulations were conducted using the CMG (2009) GEM sim-
ulator for a 2D medium undergoing an FCM displacement. Sto-
chastic permeability fields were generated by FFTSIM (Jennings
et al. 2000). The inputs into FFTSIM include desired autocorrela-
tion lengths (in x- and y-direction), Dykstra-Parson coefficient
(VDP), and mean permeability. The models consist of a single
gridblock with an initial 100% solute concentration in a uniform
flow field. The spreading of the solute is monitored and local con-
centration fitted to the 2D analytical model. The models were
maintained at steady state with constant injection and production
rates. Except where otherwise stated, the gridblock size in the x-
and y-direction is 1.0 and 0.5 ft, respectively.
Dispersion in an Uncorrelated Medium. Uncorrelated media
have randomly distributed permeability. We compared three
uncorrelated models with VDP of 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8. Increasing VDP
indicates increasing heterogeneity.
As shown in Fig. 7, the estimated longitudinal dispersivity
increases with distance and levels of heterogeneity. The estimated
longitudinal dispersivity also approaches asymptotic values. Esti-
1.6
1.2
Dispersivity (ft)
of heterogeneity, but with more fluctuations (Fig. 8). The fluctua-
tions in the transverse dispersivity are caused by changes in the
dominant flow direction in the medium.
The solute isoconcentration contour was superimposed on the
medium streamlines (Fig. 9). The streamlines were traced on the
120 160 basis of the algorithm by Pollock (1988). Though the solute par-
ticles mix and spread across and along streamlines, it is obvious
that changes in the dominant flow direction enhance mixing and
are indicative of the level of transverse mixing.
Increasing the level of heterogeneity amplifies the change in
flow directions and creates regions of high flow that enhance
spreading. Therefore, if a medium is heterogeneous and there is a
concentration gradient in the transverse direction, there is a poten-
tial for significant transverse dispersion. The transverse dispersion
could be as large as the longitudinal dispersion, as shown when
VDP ¼ 0.8. The effect of increased transverse dispersion is to
weaken the solute concentration as it mixes, causing solute par-
ticles to be noticed at points in the transverse section higher than
the initial solute source.
Dispersion in Correlated Medium. Using FFTSIM, we gener-
ated models in which the autocorrelation lengths in the x- and y-
direction were 25 and 10%, respectively, of the x- and y-direction
lengths. The results show that longitudinal dispersivity increases
with distance traveled and heterogeneity (Fig. 10). Increasing
level of heterogeneity not only increases mixing but also enhances
convective spreading, as observed in the case when VDP equals
0.8. When convection dominates, mixing reduces. The effect of
convective spreading is for solute particles to spread as they travel
faster in high-permeability streaks with little changes in their con-
centration. Convective spreading will result ultimately in early
breakthrough of the solute. Mixing is also not uniform along the
medium when convective spreading dominates, as can be ob-
served when VDP ¼ 0.8.
Estimated transverse dispersion fluctuates along the medium
because of fluctuations in the dominant flow paths in the medium.
When the solutes plume crosses a uniform flow region, then trans-
verse dispersion along that region is nearly constant, as can be

observed in Figs. 11 and 12.

Vdp = 0.8 Increasing VDP also can cause some part of the solute plume to
0.8
Vdp = 0.6 be trapped in small flow-rate regions. Fig. 13 shows trapped sol-
Vdp = 0.4
ute plume after some part of the solute has already broken through
to the production well. This trapped or delayed solute plume is
0.4
the source of the tailing and asymmetry noticed in effluent con-
centrations at the production well.
0
We also considered five different realizations of the permeabil-
0 20 40 60 80 ity fields using the same input autocorrelation lengths, mean per-
Longitudinal Distance (ft) meability, and VDP. Fig. 14 shows the streamlines of some of the
realizations, while Figs. 15 and 16 show the estimated dispersiv-
Fig. 8—Average transverse dispersivity for an uncorrelated ities. The estimated longitudinal dispersivity (Fig. 15) for all five
medium. realizations follows the same trend, but the transverse dispersivity

88 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day 1.6
19
LX = 0.0; LY = 0.0; VDP = 0.4
55 0.05
1.2

Dispersivity (ft)
50 0.045
Vdp = 0.8
0.04 0.8 Vdp = 0.6
45

0.035 Vdp = 0.4

40
0.4
0.03
Height (ft)

