Chapter 45

Miscible Displacement
LeRoy W. Holm, Union oil Co. of California*

Introduction
Through research efforts and pilot testing over the past 25 years, miscible-phase-displacement processes have been developed as a successful means of obtaining greater oil recovery in many reservoirs. To understand these processes, it is first necessary to provide a definition of miscibility, particularly as distinguished from solubility. Solubility is the ability of one substance (fluid) to mix with a fluid or fluids and form a single homogeneous phase. Miscibility is the ability of two or more fluid substances (gases or liquids) to form a single homogeneous phase when mixed in all proportions. For petroleum reservoirs, miscibility is defined as that physical condition between two or more fluids that permits them to mix in all proportions without the existence of an interface. If two fluid phases form after some proportion of one fluid is added, the fluids are considered immiscible. Figs. 45.1, 45.2, and 45.3 illustrate the difference in immiscible and miscible relations between certain fluids. Low-molecular-weight (MW) hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane, butane, or mixtures of liquefiable petroleum gas (LPG) are the injected fluids (solvents) that have been used for first-contact miscible flooding. These solvents in any amount will form a single phase with the oil in the reservoir, so are miscible upon first contact with the oil. Heavier hydrocarbons such as C 5 to C t2 also are miscible with reservoir oils but have not been used as injectants because of their higher costs. However, since solvents like ethane and LPG are abundant in most reservoir oil, they can promote miscible displacement when nonoil-miscible fluids such as methane, natural gas, CO*, flue gas, or nitrogen are injected to vaporize or extract CZ to C r2 in situ from the
Ortginally. tn 1962 edltlon. this chapter was a part of Chap. 40, Gas-lnpchon Pressure Mantenance and Miscible-Phase Displacement in Oil Reservors. wrWan by James L Moore and FIxhard F. Hinds.

oil. This mechanism of in-situ transfer of light hydrocarbons from the reservoir oil to the injected fluid that forms a mixture miscible with reservoir oil is known as dynamic miscibility or multiple-contact miscibility. There are, as a result of extensive research and development efforts by the petroleum industry and various universities (much of which was funded by the U.S. DOE during 1973-Sl), several forms of miscible displacement operations currently in use or under consideration. The processes include (1) miscible-slug drive for first-contact miscibility, (2) condensing-gas drive for dynamic miscibility, (3) vaporizing-gas drive for dynamic miscibility, and (4) extracting-liquid or criticalfluid drive for dynamic miscibility. A brief discussion of the theoretical aspects and limiting factors of each of these types of miscible displacement, in addition to an outline of engineering study basic requirements, are presented on the following pages. Engineering examples are presented in the Appendix in conjunction with a discussion of alternative procedures.

Theoretical Aspects of Miscible-Phase Displacement

Miscible-Slug Process The sim lest type of miscible drive is the liquid slug process j-4 In this type of miscible drive, a slug of material such as propane or LPG (liquefied petroleum gases C2 to C,) is injected into the reservoir and followed by a dry gas.* The slug miscibly displaces oil from the contacted portion of the reservoir by virtue of a
Other ngnhydrocarbon flu& such as cenaln alcohols, can be miscible wh reservoll 011. However. these alcohols lend to promote miscible displacement between 011and in-situ water so that complex phase and moblfity relationships occur. Prohlbltlvefy large volumes of these alcohols are required to mamtain a misctble displacement m the reservoir. As injecte$,soluble oils or oil exIernal microsmulsions also are miscible with the reservoir oil. Since complex phase relationshlps also occur between these fluids and both the oil and water in the reservoir, and because other chemicals are used in conjunction with them. dlscusslon of this displacement process is found in Chap. 47-Chemical Flooding

45-2

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

solvent cleaning action. For the purposes of discussion, LPG will be used to denote the slug material. In practice, LPG solvents that are first-contact miscible with reservoir fluids are too expensive to inject continuously. Instead, the solvent is injected in a limited volume, or slug, that is small relative to the reservoir PV, and the slug, in turn, is miscibly displaced with a less expensive fluid such as methane, natural gas, or flue gas. Ideally with such a process scheme, solvent miscibly displaces reservoir oil while drive gas miscibly displaces the solvent, propelling the small solvent slug through the reservoir. Pressure and Composition Requirements. The basic requirement for miscible displacement by the slug process is that the solvent slug be miscible with both the reservoir oil and the drive gas, which is mostly methane. Miscibility between the LPG slug and the displacing gas requires a certain minimum pressure,s which can be estimated from published data on the cricondenbars of mixtures of pure components (Fig. 45.4). For example, this pressure may be as low as 1,100 psia at the reservoir temperature of 1.50F.9 It is important to note that for temperatures between the critical temperature of LPG and methane, the critical pressure (miscible pressure) is usually much higher than the critical pressure of either fluid. Where additional data are required, these values should be determined in the laboratory. Equilibrium phase diagrams, previously discussed in Chap. 20, are convenient representations of the ranges of temperature, pressure, and composition within which combinations of phases coexist. Fig. 45.5 is a triangular phase diagram that illustrates the phase behavior requirement for first-contact miscibility. lo For the pressure and temperature at which this pseudotemary diagram was determined, all mixtures of LPG (Cz to C,) and oil (Cs+ ) lie entirely within the single-phase region. As indicated on the diagram, an LPG slug could be diluted with methane to Composition A and the resulting mixtures would remain first-contact miscible with Reservoir Oil B. Composition A is the intersection of the right side of the triangle (methane/LPG compositions) and the tangent to the phase boundary curve that passes through the oil composition. As the concentration of methane in the injection fluid increases, the pressure (cticondenbar) increases and ultimately becomes impractically high for first-contact miscibility. When this happens, dynamic miscibility can be achieved by the condensing- or vaporizing-gas drive mechanisms. Condensing-Gas Drive (or Enriched-Gas Drive)

OIL (LIQUID)

OIL (LIQUID)

Fig. 45.1-Immiscibility of methane (gas) and oil (liquid) at reservoir conditions of temperature and pressure.

*;E;;/;;;
L-l . l .

2000 LB
15OOF

l
,-.

l.

t l -.
. 0 . 1 l l -

...Z.

. .l ** . M & A N E

M EGANE
Jr -AC\

(GAS)

(LIQUID)

Fig. 45.2-Miscibility of methane (gas) and propane (or LPG) liquid at reservoir conditions of temperature and pressure. Here propane (or LPG) is a gas in presence of gas.

ATMOSPHERIC

p*E (GAS)

PFi (LIQUID\

u-m;:?

(LIQUID)

(LIQUID)

Fig. 45.3-Miscrbility of propane (or LPG) liquid and oil liquid at reservoir conditions of temperature and pressure. Here propane (or LPG) is a liquid in the presence of a liquid.

A condensing-gas drive is that process of oil displacement by gas that makes use of an injected gas containing low-MW hydrocarbon (C, to Cg) components, which condense in the oil being displaced. To effect conditions of miscible displacement, sufficient quantities of lowMW components must be condensed into the oil to generate a critical mixture at the displacing front. This process was brought to the attention of the industry in the late 1950 s by laboratory investigations, *I2 which showed that the use of condensing gas drives would result in increased oil recovery from many reservoirs during either primary or secondary phases of

MISCIBLE

DISPLACEMENT

45-3

6000
DRY GAS INJECTION LPG BANK \

OIL PRODUCTION TAKEN FROM lN.OlL BANK WELLS

4000 a 2

MIXING

LPG AND OIL ZONE

-200 -100

100

200

300 400 OF

500

600

700

TEMPERATURE Fig. 45.4-Critical

loci of binary n-paraffin systems.