35
0.025
0
30 0 20 40 60 80
0.02
Longitudinal Distance (ft)
25
0.015
Fig. 10—Average longitudinal dispersivity for a medium with
20 0.01 permeability autocorrelation length of 25% of total in the x-
direction and 10% in the y-direction. Longitudinal dispersivity
15 0.005 increases with distance traveled and with levels of heterogene-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length (ft) ity. Convective spreading at high level of heterogeneity can
dominate true mixing.
Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day
19
LX = 0.0; LY = 0.0; VDP = 0.6 streak. A high-permeability streak results in convective spreading
55 0.03 of the miscible solute and reduced miscibility. This will be
noticed in field application with early solute breakthrough and
50
early production of high concentrations of the solute.
0.025
45

Effect of Crossflow on Dispersion. Crossflow refers to flow

40
0.02 across layers of possibly different flow characteristics. We model
Height (ft)

crossflow with different levels of permeability-anisotropy ratio

35
(kv/kh). A kv/kh of zero indicates no crossflow, while a kv/kh of
0.015 unity indicates significant crossflow.
30
Results show that crossflow is required for transverse disper-
sion to be significant. When there is no crossflow, the solute is
25
0.01 forced to travel along a single streamline or a single layer. For
20
this flow, there is little spreading even though there is velocity
variation along the layer. This is caused by concentration equili-
15 0.005
brating quickly, essentially instantaneously across the cross section
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 of the layer, and dispersion becomes asymptotic quickly. Fig. 17
Length (ft) shows the concentration contour when kv/kh ¼ 0 and kv/kh ¼ 0.01.
Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day As kv/kh increases, there is an increased level of transverse disper-
19 sion (Fig. 18).
–3
LX = 0.0; LY = 0.0; VDP = 0.8 x 10
60 9

55
Effect of Input Dispersivity on Dispersion. Most conventional
8
compositional simulators allow for input dispersivity, which is
50 sometimes used as a fitting parameter. We investigated the effect
7
of input longitudinal and transverse dispersivity in an uncorrelated
45 medium. An uncorrelated medium was used to minimize the
6
effect of correlated regions on the estimated dispersivity.
40
Height (ft)

5
Results show that the effect of input longitudinal dispersivity
35 is to add to the original total dispersivity in the medium. This is
4
shown in Fig. 20, where the average estimated longitudinal dis-
30 persivity increased from 0.56 to 0.91 ft with an input of 0.5 ft.
3
This increase is caused essentially by the input dispersivity. The
25 effect of the input longitudinal dispersivity is to cause increased
20 2 mixing in the longitudinal direction. There is only a slight change
in the transverse dispersivity with input longitudinal dispersivity.
15 1 The effect of input transverse dispersivity is amplified spread-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
ing in the transverse direction that is far greater than the input
Length (ft)
value. The average transverse dispersivity increased from 0.58 to
Fig. 9—Concentration distribution at 19 days superimposed on
2.6 ft with an input transverse dispersivity of 0.5 ft (Fig. 21). The
model streamlines (green lines). As heterogeneity increases, impact of input transverse dispersivity on the average longitudinal
streamlines become sinuous and transverse dispersion dispersivity is also not significant. As the solute particles spread
increases. to a new transverse position, the input local transverse dispersivity
causes the solute to spread farther transversely (Fig. 22). The esti-
is quite different. This difference is because the level of transverse mated vertical dispersivity is greater than the longitudinal disper-
dispersion is dependent on the structure of the flow paths, which sivity, indicating that transverse spreading dominates.
is quite different for each realization, as shown in Fig. 14. We also considered flow where the model has input longitudi-
For autocorrelated media, care must be taken in planning mis- nal and transverse dispersivity of 0.5 ft. The effect of transverse
cible enhanced-oil-recovery injection to avoid a high-permeability dispersivity dominates the model. Therefore, care must be taken

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 89

 2.5 Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day
99
–3
LX = 0.25; LY = 0.1; VDP = 0.4 x 10
2 55 6
Dispersivity (ft)

5.5
50
1.5 Vdp = 0.8
5
Vdp = 0.6 45
1 Vdp = 0.4 4.5
40
4
0.5

Height (ft)
35 3.5

0 3
0 20 40 60 80 30

Longitudinal Distance (ft) 2.5

25
2
Fig. 11—Average longitudinal dispersivity for a medium with
20
permeability autocorrelation length of 25% of total in the x- 1.5
direction and 10% in the y-direction. Transverse dispersivity
increases with the level of heterogeneity and tracks the domi- 15 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
nant flow paths. Length (ft)

Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day

in using dispersivity, especially transverse dispersivity as a his- 99
tory-matching parameter. LX = 0.25; LY = 0.1; VDP = 0.6 x 10
–3

60 4.5

55 4
Effect of Autocorrelation Lengths on Dispersion. We investi-
gated the effect of increasing autocorrelation in the longitudinal 50
3.5
direction for dimensionless correlation lengths of 0.25, 0.5, and 5
45
at the same dimensionless correlation in the y-direction of 0.1. 3
The higher value of 5 indicates a layered model. We also consid- 40
Height (ft)

ered changes in the autocorrelation in the y-direction of 0.05, 0.1, 2.5

and 0.5 at the same dimensionless autocorrelation of 0.25 in the x- 35
direction. All the models were of the same heterogeneity level of 2
VDP of 0.6. Correlation structure has an effect on the manner in 30
which mixing develops. 1.5
25
In the correlated longitudinal region, longitudinal dispersivity
increases with approximately a constant slope until it enters a new 20 1
region where the slope changes. The level of mixing in the next
correlated region depends on the velocity variation in that region. 15 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
The gross level of mixing in all the correlated longitudinal regions Length (ft)
is equivalent, as shown in Fig. 23, but the manner in which mix-
ing develops is different. Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day
99
For the layered medium of dimensionless correlation of 5, lon- LX = 0.25; LY = 0.1; VDP = 0.8 –3
x 10
gitudinal dispersivity seems to approach an asymptotic value 65 4

60
Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day 3.5
239 55
–4
LX = 0.25; LY = 0.1; VDP = 0.8 x 10
50 3
65 14

60 45
2.5
Height (ft)

12 40
55
2
35
50
10
30 1.5
45
Height (ft)

25
40 8 1
20
35
15 0.5
6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
30
Length (ft)

25
4 Fig. 12—Concentration distribution at 99 days superimposed
20 on model streamlines (green lines) for correlated medium. As
heterogeneity increases, streamlines become sinuous and coa-
15 2 lesce into high-flow-rate regions. High-flow-rate regions can
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 enhance convective spreading.
Length (ft)

Fig. 13—Concentration contour for autocorrelated medium quickly with little mixing but then transitions to a new layer
showing trapped solute plume in slow-flow-rate region. This because of the correlation in the vertical direction. It is thus the
trapped solute plume usually results in tailing and asymmetry crossflow from one layer to another that is responsible, for the
in the effluent concentration. most part, for the mixing in a layered medium. The average

90 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day
99 88
–4 –3
LX = 0.25; LY = 0.1; VDP = 0.8 R2 x 10 LX = 0.25; LY = 0.1; VDP = 0.8; R3 x 10
55 12 50 10

11 9
50 45
10
8
45 40
9
7
40 35
8
Height (ft)

Height (ft)
6
35 7 30
5
6
30 25
4
5
25 20
3
4
20 15 2
3

15 2 10 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length (ft) Length (ft)

Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day
88 88
–3
LX = 0.25; LY = 0.1; VDP = 0.8; R4 –3 LX = 0.25; LY = 0.1; VDP = 0.8; R5 x 10
x 10
70 4 60 5.5

55 5
60 3.5
50 4.5

50 3 45 4

40 3.5

Height (ft)
Height (ft)

40 2.5
35 3
30 2 30 2.5

25 2
20 1.5
20 1.5
10 1
15 1

0 0.5 10 0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length (ft) Length (ft)

Fig. 14—Streamlines of four different permeability realizations with the same autocorrelation and permeability variation. The flow
paths are obviously different and result in different transverse dispersivities.

transverse dispersivity for the case of a layered medium, which direction equilibrate more efficiently (Fig. 25). The transverse dis-
shows some scatter, is oscillating at approximately a constant av- persivity tracks the autocorrelation in the longitudinal direction
erage value (Fig. 24). (Fig. 26).
When the dimensionless correlation is 0.5, the longitudinal
dispersivity increases at a steep slope initially, and the slope
changes as it enters another region of correlation. The transverse Effect of Anisotropic Dispersivity on Upscaling. Conventional
dispersivity of each region is also different, as shown in Fig. 24. upscaling focuses on petrophysical upscaling without considera-
Increasing autocorrelation in the transverse direction reduces tion of mixing, especially for miscible displacement. Garmeh
longitudinal spreading because concentrations in the transverse
4
2

3
R2
Dispersivity (ft)

1.5
R1
Dispersivity (ft)

R1
R2 2 R3
1 R3 R4
R4 1 R5
0.5 R5

0
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Longitudinal Distance (ft)
Longitudinal Distance (ft)
Fig. 16—Average transverse dispersivity for different realiza-
Fig. 15—Average longitudinal dispersivity for different realiza- tions of the same autocorrelation (25% in x-direction and 10%
tions of the same autocorrelation (25% in x-direction and 10% in in y-direction) and VDP 5 0.8. Transverse dispersivity depends
y-direction) and VDP 5 0.8. Longitudinal dispersivity increases on the nature of the flow path, which is different for each
in all realizations. realization.