Fig. 45.5-Phase boundary curves for the system reservoir oil/LPG/tail gas; 180F-volume percent basis.

production. Laboratory tests were conducted with a wide composition range of injection gases and reservoir fluids, at pressures greater than, equal to, or less than the saturation pressure (bubblepoint pressure) of the displaced fluid. One of the principal conclusions from these tests was that high oil recoveries could be obtained regardless of whether the oil was originally saturated or unsaturated with natural hydrocarbon gases at the displacement pressure. The phase relations governing this process are illustrated by a triangular diagram in Fig. 45.6. Initially, a rich gas of Composition C is injected into Reservoir Oil A. As indicated by a line joining these two points, some mixture compositions fall in the two-phase region and thus these two components are not immediately miscible. However, after several consecutive steps of Gas C contacting the oil, the C2 -to-C6 components condensed out of the gas at each contact are absorbed by the oil until a critical Mixture B is obtained at the miscible front. It is noteworthy that, had Gas C initially fallen to the left of the immiscible-miscible (I-M) line, it would have been impossible to enrich the oil to B. There would not be sufficient amounts of the gas-enrichening components in the injected gas to reach the Miscible Point B. The I-M line is referred to as the limiting tie line of the phase diagram. Limiting Factors (Phase Behavior) Control of Injection-Gas Composition. As indicated in the definition of miscible displacement by condensinggas drive, the quantity of low MW components in the injection gas is critical. * Also, the actual dynamic or multiple-contact phase behavior may be more complicated than shown in the simple pseudoternary diagram

of Fig. 45.6. Contiguous zones of miscible compositions of bubble- and dewpoint fluids can exist. The bubblepoint curve represents the composition of a fluid where the last vapor disappears at a fixed pressure and temperature; the dewpoint curve represents the composition where the first liquid appears at these same conditions. Regions of liquid/liquid, liquid/liquid/vapor and liquid/vapor/solid (asphalt) equilibrium have been found in more recent studies. For this reason it is important that

(tlSSLE

POINT, CURVE

SATURATEO-VAPOR

CAITICAL MIXTURE AFTER INFINITE

IC~Crj) I-M OIVIOING LINE

INJECTION-GAS COYPOSITION-C RESERVOIR-FLUID COMPOSITION-A M MISCIBLE I IMllSClSLE

Fig. 45.6-Illustration of miscible displacement (condensinggas drive).

45-4

PETROLEUM

ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

laboratory displacement tests be conducted to determine the gas composition required for miscibility development at a specific injection pressure and reservoir temperature. Such tests also will help to determine when a sufficient transition zone is established at the front, so that dry gas that is miscible with the critical gas mixture immediately behind the transition bank can be substituted for the rich gas. I3 Economic considerations will usually dictate that a minimum amount of rich gas be used. Reservoir Pressure. When the reservoir pressure is relatively low, a gas very rich in intermediates would be required for miscible displacement. At higher pressures, a lesser quantity of C2 to C 6 hydrocarbons would be needed. Thus pressure as well as gas composition can be adjusted to achieve miscibility. The reservoir pressure required for this process will be at least 1,500 psig. Oil Gravity. The gravity of the oil (if it is higher than 20API) has little effect on the condensing-gas drive process, although with heavier oil, greater enrichment of the gas and longer contact with the oil are required to transfer the C 2 to C 6 components into the oil. The inherent higher viscosities of the heavier oils also leads to more unfavorable mobility ratios for the displacement. Vaporizing-Gas Drive Process

High-Pressure Gas Injection. Another mechanism for achieving dynamic miscible displacement relies on insitu vaporization of low-MW hydrocarbons (C, to C,) from the reservoir oil into the injected gas to create a miscible transition zone. This method for attaining miscibility has been called both the high-pressure and gas process. Miscibility can be the vaporizing achieved by this mechanism with methane, natural gas, flue gas, 0; nitrogen as injection gases, provided that the miscibility pressure required is physically attainable in the reservoir. The concept was introduced in 195014; the process requires a higher pressure than normally used in conven-

tional, immiscible gas drives. The increase in oil recovery at the higher pressures is believed to result from: (1) absorption of injected gas by the oil to cause a volume increase of the oil phase in the reservoir; (2) enrichment of injected gas resulting from vaporization of low-boiling-range hydrocarbons from the oil into the gaseous phase; and (3) reduction in the difference of viscosity and interfacial tension (IFT) between the injetted gas and the reservoir oil as a result of mixing of the above fluids. The mechanism of miscible displacement by highpressure gas injection has been described in detail by several investigators. 10,15-18 Fig. 45.7 presents a triangular diagram I7 to illustrate the phase relations of this mechanism. Initially, a relatively lean gas of Composition C is injected into Reservoir Fluid A. A line connecting A and C intersects the phase-boundary curve EBO, indicating that these two phases are not immediately miscible. However, as Gas C moves through the reservoir, it will become enriched because of the effect of vaporization, until it ultimately reaches a critical Composition B. This fluid now is miscible in all proportions with Reservoir Fluid A or any reservoir fluid lying to the right of the I-M boundary. Although the basic concepts of high-pressure gas injection may be explained with the use of triangular diagrams, laboratory data are required to provide detailed phase relations-particularly with respect to the pressure at which miscibility occurs between the injection gas and the reservoir oil. Miscibility by the vaporizing-gas drive mechanism also can be developed with nitrogen and flue gas (about 88% nitrogen and 12% CO ) even though these gases 24 - Because the cricondenhave a low solubility in oil. * bar pressure for nitrogen and for low- to intermediateMW hydrocarbons is high, the pressures required for dynamic miscibility are dependent on the methane content of the in-situ oil as well as the concentration of other hydrocatins in the oil. Higher methane concentrations in the reservoir oil reduce the pressure required to attain vaporizing-gas drive miscibility with nitrogen. High reservoir temperatures promote miscibility. The CO2 tends to be partially or completely stripped from the flue gas at the front because it is soluble in the reservoir oil and brine. It has been speculated that the flue gas front may become essentially CO2 -free and develop miscibility in much the same manner and at much the same miscibility pressure as if nitrogen had been the injection gas. l9 Limitations (Phase Behavior)

GAS DEVELOPED

AT

INJECTION RESERVOIR ENRICHED

GAS COMPOSITION - C FLUID COMPOSITION - A GAS COMPOSITION - R

Fig. 45.7~illustration of miscible pressure gas injection).

displacement

(high-

Generally speaking, miscible displacement cannot be achieved by gas injection at realistic pressures unless certain basic requirements are met. 1. Reservoir depths must be sufficient to permit pressures greater than 3,000 psi, usually 4,000 psi at reservoir temperatures. 2. The reservoir fluid must contain sufficient quantities of certain (Cl to C,) components before the benefits of vaporization can be obtained. Referring to Fig. 45.7, the reservoir oil composition must lie on or to the right of the limiting tie line for miscibility to be attained by the vaporizing-gas drive mechanism with natural gas that has a composition lying to the left of the limiting tie line.

MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT

3. The reservoir fluid must be sufficiently undersaturated with respect to the injection pressure. This factor is very critical. The requirement that the oil composition lies to the right of the limiting tie line also implies that only oils that are undersaturated with respect to methane can be miscibly displaced by methane or natural gas. Thus, oil of Composition F on the bubblepoint curve of Fig. 45.7 could not develop vaporizing-gas drive miscibility with methane/natural gas. Inspection of Fig. 45.7 shows that as the concentration of low-MW hydrocarbons in the reservoir oil decreases, the oil Composition A moves toward the left side of the pseudoternary diagram and higher pressures are required to shrink the size of the two-phase region and to develop miscibility. Increasing pressure both decreases the size of the two-phase region and changes the slopes of tie lines by increasing the vaporization of low-MW hydrocarbons into the vapor phase. 4. The density of the reservoir fluid must be suffciently low, as reflected in stock-tank gravities of approximately 40API and greater. Laboratory studies would provide quantification for these requirements. Extracting-Liquid or Supercritical Fluid Drive

TABLE 45.1-CRITICAL TEMPERATURES AND SOLUBILITIES OF SOLVENT GASES Critical Temperature ~ W) Carbon dioxide Ethane Hydrogen sulfide Methane

90 213 -117

4588 31 634 522

- [Cl Solubility of Gas in a Crude Oil at 1,000 psi and 135OF (scf/bbl) 640 32 100 -82 209

CO2 Miscible Process. A fourth mechanism for achieving dynamic or multiple-contact miscibility involves the injection of a solvent gas (such as COZ, ethane, N20, or H2S), which is not first-contact miscible with reservoir oils but is highly soluble in them. Table 45.1 shows the critical temperatures and solubilities of some of these solvent gases for comparison with methane. The critical temperatures of these gases are close to reservoir temperatures and the gases are very compressible at these conditions (Fig. 45.8).23 CO2, from the standpoint of availability, cost, and operational handling, is the most practical of these fluids. As a liquid, or as a dense, critical fluid solvent, CO;? extracts from the oil hydrocarbons of higher MW than the predominantly C2 to Cd hydrocarbons that methane vaporizes. 24 In addition to the C2 to Cd hydrocarbons, these fluids include C5 to C 12 hydrocarbons from the gasoline fraction of the crude and even C t3 to C3c gas-oil fractions of the crude.