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 91

 Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day 1.6
99
LX = 0.25; LY = 0.01; VDP = 0.6; KVKH = 0
33 0.09

0.08 1.2

Dispersivity (ft)
32.5 kv/kh = 0.0
0.07
kv/kh = 0.01
0.8
32 0.06
kv/kh = 0.1
Height (ft)

0.05 kv/kh = 0.2

31.5 0.4
0.04

0.03
31 0
0.02 0 20 40 60 80
30.5 0.01 Longitudinal Distance (ft)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Length (ft)
Fig. 18—Average transverse dispersivity at different levels of
Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day crossflow. Transverse dispersivity increases with increasing
99
LX = 0.25; LY = 0.01; VDP = 0.6; KVKH = 0.01
crossflow.
33.5 0.055

33 0.05 dispersivity is approximately half the magnitude of the gridblock

0.045 size, assuming a small timestep size. The average timestep size
32.5
0.04 used in this simulation is 0.1 days. Assuming flow is dominant in
32
0.035
each direction, the gridblock sizes that will give the estimated lon-
Height (ft)

gitudinal and transverse dispersivity are approximately 3.84 ft and

31.5
31
30.5
30
29.5
0 10 20 30 40
Length (ft)
Fig. 17—Streamline and concentration contour as kv /kh 5 0 and
kv /kh 5 0.01. When there is no crossflow, the solute particles
travel along a single layer and there is no transverse disper-
sion. As the kv /kh ratio increases, transverse dispersion across
adjacent layers and streamlines increases.
et al. (2009) proposed an iterative procedure to determine the
maximum gridblock size required during upscaling for miscible
displacements. We used the computed anisotropic dispersivity to
determine a priori the maximum gridblock size required during
upscaling without iteration. We considered a 2D model with a
dimension of 512  64. The gridblock size is 0.5 ft in the x-direc-
tion and 1.0 ft in the y-direction. The model is correlated 25% in
the x-direction and 10% in the y-direction. The VDP for the model
is 0.8, and the kv/kh ¼ 1. The model initially contains a single sol-
ute cell with 100% solute concentration in a uniform-flow me-
dium. The growth of the solute plume is tracked locally at each
grid cell to determine the dispersivity in both directions. The aver-
age longitudinal dispersivity for the entire grid cell is 1.92 ft,
while the average transverse dispersivity is 2.07 ft. The numerical
0.03
is 4.14 ft, respectively. Therefore, the maximum grid size in the x-
0.025 direction is approximately 4 ft, and 4 ft in the y-direction. This is
0.02 equivalent to an 84 upscaling scheme to reduce the fine-scale
0.015 model from 51264 to 6416.
0.01
A pressure-solver algorithm with harmonic averaging was
used for the upscaling (Begg et al. 1989). We compared the efflu-
0.005
50 60 70 ent concentration of the fine and upscaled models. This is a rigor-
ous test because we are comparing the growth of an instantaneous
finite-volume source. The resulting numerical dispersion from
using a larger gridblock size replicates closely the physical disper-
sion (Fig. 27). The breakthrough time and the peak strength of the
fine-scale model were modeled well, indicating an equivalent
level of mixing and spreading in the two cases. The difference
between the effluent concentrations of the coarse and fine-scale
increases as the model becomes coarser (Fig. 28).
Conclusions
1. We proposed a 2D model for analyzing local anisotropic mix-
ing. Results of the model were validated, and a procedure to
use the model for heterogeneous media was shown.
2. Both longitudinal and transverse dispersion increase with
travel distance. While longitudinal dispersion increases to an
asymptotic value, transverse dispersion follows the trend of the
changing flow directions. Transverse dispersion can exceed
longitudinal dispersion when there are significant changes in
the dominant flow direction and a large concentration gradient
in the transverse direction exists.

1.2
0.8
Dispersivity (ft)

0.8
Dispersivity (ft)

kv/kh = 0.0
0.4 kv/kh = 0.01
0.4
kv/kh = 0.1
kv/kh = 0.2 Input Long. Disp. = 0.0 ft
Input Long. Disp. = 0.5 ft.
0
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0 20 40 60 80 Longitudinal Distance (ft)
Longitudinal Distance (ft)
Fig. 20—Comparison of average longitudinal dispersivity with
Fig. 19—Average longitudinal dispersivity at different levels of an input longitudinal dispersivity. The effect of input longitudi-
crossflow. Longitudinal dispersivity increases with increasing nal dispersivity is to increase the mixing in the longitudinal
crossflow. direction.

92 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

 4 Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day
59
LX = 0.0; LY = 0.0; VDP = 0.6; Input Trans. Disp. = 0.5 –3
x 10
55 2.2

3 2
Dispersivity (ft) 50
1.8
45
1.6
2 Input Trans. Disp. = 0.0 ft
40
1.4
Input Trans. Disp. = 0.5 ft.

Height (ft)
35 1.2
1
1
30
0.8
25
0 0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 20
Longitudinal Distance (ft) 0.4

15 0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Fig. 21—Comparison of average transverse dispersivity with an Length (ft)
input of transverse dispersivity of 0.5 ft. The effect of input
transverse dispersivity is to increase vertical spreading Normalized Concentration of 2-D CDE Simulation @ Day
significantly. 59
–3
LX = 0.0; LY = 0.0; VDP = 0.6 x 10
55 10

9
3. Dispersion increases with increasing heterogeneity. Heteroge- 50

neity also can lead to increased convective spreading and to 8

45
part of the solute plume being trapped in slow-fluid-velocity
regions. 7
40
4. Different stochastic permeability realizations that have the 6

Height (ft)
same correlation lengths, mean permeability, and Dykstra- 35
Parson coefficient may have different flow structures. This dif- 5

ference will result in different levels of transverse dispersion. 30

4
The estimated longitudinal dispersion for these cases is not sig-
25
nificantly different. 3
5. Viscous crossflow, modeled as a kv/kh ratio, is required for 20 2
transverse dispersion. The kv/kh ratio ¼ 0 results in negligible
transverse dispersion and minimal longitudinal dispersion. 15 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Thus, dispersion and crossflow are intertwined. Length (ft)
6. The effect of input dispersivity in a compositional finite-differ-
ence simulator is to increase mixing in the respective direction. Fig. 22—Top figure shows the concentration contour with input
The effect of input longitudinal dispersivity is approximately transverse dispersivity of 0.5 ft. The bottom figure shows the
an addition to the existing longitudinal dispersion, while input case with no input dispersivity. As expected, the streamlines
transverse dispersivity causes transverse spreading to increase are exactly the same for both cases. Enhanced vertical spread-
significantly and be greater than the input value. ing is entirely the result of input transverse dispersivity.
7. The effect of longitudinal autocorrelation in the x-direction
permeability is to create regions where longitudinal dispersion
increases at different rates. In perfectly layered media, longitu- sion is caused by faster equilibration of the concentration in
dinal mixing is small and reaches an asymptotic value quickly. the transverse direction.
However, if there is a possibility of crossflow into another cor- 8. The estimated dispersivity can be used to determine a priori
related layer, there can be significant mixing. The effect of the maximum gridblock size during upscaling. The maximum
autocorrelation in the transverse direction is to reduce the lon- gridblock size will have numerical dispersion that is equivalent
gitudinal dispersion. The reduction in the longitudinal disper- to the total dispersion in the fine-scale model.

2 2
Lx = 0.25
Lx = 0.5
1.5 1.5
Dispersivity (ft)

Dispersivity (ft)

Lx = 5

1 1
Lx = 0.25

0.5 Lx = 0.5
Lx = 5 0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0
Longitudinal Distance (ft) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Longitudinal Distance (ft)
Fig. 23—Average longitudinal dispersivity for 10% autocorrela-
tion in the y-direction, but within a different dimensionless Fig. 24—Average transverse dispersivity for 10% autocorrela-
autocorrelation (Lx) in the x-direction. The slope of the disper- tion in the y-direction, but with a different dimensionless auto-
sivity changes at locations roughly equal to the autocorrelation correlation (Lx) in the x-direction. Different trends of transverse
length. mixing are noticed in different autocorrelated regions.

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 93

 2.5 2.5
Ly = 0.05
2 Ly = 0.1
2

Dispersivity (ft)
Ly = 0.5
Dispersivity (ft)

1.5
1.5
1
Ly = 0.05
1 Ly = 0.1
0.5
Ly = 0.5
0.5 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Longitudinal Distance (ft)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Fig. 26—Average transverse dispersivity for 25% autocorrela-
Longitudinal Distance (ft) tion in the x-direction, but with a different dimensionless auto-
correlation (Ly) in the y-direction. Transverse dispersivity
Fig. 25—Average longitudinal dispersivity for 25% autocorrela- tracks the autocorrelated regions in the longitudinal direction.
tion in the x-direction, but with a different dimensionless auto-
correlation (Ly) in the y-direction. Increasing autocorrelation in
the transverse direction suppresses growth of longitudinal dis- 6.00E–03

DIMENSIONLESS CONCENTRATION
persion. Changing slope of the longitudinal dispersivity corre-
sponds to different correlated regions.