In fact, the C2 to CJ hydrocatbons are not needed to achieve miscibility, so reservoir oils, which arc depleted in methane and the low-MW hydrocarbons (dead oils), are still candidates for CO;! miscible flooding.25 This greatly increases the application potential for miscible displacement. After multiple contacts with the reservoir oil, the hydrocarbon-enriched-CO2 phase miscibly displaces reservoir oil. 26*27 The phase behavior representation of this process is more complicated than the previous hydrocarbon injection processes. Fig, 45. 9 indicates the enrichment in Cs to C30 hydrocarixjns required to achieve the miscible displacement fronts. Pressure-Comptitioh Requirement. The reservoir pressures at whichmiscible displacement can occur are similar to those,ftithe first-contact or enriched-gas processes (1,000 to 2,000 psi) because of the high solvency of the dense, supercritical CO* at these pressures and most reservoir temperatures (< 200F). Lower miscibility pressures are achieved at lower temperatures. Also, like the dependence of the vaporizing gas process on the C2 to C6 content of the in-situ oil, the CO2 miscible process is dependent on the C5 to Csc content of the oil. At a given reservoir temperature, miscibility displacement with CO2 is achieved at lower pressures where the C5 to C3c content is higher (Fig. 45.10). 28 Recent data indicate that the C5 to C i2 content of the oil has the greatest effect on the miscibility pressure. The heavy portion (C3t +) of the oil also affects this

0.9 0.6

1.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
1.1 1.0 IO(P* RESERVOIR 011 0.1 1000

100 0 C5 IO Cx pM SOLYEWT

PRESSURE, PSI

Fig. 45.8-Compressibility

factor6 for COs.

Fig. 45.9-Postulated phase diagram for fluids at displacement front after COP has extracted hydrocarbons in-situ from reservoir oil, contacted at miscible pressure pnr

45-6

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

Cop 0 DISPLACEMENT 0.9

DENSITY

REOUIRED

FOR

MISCIBLE OF CRUDE OILS I

VS. C&-C30

CONTENT

5 m

L+ 0.6 2 t: E > 0.7 k 4 m s 0.6 z 5

go.5 0 Pi c z 0.4 0 A Cl 0 .

the pressure re uired to achieve miscible displacement in B ,30 Gases such as nitrogen and methane a reservoir. 14,2 raise the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP); ethane, propane, or hydrogen sulfide tend to lower the pressure requirement.

Factors Affecting Displacement Effkiency

Under the conditions of miscible displacement, nearly all the oil in place within the pore channels contacted will be displaced by virtue of the elimination of interfacial forces between the gas and oi13 and by the absence of relative-permeability effects. As the enriched gas and oil approach their critical mixture, there is a marked reduction in their IFT. Even though miscibility (defined by zero IFT and no interface) has not been reached at this point, improved oil recovery over immiscible displacement has been observed in laboratory flooding using such two-phase fluids. Such displacement has been described as near-miscible (incorrectly as partialmiscible) displacement. The actual recovery from the reservoir by miscible and near-miscible floods will be considerably less than that obtained in laboratory floods because of factors affecting pattern and conformance efficiency and dispersion of the miscible slug in the reservoir. The following discussion of factors which affect displacement efficiency applies to all forms of miscible and near-miscible processes. Dispersion

FARNSWORTH WILMINGTON FORD ZONE WEST POISON SPIOER NORTHUUNOlS GOMINGUEZ EANOINI

0 40 , 50 C5-C30 0

CS-CSOCUI REO WASH 60 CONTENT

ItdO

STRAWN I 70 OF OIL, I 60 C5430, cg+ WT% I 90 100

Fig. 45.10~CO2 density required for miscible displacement vs. C, to C, content of various crude oils. MMP s at 165OF for same crude oils.

miscibility pressure. Increased heavy oil components, usually accompanied by lesser amounts of C5 to Cl2 components, require higher pressure to compress the CO2 to a more dense fluid and promote adequate enrichment at the displacement front. This means a greater mass of CO2 would be required for miscible recovery of heavy oil with accompanying increased costs. Process Considerations. To effect a true miscible displacement process, CO* should be injected continuously, or a CO2 slug should be driven by a gas that is miscible with the CO,!. Methane, flue gas, or nitrogen can be used for this purpose. However, because of the improved mobility achieved, water is often used as the drive fluid. Although CO* is soluble in the water, it is not miscible with it, so that the water-driven CO2 slug dissipates by leaving a residual phase. This residual is one of the factors controlling the CO2 slug size required. CO2 often is available in mixtures with other gases. The effect of these impurities is either to raise or lower

Fig. 45.11--Mixing of solvent and oil by longitudinal transverse dispersion.

and

Mixing zones form between the reservoir oil and LPG slug (or multiple-contact miscible slug) and between the injected drive gas and the slug. Three mechanisms that contribute to this mixing are molecular diffusion, microscopic convective dis ersion, and macroscopic convective dispersion. 327 332 3Q Microscopic dispersion is pore-size mixing in excess of that from the random motion of molecules and is caused by convection in the tortuous flow through porous media. Further mixing of fluids by macroscopic convective dispersion can be caused by permeability heterogeneities over a larger area of the porous rock34 (Fig. 45.11). In a relatively homogeneous reservoir, the length of these mixing zones determines the minimum slug size. The slug should not be diluted to such an extent that miscibility is lost before most of the reservoir area is contacted. On the other hand, viscosity and density differences between solvent and oil, which also affect the slug, may be moderated by diffusion and dispersion, with a decrease in fingering, gravity override, and resultant slug-stabilization tendencies. Laboratory studies have indicated that in linear-flow systems the mixing zone grows rapidly at first, decreases in rate of growth as displacement continues, and eventually stabilizes in length. A survey of the literature shows that a difference of opinion exists about the stabilizing effect that diffusion and dispersion have on the mixing zone in the reservoir. It is generally agreed, however, that the length of the mixing zone varies roportionately with the viscosity of the driven fluid. 4,P6-39 As the viscosities of the injected gases and liquid, and even the vaporized or extracted hydrocarbon enriched slugs, are low (less than 1 cp), field applications generally have been restricted to reservoirs with oil viscosity of less than 5 cp.

MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT

Two correlations, based on laboratory data, have been presented in the literature as a means to estimate the minimum slug size required for miscible drive in a homogeneous reservoir. One correlation4 states that the mixing-zone length is related to the ratio of the viscosit Y difference to the viscosity ratio. The other correlation says that the slug size required for a given path length varies inversely as the square mot of the path length. Laboratory tests 3*4have indicated that, under ideal conditions, a bank of solvent with a volume as low as a few percent of the hydrocarbon pore space is all that might be required to maintain miscibility. However, experience has shown that slug volumes required for practical field operation range from 10 to 30% HCPV in a pattern area to counter the effects of dispersion, gravity segregation, reservoir-rock heterogeneities, well-pattern arrangements, etc. s,2 Mobility Ratio Despite the fact that displacement of nearly 100% of the oil in the contacted area occurs, the overall efficiency of miscible displacement may be lowered by the effect of an unfavorable mobility ratio (defined here as the ratio of the displacing to the displaced mobilities). The sweep pattern in a miscible-slug operation is controlled by the ratio of the displacing gas to the displaced oil mobilities40 which in the swept area will reduce itself to the viscosity ratio of oil to gas4 (Fig. 45.12). This ratio, of course, is unfavorable when compared with conventional waterflood operations. Laboratory tests have indicated that viscous fingering occurs at unfavorable mobility ratios (Fig. 45.13). This phenomenon has been described as dendritic fingers of solvent (or drive gas) forming and growing in length until they break through the penetrated LPG slug or oil bank. These viscous fingers result in earlier solvent breakthrough and poorer oil recovery after breakthrough for a given volume of solvent injected than would be the case if the displacing front remained stable. The breakthrough oil recovery of miscible floods will be governed principally by the mobility ratio of the injected fluids and reservoir oil, and by the reservoir geometry. Conformance Effkiency

100 60 60 0 HAdA OAT INJECTO 0 1 I I 0.1 1.0 10 100 MOBIL RATIO

40 20

IL

Fig. 45.12-Displacement behavior for developed data from 0.0047~in. model.

five-spot,

PV c

0.3 0.2 0.1 0.05

M = 2.40

Assuming that miscible displacement can be achieved by one of the foregoing processes, the greatest single factor that controls maximum recovery of oil from a reservoir is conformance efficiency. For the purpose of this chapter, conformance efficiency is defined as the fraction of the total PV within the pattern area that is contacted by the displacing fluid. The dominating factors that control conformance are the gross sand heterogeneity and size distribution of the rock interstices, which usually are defined in terms of permeability variation or stratification.42 These factors become particularly critical when effecting the displacement of the higher-viscosity oils. The associated unfavorable mobility ratio, in conjunction with a wide variance in permeability, results in a low conformance. In addition, gravity segregation can take place in formations possessing vertical permeability. 43 This adverse effect occurs when the light injection gases or liquids rise to the top of the formation or

0.15 0.05

M = 17.3
Fig. 45.13-Displacement fronts for different mobility ratios and injected PV until breakthrough, quarter of a five-spot.