512X64
4.00E–03
1.60E–03 32X8
DIMENSIONLESS CONCENTRATION

1.20E–03
512X64 2.00E–03

64X16
8.00E–04

0.00E+00
0 200 400 600 800 1000
4.00E–04 TIME (DAYS)

Fig. 28—Effluent concentration history for fine (512364) and

0.00E+00
0 200 400 600
TIME (DAYS)
Fig. 27—Effluent-concentration history for fine (512364) and
upscaled (64316) models. The behaviors of the two scales are
close.
Nomenclature
c ¼ concentration (mass per unit volume) of solute,
M/L3
cj ¼ initial solute concentration, M/L3
DL ¼ longitudinal-dispersion coefficient, L2/T
Do ¼ molecular-diffusion coefficient, L2/T
DT ¼ transverse-dispersion coefficient, L2/T
~
~ ¼ dispersion tensor, L2/T
D
kv/kh ¼ permeability-anisotropy ratio
Lx ¼ dimensionless correlation length in x-direction
Ly ¼ dimensionless correlation length in y-direction
VDP ¼ Dykstra-Parson coefficient
vx ¼ interstitial velocity in x-direction, L/T
vy ¼ interstitial velocity in y-direction, L/T
v ¼ interstitial velocity vector, L/T
~ References
xi (i ¼1,2) ¼ dimensions of the initial solute source in x-direc-
tion, L
Xi (i ¼1,2) ¼ dimensions of the initial solute source in x-direc-
tion, L
yi (i¼1,2) ¼ dimensions of the initial solute source in y-direc-
tion, L
Yi (i¼1,2) ¼ dimensions of the initial solute source in y-direc-
tion, L
upscaled (3238) models.
800 1000
aL ¼ longitudinal dispersivity, L
aLnum ¼ numerical longitudinal dispersivity, L
aT ¼ transverse dispersivity, L
aTnum ¼ numerical transverse dispersivity, L
s ¼ tortuosity of the porous medium
Dk (k¼x,y,z) ¼ gridblock size, L
Dt ¼ average timestep size, T
Acknowledgments
This reserach was partly sponsored by the Abu Dhabi National
Oil Company research grant at the University of Texas at Austin
and the gasflooding-research project at the EMS Energy Institute
at the Pennsylvania State University. The authors also thank the
support of the Computer Modelling Group for the use of their
compositional simulator GEM. Larry W. Lake holds the W.A.
(Monty) Moncrief Centennial Chair at The University of Texas at
Austin. Russell T. Johns is the Beghini Professor of Petroleum
and Natural Gas Engineering in the John and Willie Leone Family
Department of Energy and Mineral Engineering.
Arya, A., Hewett, T.A., Larson, R.G. et al. 1988. Dispersion and Reservoir
Heterogeneity. SPE Res Eng 3 (1): 139–148. SPE-14364-PA. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/14364-PA.
Bear, J. 1972. Dynamics of Fluids in Porous Media. New York: Elsevier.
Begg, S.H., Carter, R.R., and Dranfield, P. 1989. Assigning Effective Val-
ues to Simulator Gridblock Parameters for Heterogeneous Reservoirs.
SPE Res Eng 4 (4): 455–463. SPE-16754-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/16754-PA.

94 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Cleary, R.W. and Ungs, M.J. 1978. Analytical Models for Groundwater Enrichment. SPE Res Eval & Eng 4 (5): 358–365. SPE-73829-PA.
Pollution and Hydrology. Technical Report 78-WR-15, ASIN http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/73829-PA.
B0006Y1D4C, Water Resources Program, Department of Civil Engi- Yang, A.P. 1990. Stochastic heterogeneity and dispersion. PhD thesis,
neering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas (January 1990).
CMG. 2009. GEM User’s Guide, Version 2009. Calgary, Alberta: Com-
puter Modelling Group.
Durlofsky, L.J., Behrens, R.A., Jones, R.C. et al. 1996. Scale Up of Heter- Appendix A
ogeneous Three Dimensional Reservoir Descriptions. SPE J. 1 (3): Appendix A gives an analytical solution for the 2D CDE for an
313–326. SPE-30709-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30709-PA. instantenous point source in a doubly infinite medium with the
Fanchi, J.R. 1983. Multidimentional Numerical Dispersion. SPE J. 23 (1): following boundary and initial conditions,
143–151. SPE-9018-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/9018-PA.
Garmeh, G., Johns, R.T., and Lake, L.W. 2009. Pore-Scale Simulation of cð1; y; tÞ ¼ 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-1Þ
Dispersion in Porous Media. SPE J. 14 (4): 559–567. SPE-110228-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/110228-PA. cðx; 61; tÞ ¼ 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ðA-2Þ
Haajizadeh, M., Fayers, F.J., and Cockin, A.P. 2000. Effects of Phase
Behavior, Dispersion and Girding on Sweep Patterns for Nearly Misci-
cð0; y; tÞ ¼ cj dðy  y0 Þdðt  t0 Þ at x ¼ 0; . . . . . . . ðA-3Þ
ble Gas Displacement. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Confer-
ence, Dallas, 1–4 October. SPE-62995-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
62995-MS. where, d( ) is the Dirac delta function and y0 and t0 are the coordi-
Haajizadeh, M., Fayers, F.J., Cockin, A.P. et al. 1999. On the Importance nates of the point source and the time at which the instantaneous
of Dispersion and Heterogeneity in the Compositional Simulation of volume source commences and finishes, respectively.
Miscible Gas Processes. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Improved cj x
Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 25–26 October. SPE-57264- c¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/57264-MS. 4pðt  t0 Þ DL DT
Jennings, J.W. Jr., Ruppel, S.C., and Ward, W.B. 2000. Geostatistical 2 3
vx x x2 v2x ðt  t0 Þ
Analysis of Permeability Data and Modeling of Fluid-Flow Effects in 6 2D  0
 7
Carbonate Outcrops. SPE Res Eval & Eng 3 (4): 292–303. SPE- 6 L 4DL ðt  t Þ 4DL 7
65370-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/65370-PA.
exp6
6
7:
7    ðA-4Þ
4 vy ðy  y Þ 2 0
0 0
ðy  y Þ 2 vy ðt  t Þ 5
Jha, R.K., Bryant, S.L., Lake, L.W. et al. 2006. Investigation of pore-scale þ  
(local) mixing. Presented at the SPE Improved Oil Recovery Sympo- 2DT 4DT ðt  t0 Þ 4DT
sium, Tulsa, 22–26 April. SPE-99782-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
99782-MS. The analytical solution for the instantaneous line source of finite
Jha, R.K., John, A., Bryant, S.L. et al. 2009. Flow Reversal and Mixing. height along the y-axis is obtained by integrating Eq. A-4 from
SPE J. 14 (1): 41–49. SPE-103054-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/ y0 ¼Y1 to y0 ¼Y2
103054-PA.
cj x
John, A.K., Lake, L.W., Bryant, S. et al. 2010. Investigation of Mixing in c¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Field-Scale Miscible Displacements Using Particle-Tracking Simula- 4pðt  t0 Þ DL DT
tions of Tracer Floods With Flow Reversal. SPE J. 15 (3): 598–609. " #
SPE-113429-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/113429-PA. vx x x2 v2x ðt  t0 Þ v2y ðt  t0 Þ
exp   þ :
Johns, R.T., Pashupati, S., and Subramanian, S.K. 2000. Effect of Gas 2DL 4DL ðt  t0 Þ 4DL 4DT
Enrichment Above the MME on Oil Recovery in Enriched-Gas Floods.
Yð2 " #
SPE J. 5 (3): 331–338. SPE-65704-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
vy ðy  y0 Þ ðy  y0 Þ2             ðA-5Þ
65704-PA.  exp  dy0
Lake, L.W. 1989. Enhanced Oil Recovery. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
2DT 4DT ðt  t0 Þ
Y1
Prentice Hall.
Lantz, R.B. 1971. Quantitative Evaluation of Numerical Diffusion (Trun- After integration and simplification,
cation Error). SPE J. 11 (3): 315–320. SPE-2811-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
 
10.2118/2811-PA. cj x vx x x2 v2x ðt  t0 Þ
Ogata, A. and Banks, R. B.: “A Solution of the Differential Equation of c ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi exp  
4 DL pðt  t0 Þ 2DL 4DL ðt  t0 Þ 4DL
Longitudinal Dispersion in Porous Media”, U.S. Geological Survey,
Professional Paper 411-A, 1961. 8 " sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi# 9
>
> Y  y v ðt  t0 Þ >
>
Mahadevan, J., Lake, L.W., and Johns, R.T. 2003. Estimation of True Dis- >
>
2
erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ
y
>
>
>
> DT >
>
persivity in Field-Scale Permeable Media. SPE J. 8 (3): 272–279. < 2 DT ðt  t0 Þ 2 =
SPE-86303-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/86303-PA.  " sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi# >:       ðA-6Þ
>
> >
Parakh, H. and Johns, R.T. 2004. Use of Stripping Ratios to Identify Dis- >
> Y  y v ðt  t0 Þ >
>
>
> 1 y >
>
persion Levels and Displacement Mechanisms in Miscible Gas Floods. : erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
0
ffi
2 D ;
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 2 DT ðt  t Þ T

Houston, 26–29 September. SPE-90854-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/