45-0

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

and, consequently, by water.

tend to be trapped to a greater extent

Improving Recovery Efficiency by Gravity Stabilization In reservoirs with dip, gravity segregation of fluids can be used advantageously to prevent viscous fingering or gravity override. This is achieved by injecting the solvent andlor gas updip and producing downdip at a rate low enough for gravity to keep the fluids segregated. Fingers of solvent or gas are suppressed and sweepout is improved. Field applications of this method have been

Fig. 45.14-Combination waterdrivelmiscibledrive project in low-conformance reservoir provides high oil recovery by water in the nonconformance sections and by miscible displacement from the confor-

Improving Recovery Effkiency Foams or Emulsions

with

mance sections. permeable zone and override or bypass the denser reservoir oil. The combination of these factors in a miscible displacement operation can yield an overall recovery efficiency that is much lower than that of waterflood. This problem has been a principal deterrent to the use of miscible processes. Improving Pattern and Volumetric Sweep Efficiencies With Water During Miscible Displacement In 1957, a method for improving pattern and volumetric sweep (conformance) in miscible displacement operations was proposed. 4o The method consists of injecting LPG, followed by a bank of natural gas to displace the LPG miscibly, and then natural gas and water simultaneously. The injection of the water reduces the relative permeability to gas in the region swept by the LPG slug and increases the viscosity of part of the displacing phase. These two factors combine to lower total mobility of this system, resulting in improved sweep (Fig. 45.14). Further research and field pilot tests have extended this technique to both the slu and/or drive gas in all types of miscible displacement. $4 Water usually is injected alternately with the drive gas and/or the miscible slug (termed WAG). The injection of water with an LPG or CO2 slug can trap a portion of the oil mobilized by the miscible gas, particularly in reservoirs having strong water-wetting characteristics. A low water-to-gas ratio (0.5: 1) is recommended if WAG is required. Also, this type operation is limited to reservoirs in which sufficient injection capacity is available. A tight reservoir would require too many injection wells to inject the necessary volumes of gas and water to meet desirable oil production rates. Two other potential problems with this technique are (1) segregation of the injected fluids into different strata and (2) trapping of oil by mobile water. 45 Fluid injection into selected strata and proportioning of the injected fluids within strata may be helpful in such cases. In laboratory studies it is important to use the actual reservoir fluids and rock to determine the effects of rock wettability on oil mobilization and trapping in the presence of water. Refined oils or single hydrocarbons such as decane do not wet rock to the degree that crude oil does

The mobility of solvents and gas in porous media can be decreased by foaming or emulsifying them with water containing surfactants. 46 Laboratory studies have shown that these foams form selectively in the highly permeable porous channels and thereby tend to reduce fluid channeling. 47,48 Further field testing of this technique is in progress.

Engineering Study
Basic Requirements A detailed engineering investigation is necessary to select and to design the miscible displacement operation properly and to ensure that it will be successful. The following information is generally necessary or desirable as a basis for selecting the operation that will be most economically feasible. Detailed Geology. Core analyses from enough wells are needed to provide adequate areal and vertical distribution of rock properties, fluid saturations, capillary pressure, and waterflood susceptibility data. Information regarding the reservoir structure, size, shape, and dip with particular emphasis on the definition of stratification or zoning conditions is needed also. If the latter is known to exist, an isometric fence diagram of the reservoir (Fig. 45.15) should be constructed that shows all the details of porosity development, shale conditions, etc., which can be obtained from well logs, core analysis, pressure transient tests, and individual well performance. This diagram aids in relating well performances and spacing with reservoir geometry. Phase Behavior of Reservoir Fluids. Laboratory analysis of reservoir oil and gas should be conducted to determine such information as differential and flash vaporization data, liquid and gas viscosities, and hydrocarbon compositions over a wide range of pressures. In many instances, it is necessary to know the PVT relationships of the mixtures comprising the reservoir fluids as well as the possible materials that might be injected. Laboratory displacement tests should be conducted in sandpacked columns (Berea or native cores) to determine: (1) the pressure required for miscible displacement [although correlations such as Fig. 45.10 and those in other references are available, laboratory tests (Fig. 45.16) are the most accurate method to find the MMP]49; (2) the displacement efficiencies expected in

MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT

45-9

Fig.
45.15-Three-dimensional

(fence)

diagram

illustrating general reservoir complexity.

the conforming areas for the LPG, condensing gas, highpressure gas, etc; and (3) injection techniques at the desired operating pressure, temperatures, and for varying concentrations (or compositions) of injected materials. Compatibility of injected materials with reservoir fluids should be determined. COz, LPG products, or other light hydrocarbons will precipitate heavy paraffinic or asphaltic material in certain types of crude oil and may cause a reduction in permeability and a viscosity change in the oil. Past Reservoir Behavior and Estimation of Primary and/or Conventional Secondary Recovery. The natural reservoir recovery mechanism should he evaluated to permit a reliable estimate of future primary recovery. Evaluation of any secondary recovery application in the reservoir is needed also. Existing reservoir conditions should be determined. Past performance in connection with reservoir fluid and core analysis will provide an estimation of the state of the reservoir at the initiation of the miscible displacement project. This will include such essential items as reservoir pressure, fluid saturation distribution, and modeling or simulation of secondary-flooding history. General Applicability of Miscible-Displacement Techniques. Knowledge of the previously mentioned factors, such as reservoir geometry and pressure conditions, can lead to the selection of the miscible process best suited to the reservoir. Availability of injection materials and proximity of CO:!, N2, or gasoline-plant facilities may dictate, in the final analysis, the selection of a specific miscible process. Recovery by Miscible Displacement. Pattern efficiency is defined here as that area1 coverage of the reservoir through which the displacing fluid moves from its source to the producing wells. This factor may be estimated from laboratory model studies or from the literature. 5oS

900 1500 1100 1300 170 TEST PRES (PSIG Fig.

L 1 I I , I I ,

45.16-Laboratory test results for fixed oil composition and fixed temperature in slim tubes.

It must be noted, however, that in the assumption of a pattern efficiency, the effect of unconformities and stratification must be considered. Volumetric sweep efficiency, defined previously, is calculated from the knowledge of the stratification, vertical and area1 variation of the rock properties, and mobility ratios of the displacing fluids to that of the displaced oil. There are several methods being used by engineers. 52 One of these methods is illustrated in the example calculation (see Appendix) with reference to alternative procedures. Displacement efficiency should be determined from laboratory studies. This factor represents the percent recovery from the conforming volume of the reservoir and may range from 80 to 100%. As mentioned previously, it is important to study the actual reservoir rock and fluids when possible to determine the rock wetting characteristics and their effect on displacement efficiency.

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

All the oil that is displaced in a miscible flood may not be produced. The ability of producing wells to capture the mobilized oil must be considered. Total recovery factor, or percent recovery of oil from the entire reservoir, represents the product of the pattern, conformance, displacement, and capture efficiencies. Injectivity project life Injectivity permeability and Productivity of Wells. These affect and have a significant effect on economics. tests in the field or extensive relative measurements may be necessary.

Fig. 46.17-Assumed reservoir for gas injection (inverted ninespot pattern).

Mathematical Simulation. This may be used in proerformance. Finite-difference,53 jecting reservoir modified black-oil s4 finite-element and compositional simulators55,56 ha(le been developed for predicting or history matching flood performance. Streamtube models57,58 and scaled physical models59 also have been developed and may be informative. Program Design. Design of production and injection facilities should be coordinated and used with current operations to the fullest advantage. Economic Evaluation and Comparison. The miscible drive operation and other competitive methods60*6 should be evaluated and compared on an economic basis. This analysis generally governs the final decision. Pilot Operation and Evaluation of Results. In many cases where waterflood operations appear very competitive with miscible drive, a pilot injection program is recommended if a suitable area in the field can be located. The selection of the ultimate program of operation may be delayed pending the results of the pilot, thus reducing the risks inherent in such operations. Field Experience Since the first miscible flooding projects of the early 1950 s, there have been many applications throughout the world of all the miscible processes. Some of the best documented of each of these processes and their variations are listed under General References for Applications of Miscible Processes. More complete information on these is found in the publications listed under General References for Field Tests of Miscible Processes. APPENDIX

TABLE 45.2-CALCULATION OF CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION FOR EXAMPLE RESERVOIR Cumulative Thickness (fu 1 2 3 4 5 6 ii 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 f2 26 :i 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Total

h -83.00.19B0.029 0.057 0.086 0.114 0.143 0.171 0.200 0.229 0.257 0.286 0.314 0.343 0.371 0.400 0.429 0.457 0.466 0.514 0.543 0.571 0.600 0.629 0.657 0.686 0.714 0.743 0.771 0.800 0.829 0.857 0.886 0.914 0.943 0.971 1.000

k 41.0 39.0 31.0 26.0 23.0 19.0 17.0 17.0 14.0 13.0 10.0 7.9 7.0 6.5 6.4 6.2 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.5 4.1 3.6 3.5 3.4 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.8 419.7

c 0.098 0.093 0.074 0.062 0.055 0.045 0.040 0.040 0.033 0.031 0.024 0.019 0.017 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.009

CC nl 0.198 0.296 0.389 0.463 0.525 0.580 0.625 0.665 0.705 0.738 0.769 0.793 0.812 0.829 0.844 0.859 0.874 0.885 0.896 0.907 0.91 a 0.928 0.937 0.945 0.953 0.960 0.967 0.973 0.979 0.984 0.989 0.992 0.995 0.998 1.000

0.008
0.008 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002

Engineering Examples
As indicated in the previous sections, oil recovery and related performance in miscible drive operations will depend mainly on the degree of stratification and permeability distribution existing in the reservoir. Consequently, engineering calculations generally will be reduced to a function of estimating conformance efficiency. In the following examples we have assumed a reservoir under an inverted nine-spot well pattern (see Fig. 45.17), with an average permeability protile and capacity distribution as indicated in Table 45.2. The procedure followed is a modification of a standard water-cut recovery calculation, 62 which is based on the vertical distribution of productive capacity. The calculations for

MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT

45-11

these examples are carried out assuming (I) linear fluid flow with no crossflow, (2) distance of penetration of the miscible front being proportional to permeability, (3) constant pressure drop between the injection and producing wells, (4) S,, (residual oil saturation) behind front equals zero, (5) SCF (free-gas saturation) equals zero, (6) k,/k, (relative-permeability ratio) equals one, thereby defining the mobility ratio as the viscosity ratio of reservoir oil to the displacing gas, and (7) abandonment at a GOR of lC0,OOCVl. High-Pressure Gas Injection and Condensing-Gas Drive For comparison these two processes are calculated together using the basic reservoir data presented in Table 45.3. High-pressure gas injection is assumed to take place at the initial reservoir pressure, whereas the injection pressure for the condensing-gas-drive process is assumed to be at saturation pressure. The calculation of the recovery and producing GOR data are presented in Table 45.4. From this table the fraction of cumulative

TABLE 45.3-BASIC RESERVOIR DATA FOR HIGH-PRESSURE-GAS-INJECTION AND CONDENSING-GAS-DRIVE EXAMPLES

Original reservoir pressure, psig

Saturation pressure, psig Reservoir temperature, OF Original solution GOR, scf/bbl Formation volume factor (reservoir oil) At original pressure At saturation pressure Reservoir oil viscosity, cp Al original pressure At saturation pressure Injection-gas viscosity, cp At original pressure At saturation pressure Formation volume factor for injection gas, bbl/Mscf At original pressure At saturation pressure kg/k,o at displacing front

4,356 2,446 197 1,130 1.675 1.734 0.26 0.22 0.029 0.022 0.74 1.15 1.0

TABLE 45.4-CALCULATION OF RECOVERY AND PRODUCING GOR DATA (High-Pressure Gas Injection and Condensing-Gas Drive)

ht
Curve (1) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 0.95 1.00
HI@-pressure Condensing-gas

Ah

C Curve (3) 0.080 0.135 0.280 0.435 0.630 0.755 0.830 0.880 0.917 0.946 0.972 0.990 0.997 0.000

AC (4) 0.080 0.055 0.145 0.155 0.195 0.125 0.075 0.050 0.037 0.029 0.026 0.018 0.007 0.003

&2) (5) 8.00 5.50 4.83 3.10 1.95 1.25 0.75 0.50 0.37 0.29 0.26 0.18 0.14 0.08 il

---c&i

CuNe

k,

1-C 1 - (3)

k,h,

(7) x(l)
(9) 0.000

k,h,+(l -C) (9) + (8)

(10)

(2)
-0.000--y -

(7) 6.20 5.30 3.80 2.61 1.50 0.95 0.64 0.43 0.33 0.25 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.00

(8)
1.ooo-

0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05

0.005 0.015 0.035 0.075 0.150 0.250 0.350 0.450 0.550 0.650 0.750 0.850 0.925 0.975

0.920 0.865 0.720 0.565 0.370 0.245 0.170 0.120 0.083 0.054 0.028 0.010 0.003 0.000
= 20.3 McWSTB.

0.062 0.106 0.190 0.261 0.300 0.285 0.256 0.215 0.198 0.175 0.144 0.135 0.124 0.000

1.000 0.982 0.971 0.910 0.826 0.670 0.530 0.426 0.335 0.281 0.229 0.172 0.145 0.127 0.000

gas inpction

et original pressure F= 1.0 x 0.2610.029 x 1.675k.74

drive at saturation

pressure F= 1.0x0.22/0.022x1.734/1.15= 15.1 McflSTS.

CF

at

CF at

(l&7) (11) 0.111 0.158 0.183 0.239 0.316 0.447 0.558 0.666 0.779 0.852 0.916 0.955 0.967 0.977 1.ooo

Original Pressure

Saturation Pressure (13) 1.206 2.036 4.222 6.559 9.499 11.384 12.515 13.269 13.827 14.264 14.656 14.927 15.033 15.078

GOR at Original Pressure (12)1(8)+1.13 (14) 1.130 2.911 4.324 9.063 16.784 35.711 63.687 100.230 149.979

GOR at Saturation Pressure (13)/(8)+1.13 (15) 1.130 2.441 3.534 7.058 12.768 26.830 47.596 75.848 111.706

(12)
-

1.624 2.740 5.683 8.829 12.787 15.324 16.847 17.861 18.612 19.201 19.729 20.094 20.236 20.297

45-12

PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

10.0 9

0 .l

.2 .3 A .5 .6
.7 .8 .9 h - FRAC. OF CUM. THICKNESS

.l 0
1.0

0
0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
OIL RECOVERY-PER CENT

Fig. 45.18-Permeability and capacity distribution vs. sandthickness fraction.

Fig. 45.19-Comparison of oil recoveries by high-pressure gas injection and condensing-gas drive vs. producing GOR.

thickness, h, is plotted as a function of dimensionless permeability, kD, and fraction of total capacity, C. These data are illustrated in Fig. 45.18. The recovery and GOR data are shown in Fig. 45.19. Note that, at an assumed abandonment ratio of 100,000 scf/bbl. recovery by condensing-gas drive was indicated to be 74.2% of the oil existing in the pattern area. The corresponding recovery for high-pressure gas injection was found to be only 66.5 % . The difference in recovery between these two methods is essentially a result of the difference in the compressibility factors of the displacing gas at the two pressures. Time-Rate Performance. Time-rate performance was not calculated for all the examples presented since it would be a function of the well productivity. However, it must be pointed out that the excess pressure available in the high-pressure gas-injection process would yield higher well productivity and a shorter life, which could lead to more favorable economics. Recovery of LPG Products. Recovery of LPG products contained initially in the injected gas under the condensing-gas-drive process was not illustrated. This item, however, would be a function of the following factors: (I) percent recovery from the reservoir (estimated
TABLE 45.5-BASIC RESERVOIR DATA FOR MISCIBLESLUG INJECTION EXAMPLE Reservoir pressure, psig Saturation pressure, psig Reservoir temperature, OF Formation volume factor for reservoir oil, RBlSTB Solution GOR, scf/bbl Stock-tank oil gravity, API Reservoir oil viscosity at 1,500 psig, cp injection gas viscosity at 1,500 psig, cp Formation volume factor for injection gas, RB/Mcf k,/k, at displacing front Reservoir-gas saturation. o/o Interstitial water saturation. O/O Producing GOR at initiation of injection, scf/bbl Es;m$d;PG slug volume for sweep pattern area,

from GOR and oil-recovery data), (2) gasoline-plant recovery efficiency, and (3) plant ownership of recoverable liquids. These factors, in addition to the high cost of LPG, become critical in an economic comparison of recovery processes. Volume of Gas Injected. The volume of gas injected is estimated on a reservoir volume in/reservoir volume produced basis. The volume of rich gas injected in condensing-gas-drive operations will depend on an evaluation of performance as related to the zones of stratification. To achieve the maximum effect from miscible displacement it is necessary to inject sufficient rich gas to establish a miscible front in the least permeable zone. Miscible-Slug Injection

197 1.218 330 35 0.70 0.015 1.966 1.0 15 22 3,000 5

1,500

To illustrate the miscible-slug process the reservoir in the previous examples was assumed to have been depleted to 1,500 psig. Table 45.5 presents a list of the pertinent reservoir data that existed for this condition. The recovery and GOR performance was calculated using the capacity distribution data (Cols. 1 through 11) in Table 45.4 and the A factor, as calculated from the fluid data. These results are summarized in Table 45.6 and illustrated in Fig. 45.20. It is noted that the recovery at a GOR of 100,000/l was found to be 58.2% of the oil existing in the pattern area. This is a somewhat lower value than those indicated for high-pressure gas injection and condensing-gas drive. The difference is attributed to the more unfavorable mobility ratio at the lower pressure. In this example, the GOR has decreased to approximately solution ratio as breakthrough was approached. It was assumed that all the free-gas saturation was pmduced during this interval. The size of the LPG slug injected was assumed to be 5% of the HCPV in the pattern area. This volume is within the range (2 to 10%) dictated by economics but does not include a substantial safety factor. The volume of LPG slug produced was not calculated for this exam-

MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT

45-13

TABLE

45.6-CALCULATION OF RECOVERY AND PRODUCING GOR DATA MISCIBLE-SLUGINJECTION EXAMPLE

C Curve*
0.000 0.080 0.135 0.280 0.435 0.630 0.755 0.830 0.880 0.917 0.946 0.972 0.990 0.997 1.000

1-C 1.000 0.920 0.865 0.720 0.565 0.370 0.245 0.170 0.120 0.083 0.054 0.028 0.010 0.003 0.000

N,*
0.111

CF* 2.312 3.902 8.092 12.572 18.207 21.820 23.987 25.432 26.501 27.339 28.091 28.611 28.813 28.900

RPt
0.330 2.843 4.841 11.569 22.581 49.538 89.391 141.430

0.158 0.183 0.239 0.316 0.447 0.558 0.666 0.779 0.852 0.916 0.955 0.967 0.977 1.000

80 60

From Table 45 4 i==l x0.7010.015x 1.218/1.966=26.9 MCWSTE tR D = Fourth CoLlSecond 201.+ 33011,000

10

20

30

40

50 CENT

60

70

OIL RECOVERY-PER

ple, but it can be estimated by multiplying the conformance efficiency at abandonment by the volume of slug injected. The net recoverable LPG, similar to that of condensing-gas-drive operations, would be reduced by the gasoline-plant recovery efficiency and plantownership percentage. The volume of dry gas injected is estimated on a reservoir volume in/reservoir volume out basis. Alternative Calculation Procedures

Fig. 45.20-011

recovery

vs. producing

GOR

for LPG slug

injection.

F= h= h=

k&,, XCLJCL~ XBJB,

cumulative thickness, fraction of total thickness average cumulative thickness, fraction of total thickness permeability, millidarcies AC/Ah =dimensionless permeability [kDh +( 1 - C)]lk~ = fraction of total oil recovery miscible pressure, psia CA/( 1 -C) +R, =producing gas-oil ratio, Mcf/STB solution GOR equivalent oil production

Alternative procedures for predicting performance of miscible drive operations are found in the literature. Several investigators have presented solutions to the permeability-stratification problem in the analysis of waterflooding which may be modified to fit miscibledrive processes. 63-68 Other authors have presented their treatments with respect to gas cycling, which in itself is an example of miscible displacement. 69-72For direct application to miscible drive operations, theoretical analyses and equations for linear displacement have been presented that offer a direct means for describing performance. 68.73 An excellent example that compares the results of calculated and actual performance of a pilot LPG flood has been published. 21 In this example the reservoir was divided into several zones of varying permeability with radial-flow forms of Darcy s law used to calculate performance. Mathematical simulators commonly arc used today for designing and predicting reservoir performance of miscible floods. Two examples are (1) a vaporizing gas drive in a moderately stratified reservoir by use of a compositional simulator74.75 and (2) a condensing gas drive in a downward displacement in a reef by use of a black-oil simulator. 76

k= kD = N, = PM = R, = R., = l-C=

References
I. Clark, N.J. et al.: Miscible Drive-Its tion, J. Pet. Tech. (June 1958) 1 I-20.

Theory and Applica-

Nomenclature
C = capacity, fraction of total capacity = cumulative capacity, fraction of total C L771 capacity CF = equivalent gas production

2. Morse, R.A.: British Patent No. 696524 (1953). 3 Koch, H.A. Jr. and Slobod. R.L.: Miscible Slug Process. Truns.. AIME (1957) 210, 40-47. 4. Hall, H.N. and Geffen, T.M.: A Laboratory Study of Solvent Flooding, Trarzs.. AIME (1957) 210, 48-57. 5. Gatlin. C. and Slobod, R.L.: The Alcohol Slug Process for Increasing Oil Recovery. Trans., AIME (1960) 219. 46-53. 6. Gogarty, W.B. and Tosch, W.D.: Miscible-Type Waterfloodmg: Oil Recovery With Micellar Solutions, J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1968) 1407-14: Trans., AIME, 243. I. Helm. L.W.: Use of Soluble Oils for Oil Recovery. J. Pet. Twh. (Dec. 1971) 1475-83; Trans., AIME. 251. a. Craig, F.F. Jr. and Owens, W.W.: Miscible Slug Flooding-A Review. J. Pet. Tech. (April 1960) 1 I-15. 9. Brown. G.G. t r al.: Natural Gasoline and the Volatile Hydrocarhow, Natural Gasoline Assn. of America (1948). IO. Hutchmson, C.A. Jr. and Braun, P.H.: Phase Relations of Miwble Displacement in Oil Recovery, AlChEJ. (1961) 7, 64 Il. Stone. H.L. and Crump. J.S.: Effect of Gas Composition Upon Oil Recovery by Gas Dnve. Trurts., AIME (IY56) 207. 105-10.

45-14

PETROLEUM

ENGINEERING

HANDBOOK

12. Kehn. D.M.. Pyndus, G.T.. and Gaskell, M.H.: Laboratory Evaluation of Prospective Enriched Gas Drive Projects, Trans., AlME (1958) 213, 382285. 13. Clark, N.J., Schultz, W.P.. and Shearin, H.M.: New Injection Method Affords Total Oil Recovety, Pet. Engr. (Oct. 1956) B-4.5. 14. Wharton. L.P. and Kieschnick. W.F. Jr.: Oil Recovery by High Pressure Gas Injection, Oil and Gas J. (April 1950) 48, 78-89. IS. Katz, D.L.: Possibility of Cycling Deep Depleted Oil Reservoirs after Compression to a Single Phase, Trans., AIME (1952) 195. 175-82. 16. Griffeth, B.L. and Hollrah, V.M.: Report on Field Trial of High Pressure Gas, Oil and Gas J. (June 1952) 86-93. 17. Slobod, R.L. and Koch, H.A. Jr.. High Pressure Gas Injection-Mechanism of Recovery Increase, Drill and Prod. Prac., API (1953) 82. Behavior and Phase 18. Wilson, J.F.: Miscible Displacement-Flow Relationships for a Partially Depleted Reservoir, Trans., AIME (1960) 219: 223-28. 19. Koch, H.A. Jr. and Hutchinson, C.A.: Miscible Displacements of Reservoir Oil Using Flue Gas, J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1958) 7-19; Trtins., AIME (1958) 213. 20. Blackwell, R.J., Rayne, J.R., and Terry, W.M.: Factors Influencing Efficiency of Miscible Displacement, J. Per. Tech. (Jan. 1959) l-8; Trans.. AIME (1959) 216. 21. lusten. J.J. ef al.: The Pembina Miscible Displacement Pilot and Analysis of Its Performance. J. Per. Tech. (March 1960) 38-45; Trans., AIME, 29. 22. Rushing, M.D. et al.: Miscible Displacement with Nitrogen, Pet. Eng. (Nov. 1977) 26-30. 23. Sage, B.H. and Lacey, W.N.: Some Properties of the tighrer
Hydrocarbons, Hydrogen Sulfide, and Carbon Dioxide,

39

40

41 42

43

44.

45.

46. 47. 48 49.

50.

Monograph, Research Project 37, API, Dallas (1955). 24. Helm. L.W. and Josendal, V.A.: Mechanisms of Oil Displacement by Carbon Dioxide, J. Per. Tech. (Dec. 1974) 1427-35; Trans., AIME, 257. 25. Helm. L.W. and Josendal. V.A.: Discussion of Determination and Prediction of CO> Minimum Miscibility Pressure. J. Per. Tech. (May 1980) 870-71. 26. Orr. F.M. Jr. and Silva. M.K.: Eouilibrium Phase Compositions of CO? /Hydrocarbon Mixtures-Part I : Mixtures Measurement bv Continuous Multiple Contact Experiment, Sot. Per. Eng. J. (April 1983) 272-80: 27. Shelton, J.L. and Yarborough. L.: Multiple Phase Behavior in Porous Media During CO, or Rich Gas Flooding, J. Per. Tech. (Sept. 1977) 1171-78. 28. Helm. L.W. and Josendal. V.A.: Effect of Oil Composition on Miscible-Type Displacement by Carbon Dioxide, Sot. Pet. Eng. J. (Feb. 1982) 87-98. 29. Metcalfe. R.S.: Effects of Impurities on Minimum Miscibility Pressures and Minimum Enrichment Levels for CO, and RichGas Displacements, Sot. Per Eng. J. (April 1982) 219-25. 30. Jacoby. R.H. and Rzasa. M.J.: Equilibrium Vaporization Ratios for Nitrogen. Methane. Catbon Dioxide, Ethane and Hydrogen Sulphide in Absorber Oil-Natural Gas and Crude Oil-Natural Gas Systems. Trans.. AIME (1952) 195, 99-110. 31. Simon, R.. Rosman, A., and Zana, E.: Phase Behavior Pmperties of CO?--Reservoir Oil Systems. Sot. Pet. Eng. J. (Feb. 1978) 20-26. 32. Perkins, T.K. and Johnston, O.C.: A Review of Diffusion and Dispersion in Porous Media, SOL-.Pet. Eng. J. (March 1963) 70-84: Trans.. AIME. 228. 33. Blackwell. R.J.: Laboratory Studies of Microscopic Dispersion Phenomena, Ser. Per. Eng. J. (March 1962) 1-8; Trans., AIME, 225. 34. Warren. J.E. and Skiba. F.F.: Macroscooic Distxrsion. Sot. Per. Eng. J. (Sept. 1964) 215-30; Trans.. AIME, 231. 35. van der Poel, C.: Effect of Lateral Diffusivity on Miscible Disolacement in Horizontal Reservoirs. Sot. Per.. Enp. <, J. (Dec. 1982) 317-26: Trans., AIME, 225. 36. Lacey. J.W., Draper, A.L.. and Binder, G.G. Jr.: Miscible Fluid Displacement in Porous Media, J. Per. Tech. (April 1958) 76-79: Trans.. AIME. 213. 37. van Rosenberg, D.V.: Mechamcs of Steady State Smgle Phase Fluid Displacement from Pomus Media, J. Am. Chem. Sot (March 1956) 2, 55-59. 38. Offeringa, J., and van der Poel. C.: Displacement ot Oil from Porous Media by Miscible Liquids, J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1954) 37-43; Truns.. AIME, 201.

51. 52. 53. 54.

55.

56. 57.

58

59

60 61 62 63 64. 65.

Everett, J.P., Gooch, F.W. Jr., and Calhoun, J.C. Jr.: LiquidLiquid Displacement in Porous Media as Affected by the LiquidLiquid Viscosity Ratio and Liquid-Liquid Miscibility, Trans., AIME (1950) 189, 215-24. Caudle, B.H. and Dyes, A.B.: Improving Miscible Displacement by Gas-water Injection, Trans., AIME (1958) 213, 281-84. Habetmann, B.: The Efficiency of Miscible Displacement as a Function of Mobility Ratio, Trans., AIME (1960) 219. 26472. Dykstta, H. and Parsons, R.L.: The Prediction of Oil Recovery by Water Flood, Secondary Recovery of Oil in the United States. second edition, API, New York City (19.50) 160. Gardner, G.H., Downie, J., and Kendall, H.A.: Gravity Segregation of Miscible Fluids in Linear Models, Sot. Per. Eng. J. (June 1962) 95-104; Trans , AIME. 225. Blackwell, R.J. er of.: Recovery of Oil by Displacement With Water-Solvent Mixtures, Trans., AIME (1960) 219. 293-300; Miscible Processes, Reprint Series, SPE, Dallas (1965) 8. Tiffin, D.L. and Ye&g, W.F.: Effects of Mobile Water on Multiple-Contact Miscible Gas Displacements, Sot. Per. Eng. J. (June 1983) 447-55. Fried, A.N.: The Foam Drive Process for Increasing the Recovery of Oil, RI 5866, USBM (1961). Bernard, G.G.: Effect of Foam on Recovery of Oil by Gas Drive, Prod. Monrhly (1963) 27, No. 1, 18-21. Helm, L.W.: Foam Injection Test in the Siggins Field, IIlinois, J. Per. Tech. (Dec. 1970) 1499-1506. Yellig, W.F. and Metcalfe, R.S.: Determination and Prediction of CO* Minimum Miscibility Pressures, J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1980) 160-68. Dyes, A.B.. Caudle, B.H., and Erickson, R.A.: Oil Production After Breakthrough as Influenced by Mobility Ratio, Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 81-86. Muskat, M.: Flow of Homogeneous Fluids Through Porous Media, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1937). Claridge, E.L.: CO, Flooding Strategy in a Communicating Layered Reservoir, J. Per. Tech. (Dec. 1982) 2746-56. Aziz, K. and Settari, A.: Pewoleum Reservoir Simulation, Applied Science Publishers Ltd., London (1979). Peaceman, D.W. and Rachford, H.H. Jr.: Numerical Calculation of Multidimensional Miscible Displacement, Sot. Pet. Eng. J. (Dec. 1962) 321-39; Trans., AIME, 225. Price, H.S. and Donahue, D.A.T.: Isothermal Displacement Processes with Interphase Mass Transfer, Sot. Per. Eng. J. (June 1967) 205-20; Trans., AIME, 240. Coats, K.H.: An Equation of State Compositional Model, Sot. Pef. Eng. J. (Oct. 1980) 363-76. Higgins, R.V. and Leighton. A.J.: A Computer Method to Cai&late Two-Phase Flow in Any Irregularly Bounded Porous Medium, J. Per. Tech. (June 1962) 679-83; Trans., AIME, 225. Faulkner, B.L.: Reservoir Engineering Design of a Tertiary Miscible Gas Drive Pilot Project. paper SPE 5539 presented at the 1975 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Sept. 28-Oct. I. Pozzi, A.L. and Blackwell, R.J.: Design of Laboratory Models for Study of Miscible Displacement, S&. Per. Eng. j. (March 1963) 28-40: Trans., AIME, 228. Stalkup, F.I. Jr., Miscible Displacemen?, Monograph Series, SPE, Dallas (1983) 8. Miscible Processes, Reprint Series, SPE, Dallas (1983) 8. Stiles, W.E : Use of Permeability Distribution in WaterRood Calculations, Trans., AIME (1949) 186, 9-13. Calhoun, J.C. Jr.: Fundamenrals of Reservoir Engineering. U. of Oklahoma Press, Norman (1953) 360. Muskat, M.: The Effect of Permeability Stratification in Complete Water Drive Systems, Trans., AIME (1950) 189. 349-58. Dykstra, H. and Parsons, R.L.: The Prediction of Oil Recovery by
Walerflooding Secondaq Recovery

of

Oil in the United States,

second edition, API, New York City (1950) 160. 66. Johnson, C.E. Jr.: Prediction of Oil Recovery by Water Flood-A Simplified Graphical Treatment of the Dykstrr-Parsons Method, Truns., AIME (1956) 207, 345-46. 67. Suder. F.E. and Calhoun, J.C. Jr.: Waterflood Calculations. Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1949) 260. 68. Johnson, E.F. and Welge. H.J.: An Analysis of the Linear Displacement of Oil by Gas Driven Solvent. paper 906-G presented at the 1957 SPE Annual Meeting, Dallas, Feb. 24-28.

MISCIBLE DISPLACEMENT

45-15

69. Muskat. M.: Effect of Permeability Stratification in Cychng Operations. Trans., AIME (1949) 179, 313-28. 70. Lindbad, E.N., Standing. M.B., and Parsons, R.L.: Calculated Recoveries by Cycling from a Retrograde Reservoir of Variable Permeability, Trans., AIME (1948) 174, 165-90. 71. Hurst, W.. and van Everdingen, A.F.: Performance of Distillate Reservoirs in Gas Cycling. Trans., AIME (1946) 165, 36-51. 72. Sheldon, W.C.: Calculating Recovery by Cycling a Retrograde Condensate Reservoir, J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1959) 29-34. 73. Gardner, G.H.F.: Equations of Motion for A Linear Miscible Displacement, PAPER 902-G presented at the 1957 SPE Annual Meeting, Dallas, Feb. 24-28. 74. Warner, H.R. Jr. ef al.: University Block 31 Field Study: Part I-Middle Devonian Reservoir History Match, J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1979) 962-70. 75. Warner. H.R. Jr., Hardy, J.H., and Davidson, C.D.: University Block 31 Field Studv: Part 2-Reservoir and Gas Plant Performance Predictions,J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1979) 971-78. 76. Gillund, G.N. and Patel, C.: Depletion Studies of Two Contrasting D-2 Reefs. paper 80-31-37 presented at the 1980 Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Sot. of CIM. Calgary. May 25-28.

Pontious, S.B. and Tham, M.J.: North Cross (Devonian) Unit CO, Flood-Review of Flood Performance and Numerical Simulation, J. Pet. Tech. (Dec. 1978) 1706-14. Sessions. R.E.: Small Propane Slug Proving Success in Slaughter Field Lease. J. Per. Tech. (Jan. 1963) 31-36.

Field Tests of Miscible Processes

Bleakley, W.B.: Journal Survey Shows Recovery Projects Up. Oil urn! Gus J. (March 1974) 69-78. Brannan, G. and Whittington. H.M. Jr.: Enriched Gas Miscible Flooding-A Case History of the Levelland Unit Secondary Miscible Project, J. PH. Tech. (Aug. 1977) 919-24. Burt. R.A. Jr.: High Pressure Miscible Gas Displacement Project, Bridger Lake Unit. Summit County, paper SPE 3487 presented at the 1971 SPE Annual Meeting. New Orleans, Oct. 3-6. Gemet. J.M. and Brigham. W.E.: Meadow Creek Unit Lakota B Combination Water-Miscible Flood, J. Per. Tech. (Sept. 1964) 993-97. Glasser, S.R.: History and Evaluation of an Experimental Misctble Flood in the Rio Bravo Field, Prod. Monthly (Jan. 1964) 17-20. Griffith, J.D., Baiton, N., and Steffensen, R.J.: Ante Creek-A Miscible Flood Using Separator Gas and Water Injection, J. PH. Tech. (Oct. 1970) 1232-41. Griffith, J.D. and Cyca, L.G: Performance of South Swan Hills Miscible Flood, J. Pet. Tech. (July 1981) 1319-26. Griffith, J.D. and Home, A.L.: South Swan Hills Solvent Flood, Proc., Ninth World Pet. Cong.. Tokyo (1975) 4. 269-78. Harvey, M.T., Shelton, J.L. and Kelm. C.H.: Feld Injectivity Experiences with Miscible Recovery Projects Using Alternate Rich Gas and Water Injection, J. Per. Tech (Sept 1977) 1051-55. Kloepfer, C.V. and Griffith, J.D.: Solvent Placement Improvement by Pre-Injection of Water, Lobstick Cardium Unit Pembma Field. paper SPE 948 presented at the 1964 SPE Annual Meeting. Houston Oct. 1 I-14. Lane. L.C., Teubner, W.G., andCampbell. A.W.: Gravity Segregation in a Propane Slug-Miscible Displacement Project, Baskington Field, J. Per. Tech. (June 1965) 661-63. Macon, R.S.: Design and Operation of the Levelland Unit CO> Injection Facility, paper SPE 8410 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Las Vegas. Sept. 23-26. Meltzer, B.D., Hurdle, J.M.. and Cassingham. R.W.: An Efficient Gas Displacement Project-Raleigh Field, Mississippi, J. Pet. Tech. (May 1965) 509-14. Palmer, F.S., Nute. A.J., and Peterson, R.L.: Implementation of a Gravity-Stable Miscible CO, Flood in the 8000-Foot Sand, Bay St. Elaine Field, J. Pet. Tech. (Jan. 1984) 101-10. Pottier, J. ef nl.: The High Pressure Injection of Miscible Gas at Hassi-Messaoud, Proc., Seventh World Pet. Gong., Mexico City (1967) 3, 533-44. Thrash, J.C.: Twofreds Field-Tertiary Oil Recovery Project, paper SPE 8382 presented at the 1979 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Las Vegas. Sept. 23-26. Tittle. R.M. and From, K.T.: Success of Flue Gas Program at Neale Field, paper SPE 1907 presented at the 1960 SPE Annual Meeting, Houston, Oct. l-4.

General References
Applications of Miscible Processes
Baugh, E.G.: Performance of Seeligson Zone 20-B Enriched GasDrive Project. J. Per. Tech. (March 1960) 29-33. Blanton. J.R., McCaskill, N., and Herbeck, E.F.: Performance of a Propane Slug Pilot in a Watered-Out Sand-South Ward Field, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1970) 120914. Christian, L.D. ef al.: Planning a Tertiary Oil-Recovery Project for JayiLEC Fields Unit, J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1981) 1535-44. DesBrisay. C.L. et al.: Miscible Flood Performance of the Intisar D Field, Libyan Arab Republic, J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1975) 935-43. DesBrisay, C.L. et al.: Review of Miscible Flood Performance, Intisar D Field, Socialist People s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, J. Per. Tech. (Aug. 1982) 1651-60. Hansen, P.W.: A CO;, Tertiary Recovery Pilot, Little Creek Field, Mississippi, paper SPE 6747 presented at the 1977 SPE Annual Techmcal Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Oct. 9-12. Herbeck, D.F., and Blanton, J.R.: Ten Years of Miscible Displacement in Block 31 Field, J. Pet. Tech. (June 1961) 543-49. Helm, L. W. and O Brien, L.J.: Carbon Dioxide Test at the MeadStrawn Field, J. Pet. Tech. (April 1971) 431-42. Helm, L.W.: Propane-Gas-Water Miscible Floods in Watered-Out Areas of the Adena Field, Colorado, J. Pet. Tech. (Oct. 1972) 1264-70. Jenks, L.H., Campbell, J.B., and Binder, G.G. Jr.: A Field Test of Gas-Driven Liquid Propane Method of Oil Recovery, Trans., AIME (1957) 210, 34-39. Kane, A.V.: Performance Review of a Large Scale CO,-WAG Enhanced Recovery Project, SACROC Unit-Kelly Snyder Field, J. Per. Tech. (Feb. 1979) 217-31. Lackland, S.D. and Hutford, G.T.: Advanced Technology Improves Recovery at Failway, J. Pet. Tech. (March 1973) 354-58. Marts, D.G.: Field Results of Miscible Displacement Program Using Liqmd Propane Driven by Gas, Parks Field Unit, Midland County, Texas, J. Pet. Tech. (April 1961) 327-32.