90854-MS. Further simplification gives
Pickens, J.F. and Grisak, G.E. 1981. Modeling of scale-dependent disper-
( )
sion in hydrogeologic systems. Water Resour. Res. 17 (6): 1701–1711. cj x ½x  vðt  t0 Þ2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/WR017i006p01701. c ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi exp 
4 DL pðt  t0 Þ 4DL ðt  t0 Þ
Pollock, D.W. 1988. Semianalytical Computation of Path Lines for Finite-
Difference Models. Ground Water 26 (6): 743–750. http://dx.doi.org/ 8 " sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi# 9
>
> Y2  y vy ðt  t0 Þ >
>
10.1111/j.1745-6584.1988.tb00425.x. >
> erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ >
> : . . . . . . ðA-7Þ
>
> >
>
Qi, D. and Hesketh, T. 2005. An Analysis of Upscaling Techniques for < 2 DT ðt  t Þ 2 0 DT =
Reservoir Simulation. Petroleum Science and Technology 23 (7–8):  " sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi# >
>
>
827–842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/lft-200033132. >
>
> Y1  y vy ðt  t0 Þ > >
>
>
Solano, R., Johns, R.T., and Lake, L.W. 2001. Impact of Reservoir Mixing : erf 2pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
>
DT ðt  t Þ 0
ffi
2 D T
>
;
on Recovery in Enriched-Gas Drives Above the Minimum Miscibility

February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 95

     
The solution can be extended for a finite length in the x-direc- cj x2  x þ vt x1  x þ vt
tion by integrating along the x-axis to obtain cðx; y; tÞ ¼ erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
4 4DL t 4DL t
  rffiffiffiffiffiffi  rffiffiffiffiffiffi :
ð2 (
X ) Y 2  y vy t Y 1  y vy t
cj ½x  vðt  t0 Þ2  erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ  erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
c ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi exp  dx 2 DT t 2 DT 2 D T t 2 DT
4 DL pðt  t0 Þ 4DL ðt  t0 Þ
X1                    ðA-10Þ
8 " sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi# 9
>
> Y2  y vy ðt  t0 Þ >
> Olaoluwa O. Adepoju is a PhD candidate in petroleum engi-
>
> erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ >
> : .. ðA-8Þ
>
> >
> neering at the University of Texas at Austin. After earning an
< 2 DT ðt  t Þ 2 0 DT = MS degree, Adepoju worked as a petroleum engineer with
 " s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi # Chevron Nigeria Limited for approximately 2 years. His
>
> >
>
>
> Y1  y vy ðt  t0 Þ > >
>
>
research interests include enhanced oil recovery, reservoir sim-
>
: erf p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi  >
; ulation, and unconventional resources. Adepoju holds an MS
2 DT ðt  t Þ 0 2 D T degree in petroleum engineering from Texas Tech University
and a BTech degree in chemical engineering from Ladoke
Integrating and simplifying Akintola University of Technology in Ogbomosho, Nigeria.
Larry W. Lake holds the W.A. (Monty) Moncrief Centennial
8 " # 9 Chair in the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engi-
>
>
> X1  vðt  t0 Þ > >
> neering at the University of Texas at Austin (UT). He has been
> erf p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi >
cj < 4DL ðt  t0 Þ = teaching at UT for more than 30 years and has authored more
cðx; y; tÞ ¼  > than 100 peer-reviewed journals. Lake teaches several indus-
4> > X  vðt  t0 Þ >
>
> >
> trial and professional short courses around the world. He is
: erf 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ; author or coauthor of four textbooks. Lake holds BS and PhD
4DL t
8 " sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi# 9 : . . . . . . . .ðA-9Þ degrees, both in chemical engineering, from Arizona State
> > University and Rice University, respectively. He is a member of
>
> Y2  y vy ðt  t0 Þ >
>
> erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi þ
> >
> the US National Academy of Engineering and SPE.
>
< 2 DT ðt  t Þ 2 0 DT >
=
Russell T. Johns holds the Victor and Anna Mae Beghini faculty
 " s ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi # fellowship in the John and Willie Leone Family Department of
>
> >
>
>
> Y1  y vy ðt  t0 Þ > >
>
> Energy and Mineral Engineering at the Pennsylvania State Uni-
>
: erf p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi  >
; versity. Before joining Pennsylvania State University, he served
2 DT ðt  t Þ 0 2 D T
on the faculty at the University of Texas at Austin for 15 years.
Johns worked for 9 years as a petrophysical engineer with Shell
Oil and a consulting engineer for Colenco Power Consulting in
Generally, the time the instantaneous volume source commen- Switzerland. His research interests include enhanced oil recov-
ces and finishes is small; therefore, t0 is negligibly small. Also, Xi ery, unconventional resources, well testing, multiphase flow in
(i¼1, 2) can be expressed better in terms of the coordinate of the porous media, and thermodynamics. Johns holds MS and PhD
point source in the x-direction as “xi – x” and erf(–x) ¼ –erf(x). degrees in petroleum engineering from Stanford University. In
Eq. A-9 can thus be expressed as 2009, he became an SPE Distinguished Member.

96 February 2013 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering