SPE 97650

Methodology for Miscible Gas Injection EOR Screening

G.F. Teletzke, SPE, P.D. Patel, SPE, and A.L. Chen, SPE, ExxonMobil Upstream Research

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Improved Oil Recovery
Conference in Asia Pacific held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 56 December 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Miscible gas injection is the most widely applied light oil
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) process. A methodology, based
on well-established physical principles, has been developed
for estimating the conditions under which gas will be miscible
with oil. The methodology enables rapid screening of a range
of potential gas injectants (such as CO2, enriched hydrocarbon
gas, N2, or H2S) through the use of readily available gas and
oil properties.
The methodology has been applied to
numerous reservoirs worldwide.
An overview of the
methodology is provided along with an illustration of its
application to screening of gas injection EOR for the Malay
Basin.
The methodology makes use of a correlation1 that can be
used to rapidly estimate miscible or near-miscible residual oil
saturation, Sorm, minimum miscibility pressure (MMP), or
minimum miscibility enrichment (MME) for a wide range of
injected gases, crude oils, temperature and pressure
conditions. The correlation is based on representation of the
physical and chemical properties of the crude oil and injected
gas through Hildebrand solubility parameters.
Thirty-four offshore reservoirs operated by either
ExxonMobil Exploration and Production Malaysia Inc.
(EMEPMI) or production sharing contract (PSC) partners
were screened for gas injection EOR. Potential injection gases
included pure CO2, CO2 diluted with methane, field separator
gas, CO2 enriched with LPG, and separator gas enriched with
LPG. A spreadsheet was created to facilitate calculation of
MMP or MME using the solubility parameter correlation for a
large number of reservoirs and potential injection gases. The
correlation was useful for ranking reservoirs and potential
injectants with respect to gas injection EOR potential and
identifying which reservoirs to carry forward for in-depth
laboratory and simulation evaluation.

In general, the predictions of the correlation compare

reasonably with the more costly experimental data obtained in
subsequent detailed evaluation.
Introduction
Gas injection is the most widely applied EOR process for light
oils. Oil recoveries for gas injection processes are usually
greatest when the process is operated under conditions where
the gas can become miscible with the reservoir oil. The
primary objective of miscible gas injection is to improve local
displacement efficiency and reduce residual oil saturation
below the levels typically obtained by waterflooding.
Examples of miscible gas injectants are CO2 or N2 at
sufficiently high pressure, dry gas enriched with sufficient
quantities of LPG components, and sour or acid gases
containing H2S.
The conditions under which gas becomes miscible with oil
(MMP or MME) are most commonly determined in the
laboratory using slim-tube experiments. Phase behavior
measurements, in combination with compositional simulation,
can also be used to determine miscibility conditions.
However, slim-tube and phase behavior measurements can be
time consuming and costly, especially in situations where
many potential gas injectants and reservoirs need to be
evaluated.
A number of correlations have been proposed for
estimating MMP or MME when experimental data are not
available. The correlations can also be used to define the
conditions to be used in PVT and slim-tube tests, thereby
minimizing the time and cost of the laboratory program.
Lange1 proposed a correlation that can be used to predict
MMP or MME for a wide range of injected gases, crude oils,
temperatures, and pressures. The correlation is based on
representation of the physical and chemical properties of the
crude oil and injected gas through Hildebrand solubility
parameters. It uses readily available gas and oil properties and
appears to be applicable to any injected gas composition,
which are distinct advantages over many other predictive
schemes.
This paper describes the application of the solubility
parameter correlation to screening of 34 offshore reservoirs in
the Malay Basin. Potential injection gases included pure CO2,
CO2 diluted with methane, field separator gas, CO2 enriched
with LPG, and separator gas enriched with LPG. The
predictions of the correlation are compared with the
predictions of other correlations and with available
experimental measurements of MMP and MME for the
reservoirs of interest.

Miscibility Correlations
A variety of correlations1-9 to predict miscibility conditions
have been published in the literature, and in general, these
miscibility correlations relate MMP for a given injectant to
reservoir temperature and some measure of live oil
composition.
Most correlations2-6 for estimating MMP for CO2 are
empirically derived from experimental data. The applicability
of some correlations3,4 is limited by the narrow range of
temperatures and/or oil compositions in the experimental data
set, while other correlations2,5,6 require a detailed
compositional analysis of live oil to calculate correlation input
parameters, such as molecular weight of the C5+ fraction and
mole fraction of methane. A number of correlations5,6 have
been extended to account for impurities (e.g., methane) in the
CO2 injectant, which usually increase MMP. More recently,
Johns and Orr10 described an analytical theory for predicting
miscibility using an equation-of-state (EOS) characterization
for a given gas-oil system, and based on predictions from this
analytical theory, Yuan, et al.7 developed MMP correlations
for pure and impure CO2.
To estimate MMP for enriched hydrocarbon gas, Benham,
et al.8 assumed a simple miscibility criterion based on pseudoternary diagrams to generate graphical correlations relating
MMP to temperature and composition of oil and injectant.
Later, Glaso9 developed equations based on these graphical
correlations and extended the correlation to estimate MMP for
CO2. Estimating the MMP for a given enriched hydrocarbon
gas is relatively straightforward with these correlations, while
estimating MME can require an iterative process.
The focus of this work is the solubility parameter
correlation1, which is based on an empirically derived
miscibility criterion shown to be applicable over a wide range
of reservoir conditions, oil compositions, and gas injectants.
In addition to its robustness, the solubility parameter
correlation requires only live oil molecular weight (more
rigorous calculations of the solubility parameter taking into
account the oil's detailed chemical composition are also
possible). Finally, the procedure for estimating MME with the
correlation is just as easy as that for estimating MMP.
Miscibility predictions from the solubility parameter
correlation are compared with predictions from other
published correlations.
Solubility Parameter Correlation for Estimation of
Miscibility Conditions
The methodology is based on a correlation1 that can be used to
predict Sorm for a wide range of injected gases, crude oils,
temperatures, and pressures. The correlation is based on
representation of the physical and chemical properties of the
crude oil and injected gas through Hildebrand solubility
parameters. The solubility parameter concept has been widely
used to judge the "goodness" of a solvent for a solute, such
that a small difference in solubility parameters between a
solute and a solvent suggests that the solute may dissolve in
the solvent. The solubility parameter of a high-pressure gas
depends primarily on its reduced density, which can be
estimated with an EOS calculation. The solubility parameter
of a crude oil depends primarily on its molecular weight,

SPE 97650

which can be obtained from a routine PVT analysis of the

reservoir oil.
Figure 1 summarizes the results of 45 reservoir-conditions
tertiary coreflood tests used to develop the correlation1. The
tests used eight crude oils in carbonate and sandstone cores
with common EOR gases (CO2, N2, methane, and enriched
methane). Results of the tests fall along a narrow band when
plotted against the solubility parameter difference between gas
and oil. The regression line indicates the best-fit trend. A
solubility parameter difference of about 3.0 corresponds to the
MMP or MME as determined by laboratory slim-tube
measurements. On average, Sorm = 0.08 at the MMP or MME
point.
Gas Injection Screening for Malay Basin Reservoirs
Reservoir Properties
Thirty-four offshore reservoirs operated by either
EMEPMI or PSC partners were screened for gas injection
EOR. The reservoirs all contain light oils with API gravities
ranging from 28 to 55, live oil viscosities between 0.2 and 2.0
cp, and solution GORs ranging from 230 to 1150 scf/STB.
Reservoir temperatures range from 170 to 252F and current
reservoir pressures range from 1200 to 2600 psia. Key
properties of each reservoir are tabulated in Appendix A.
Potential injection gases included pure CO2, CO2 diluted with
methane, field separator gas, CO2 enriched with LPG, and
separator gas enriched with LPG. The objective of this
screening exercise was to rank the reservoirs and potential
injectants with respect to gas injection EOR potential and
identify which reservoirs to carry forward for in-depth
laboratory and simulation evaluation.
Screening Methodology
A spreadsheet was created to facilitate calculation of MMP
and MME for a large number of reservoirs and potential
injection gases. For each reservoir, temperature, current
pressure, and current live oil molecular weight were entered
into the spreadsheet. The oil solubility parameter oil for each
reservoir was estimated using temperature T and oil molecular
weight M in the relationship provided by Lange:
oil = 0.01M + 6.97 - 0.00556T

(1)

where oil has units (cal/cm3)0.5 and T is in degrees Fahrenheit.

More rigorous calculations of the oil solubility parameter,
taking into account the detailed chemical composition of the
oil, are possible1, but this simplified approach was considered
sufficient for this screening application.
As outlined by Lange, the solubility parameter for the
injected gas was estimated by first calculating the solubility
parameter for each pure component (e.g., CO2, methane,
propane) in the injectant. For components lighter than butane,
the solubility parameter is a function of the component's
critical pressure Pc and the ratio of density to critical density
c:
g,i = 0.122 (i / c,i) Pc,i0.5

(2)

SPE 97650

where g,i has units (cal/cm3)0.5 and Pc is in psia. The only

variable that depends on temperature and pressure is the
density, which is interpolated from a table relating component
densities to temperature and pressure.
The table was
generated from an in-house fluid properties prediction
program. The solubility parameter for butane was estimated
from an expression analogous to that for the oil solubility
parameter:11
g,i = 7.42 - 0.00556T

(3)

After calculating the solubility parameter for each pure

component, the solubility parameter for the injectant was
estimated by weighting each pure component solubility
parameter by the component's volume fraction at reservoir
conditions.
The solubility parameter correlation predicts miscibility
when the solubility parameter difference between the oil and
gas injectant is about 3 (cal/cm3)0.5. Based on Lange's work,
the miscibility criterion was extended to 3 0.4 (cal/cm3)0.5 in
order to bound the solubility parameter predictions. To
estimate MMP for a given injectant, pressure was varied until
the miscibility criterion was satisfied. To estimate MME at
current reservoir pressure, the enrichment level of the gas
injectant (i.e., volume fraction of LPG at reservoir conditions)
was varied until the same miscibility criterion was satisfied.
Screening Results
Miscibility with Available Injection Gases
The screening results are tabulated in Appendix A. Figure 2
summarizes the solubility parameter correlation estimates of
MMP for selected reservoirs and three potential injection
gases. The orange bars describe the range of predictions for a
miscibility criterion of 3 0.4 (cal/cm3)0.5. The five reservoirs
included in the figure are all relatively mature and have
undergone secondary recovery via waterflood. As expected,
the MMP for Tapis separator gas (80 mole% methane) is
greater than that for pure CO2. The third injectant is a CO2rich gas (30 mole% methane) from the Palas K reservoir. As a
result of its high methane content, Palas K gas requires higher
pressures than pure CO2 for miscibility. The correlation
suggests that current reservoir pressure is below the MMP for
all three gases in the five selected reservoirs.
The MMP for CO2 in the Tapis Lower J reservoir was
measured through slim-tube experiments. The slim-tube was a
sand-packed tube (12.192 m long and 0.544 cm in diameter)
filled with crude oil at reservoir temperature. Gas was
injected at several pressures, and the oil recovery was
measured as a function of time. The MMP was defined as
95% oil recovery after injecting 1.2 pore volumes of gas. This
point is plotted as a yellow diamond in Figure 2.
An in-house compositional reservoir simulator was used to
simulate these experiments and estimate the MMP for other
injection gases. The simulation uses a volume-translated
Peng-Robinson EOS to model the fluid phase behavior. Using
an in-house fluid properties prediction program, parameters in
the EOS model were adjusted to fit PVT and swelling test data
for oil from the Tapis Lower J when mixed with CO2,
separator gas, enriched CO2, and enriched separator gas. An

example of the fit to liquid dropout data from constant

composition expansion (CCE) tests is shown in Figure 3. The
simulation prediction of MMP for CO2 in the Tapis Lower J is
compared with experimental data in Figure 4. There is good
agreement between the two, giving good confidence in the
reliability of the slim-tube simulations. The MMPs for
separator gas (80 mole% methane) and Palas K gas (70 mole%
CO2, 30 mole% methane) in the Tapis Lower J were estimated
using the slim-tube simulation results and are plotted as red
triangles in Figure 2.
Another measured data point was obtained from Zain, et
al.12 for the MMP for CO2 in the Dulang E12 reservoir and is
plotted as a green square in Figure 2 for comparison.
Although the solubility parameter correlation correctly
predicts that the MMPs for all three gases are significantly
higher than the current Tapis Lower J reservoir pressure, the
measured MMP values are on the high side of the range
predicted by the correlation. The predicted value of the MMP
for CO2 in the Dulang E12 reservoir is close to the measured
value.
Effect of LPG Enrichment
Given that none of the available gases are predicted to achieve
miscibility at current reservoir pressure, the solubility
parameter correlation was used to assess enrichment of the
available gases with LPG (63 mole% propane, 37 mole%
butane) to achieve miscibility. The screening results are
tabulated in Appendix A. Figure 5 summarizes the solubility
parameter correlation estimates of MME at the current
reservoir pressure for the same five reservoirs and three
potential injection gases enriched with LPG. The orange bars
describe the range of predictions for a miscibility criterion of 3
0.4 (cal/cm3)0.5. The MME is presented in terms of LPG
volume fraction at reservoir conditions. The correlation
suggests that achieving full miscibility at current reservoir
pressures would require an LPG volume fraction in excess of
0.24 for all three gases in the five selected reservoirs. As
expected, the correlation predicts that Tapis separator gas
would require the most enrichment for miscibility, while pure
CO2 would require the least.
The MMEs for enriched CO2 and enriched separator gas
were measured in slim-tube experiments with oil from the
Tapis Lower J reservoir. For each gas, several mixtures
containing different concentrations of LPG were injected into
a slim-tube filled with crude oil at reservoir conditions, and
the oil recovery was measured as a function of time. The
MME was defined as 95% oil recovery after injecting 1.2 pore
volumes of gas. The results are plotted as yellow diamonds in
Figure 5. The experiments were simulated using the slim-tube
simulation model described previously. A comparison of the
oil recoveries from injection of enriched CO2 in the
experiments and simulations, shown in Figure 6, indicates
good agreement. Slim-tube simulations were used to estimate
the MME for enriched Palas K gas in the Tapis Lower J. The
estimated MME is plotted as a red triangle in Figure 5.
The slim-tube points from both experiment and simulation
are lower than the correlation predictions. The difference is
likely related to the high propane and butane content of the
enriched gas relative to that of the gas mixtures used to
develop the correlation. The critical temperature of the LPG is

250F, close to the Tapis Lower J reservoir temperature,

248F, which indicates the LPG is a near-critical fluid at Tapis
reservoir conditions.
To improve on the correlation
predictions for MME, a modification to the procedure outlined
by Lange was explored to better account for the near-critical
nature of the LPG. The modified procedure involves applying
Equation (2), which was formulated for high-pressure
supercritical gases11, to the entire enriched gas mixture instead
of to the individual components. For a given enriched gas
composition, the volume-translated Peng-Robinson EOS
model was used in the in-house fluid properties prediction
program to estimate critical properties (pressure and density)
and density at reservoir conditions for the mixture. These
mixture properties were then used in Equation (2) to estimate
the injectant solubility parameter. To determine the MME,
LPG enrichment was varied until the miscibility criterion of 3
0.4 (cal/cm3)0.5 was satisfied.
Figure 7 shows that the MME predictions from this
modified procedure for estimating injectant solubility
parameters are lower than the measured MMEs . Compared to
the original procedure involving the simple volume-weighted
mixing rule, the modified procedure based on mixture
properties shows better agreement with the measured MME
for CO2 and may be useful in conjunction with the original
procedure to bracket the actual MME, as determined from
slim-tube experiments. MMPs for the unenriched gases
predicted using the modified procedure are nearly the same as
those predicted using the original procedure.
As more MME experimental data become available, there
will be additional opportunities to improve on the correlation
predictions. However, the values predicted using the original
procedure are still reasonable to be used for the screening
purposes of this study.
Comparison with Other Correlations
MMP predictions from the solubility parameter correlation
were compared to predictions from a number of other
correlations. These correlations were chosen based on their
range of applicability and the properties of the Malay Basin
reservoirs. The MMP for pure CO2 was estimated using
correlations by Cronquist2, Alston, et al.5, Glaso9, Orr and
Silva6, and Yuan, et al.7. Detailed compositional data for live
oils were added to the screening spreadsheet, as these other
correlations require more detailed parameters to describe oil
composition, such as molecular weight for C5+ and mole
fraction of methane. Correlations provided by Orr and Silva
and Yuan, et al. were also used to estimate the MMP for CO2
diluted with 30 mole% methane (i.e., Palas K gas), since these
include corrections for impure CO2.
Figure 8 and Figure 9 compare the MMP predictions from
the solubility parameter correlation with these other published
correlations. For both CO2 and Palas K gas, MMP predictions
from the solubility parameter correlation fall within the range
of predictions from other correlations. Note that the trend
across the five selected reservoirs varies among different
correlations and that no correlation provides a consistently
better match to the data points from slim-tube experiments and
simulations.
In Figure 10, predictions from the solubility parameter
correlation for MME with Tapis separator gas are compared to

SPE 97650

those from Benham, et al.8 Estimating the MME from the

graphical correlations provided by Benham, et al. was
complicated by the need to iterate, as the correlation assumes
two independent variables to describe the injectant - mole
fraction of methane and molecular weight of the C2+ fraction.
Figure 10 shows that the MME predictions from the solubility
parameter correlation with the original procedure for
calculating the gas solubility parameter (i.e., volume weighted
averaging of pure-component values) are consistently greater
than those from Benham, et al., which shows a good match to
the measured data point for Tapis Lower J. Use of the
modified procedure described above lowers the predicted
MME. The MME for Dulang E12 was not predicted with the
correlation by Benham, et al. as the current reservoir pressure
is well outside the range of pressures in the correlation.
Conclusions
A methodology, based on the solubility parameter
correlation1, has been developed for rapidly estimating
the conditions under which gas will be miscible with oil.
The solubility parameter correlation was useful for
providing screening-level estimates of MMP and MME
for 34 offshore reservoirs in the Malay Basin and for all
types of base gas injectants (e.g., Palas K gas, CO2, and
separator gas), thereby allowing the injectants and
reservoirs to be ranked with respect to gas injection
potential.
The solubility parameter correlation predictions of MMP
and MME for Malay Basin reservoirs compare
reasonably with more costly experimental data. Thus,
the solubility parameter correlation is useful as a tool for
defining the conditions to be used in more timeconsuming and costly PVT and slim-tube tests.
The MMP and MME predictions from the solubility
parameter correlation fall within the range of predictions
from other correlations.
A modified procedure for estimating injectant solubility
parameters for gas mixtures containing large amounts of
LPG components can improve the agreement between
the predicted and measured MME.
Nomenclature
= solubility parameter, (cal/cm3)0.5
M = molecular weight (g/mol)
MMP = minimum miscibility pressure (psia)
MME = minimum miscibility enrichment (volume fraction)
P = pressure (psia)
= density (g/cm3)
S = saturation
T = temperature (F)
Subscripts
c = critical
g = injected gas
i = component index
oil = waterflood oil
orm = miscible residual oil

SPE 97650

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dan Newhouse and Jay
Suchadoll for their assistance in conducting the slim-tube
experiments and thank Kamal Hamdan and Mimi Shuhaimi of
PETRONAS for helpful discussions during the course of the
EOR study. We also thank ExxonMobil and PETRONAS
management for their support and permission to publish this
paper.
References
1.

Lange, E.A.: "Correlation and Prediction of Residual Oil

Saturation for Gas-Injection-Enhanced Oil-Recovery
Processes," SPEREE, pp. 127-133, Apr. 1988.
2. Cronquist, C.: "Carbon Dioxide Dynamic Miscibility with
Light Reservoir Oils," Proceedings of the Fourth Annual
US DOE Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 28-30 Aug. 1978.
3. Yellig, W.F. and Metcalfe, R.S.: "Determination and
Prediction of CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressures," JPT,
pp. 160-168, Jan. 1980.
4. Holm, L.W. and Josendal, V.A.: "Effect of Oil
Composition on Miscible-Type Displacement by Carbon
Dioxide," SPEJ, pp. 87-98, Feb. 1982.
5. Alston, R.B., Kokolis, G.P., and James, C.F.: "CO2
Minimum Miscibility Pressure: A Correlation for Impure
CO2 Streams and Live Oil Systems," SPEJ, pp. 268-274,
Apr. 1985.
6. Orr, F.M. Jr. and Silva, M.K.: "Effect of Oil Composition
on Minimum Miscibility Pressure - Part 2: Correlation,"
SPE Reservoir Engineering, pp. 479-491, Nov. 1987.
7. Yuan H., Johns, R.T., Egwuenu, A.M., and Dindoruk, B.:
"Improved MMP Correlations for CO2 Floods Using
Analytical Gas Flooding Theory," paper SPE 89359
presented at the SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17-21 Apr.
2004.
8. Benham, A.L., Dowden, W.E., and Kunzman, W.J.:
Miscible Fluid Displacement - Prediction of Miscibility,"
JPT, pp. 229-237, Oct. 1960.
9. Glaso, O.: Generalized Minimum Miscibility Pressure
Correlation," SPEJ, pp. 927-934, Dec. 1985.
10. Johns, R.T. and Orr, F.M. Jr.: "Miscible Gas Displacement
of Multicomponent Oils," SPEJ, pp. 39-50, Mar. 1996.
11. Handbook of Solubility Parameters and Other Cohesion
Parameters, second edition, A.F.M. Barton (ed.), CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1991.
12. Zain, Z.M., Kechut, N.I., Nadeson, G., Ahmad, N., and
Raja, D.A.: "Evaluation of CO2 Gas Injection for Major
Oil Production Fields in Malaysia - Experimental Approach
Case Study: Dulang Field," presented at the SPE Asia
Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 8-9 Oct. 2001.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

API
cal
cp
F
psi
scf
STB

141.5 / (131.5 + API)

4.184*
1.0*
(F - 32) / 1.8
6.894 757
2.831 685
1.589 873

*Conversion factor is exact.

E+00
E-03
E+00
E-02
E-01

=
=
=
=
=
=
=

g/cm3
J
Pas
C
kPa
m3
m3

SPE 97650

0.4
Immiscible

Miscible
0.35
0.3
0.25

Sorm 0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

10

11

12

Solubility Parameter Difference

Between Gas and Oil, (cal/cm3)0.5
Figure 1. Solubility parameter correlation.

6000

Pressure (psia)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000

slim-tube data:
experiment, Tapis
experiment, Dulang
simulations, Tapis

current reservoir pressure

MMP for carbon dioxide
MMP for Palas K gas
MMP for Tapis sep. gas

0
Tabu
Lower I

Guntong
Lower I

Dulang
E12

Guntong
Upper I

Tapis
Lower J

Figure 2. MMP estimates for selected Malay Basin reservoirs. Orange bars describe the range of predictions for a miscibility criterion of
3 0.5
3 0.4 (cal/cm ) . Palas K gas is 70 mole% CO2 and 30 mole% methane. Tapis separator gas is 80 mole% methane.

SPE 97650

Liquid Volume (fraction)

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
CO2
CO2 + LPG
Separator Gas
Separator Gas + LPG

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

1000

2000
3000
4000
Pressure (psia)

5000

6000

Figure 3. EOS fit (lines) to liquid dropout data (points) from CCE tests for 60 mole% gas in oil from the Tapis Lower J.

Recovery at 1.2 Pore Volumes

Injected (% OOIP)

100
90
80
70
60

MMP

50
40
30

Sim ulation
Experim ent

20
10
0
2000

2500

3000

3500

Pressure (psia)
Figure 4. MMP for CO2 in the Tapis Lower J.

4000

4500

SPE 97650

MME (volume fraction LPG)

0.7

carbon dioxide

slim-tube data:
experiments
simulation

0.6

Palas K gas
Tapis sep. gas

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Tabu
Lower I

Guntong
Lower I

Dulang
E12

Guntong
Upper I

Tapis
Lower J

Figure 5. MME estimates for selected Malay Basin reservoirs. Orange bars describe the range of predictions for a miscibility criterion of
3 0.5
3 0.4 (cal/cm ) . Palas K gas is 70 mole% CO2 and 30 mole% methane. Tapis separator gas is 80 mole% methane. LPG is 63 mole%
propane and 37 mole% butane.

Recovery at 1.2 Pore Volumes

Injected (% OOIP)

100
90
80
70
60

MME

50
40

Sim ulation

30

Experim ent

20
10
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

LPG-enrichm ent (volum e fraction)

Figure 6. MME for CO2 in the Tapis Lower J.

0.3

SPE 97650

MME for Tapis Lower J

(volume fraction LPG)

0.6
0.5
0.4

solubility parameter
correlation
solubility parameter
correlation - modified
slim-tube experiments

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
carbon dioxide

Tapis sep. gas

Figure 7. MME estimates for Tapis Lower J. Orange bars describe the range of predictions for a miscibility criterion of 3 0.4 (cal/cm ) .
Tapis separator gas is 80 mole% methane. LPG is 63 mole% propane and 37 mole% butane.
3 0.5

MMP for carbon dioxide (psia)

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500

solubility parameter correlation

Alston et al. (ref. 5)
Cronquist (ref. 2)

1000
500

Glaso (ref. 9)

slim-tube experiments:
Tapis
Dulang

Orr and Silva (ref. 6)

Yuan et al. (ref. 7)

0
Tabu Guntong Dulang Guntong Tapis
Lower I Lower I
E12
Upper I Lower J
Figure 8. Comparison of correlation predictions of MMP for CO2. Orange bars describe the range of predictions for a miscibility criterion of
3 0.5
3 0.4 (cal/cm ) .

10

SPE 97650

MMP for Palas K gas (psia)

5000
4000
3000
2000

solubility parameter correlation

Orr and Silva (ref. 6)

1000

slim-tube simulation

Yuan et al. (ref. 7)

0
Tabu Guntong Dulang Guntong Tapis
Lower I Lower I
E12
Upper I Lower J
Figure 9. Comparison of correlation predictions of MMP for Palas K gas (70 mole% CO2, 30 mole% methane). Orange bars describe the range
3 0.5
of predictions for a miscibility criterion of 3 0.4 (cal/cm ) .

0.7

solubility parameter correlation

MME for Tapis separator gas

(volume fraction LPG)

solubility parameter correlation - modified

0.6

Benham et al. (ref. 8)

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

slim-tube experiment

0.0
Tabu
Lower I

Guntong
Lower I

Guntong
Upper I

Tapis
Lower J

Figure 10. Comparison of correlation predictions of MME for Tapis separator gas (80 mole% methane). Orange bars describe the range of
3 0.5
predictions for a miscibility criterion of 3 0.4 (cal/cm ) .

11

SPE 97650

Appendix A - Field Data and Miscibility Predictions for Malay Basin Oil Reservoirs

Reservoir
Dulang E12
Guntong
Lower I
Tabu Lower I
Guntong
Upper I
Tapis Lower J
Reservoir 1
Reservoir 2
Reservoir 3
Reservoir 4
Reservoir 5
Reservoir 6
Reservoir 7
Reservoir 8
Reservoir 9
Reservoir 10
Reservoir 11
Reservoir 12
Reservoir 13
Reservoir 14
Reservoir 15
Reservoir 16
Reservoir 17
Reservoir 18
Reservoir 19
Reservoir 20
Reservoir 21
Reservoir 22
Reservoir 23
Reservoir 24
Reservoir 25
Reservoir 26
Reservoir 27
Reservoir 28
Reservoir 29

current live
oil MW
(g/mol)

reservoir
temperature
(F)

123.5

216

current
reservoir
pressure
(psia)
1200

85.3
94.2

230
244

96.3
98.7
101.1
101.2
82.0
123.5
123.5
123.5
123.5
123.2
153.9
81.9
85.8
107.9
108.6
134.6
83.3
103.8
87.2
97.4
95.9
122.9
81.6
89.2
134.5
122.7
101.7
106.8
97.4
98.1
83.9

212
248
226
246
215
210
210
216
216
212
189
225
196
237
252
201
228
170
243
196
196
217
217
234
185
226
214
230
193
196
224

0.62

MME Palas K
gas
(volume
fraction LPG)
0.63

MME Tapis sep.

gas
(volume fraction
LPG)
0.63

4601
4800

0.30
0.24

0.37
0.33

0.41
0.39

4768
4897
4900
4946
4507
5312
5312
5332
5332
5313
5899
4528
4518
5062
5040
5518
4561
4737
4658
4729
4703
5325
4505
4684
5436
5351
4876
5025
4719
4745
4563

0.41
0.27
0.25
0.27
0.27
0.57
0.61
0.62
0.57
0.48
0.65
0.25
0.32
0.39
0.26
0.38
0.29
0.42
0.14
0.52
0.46
0.45
0.27
0.29
0.61
0.21
0.36
0.40
0.51
0.44
0.10

0.45
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.59
0.62
0.63
0.59
0.52
0.66
0.33
0.39
0.44
0.35
0.47
0.36
0.47
0.26
0.54
0.49
0.50
0.35
0.36
0.62
0.35
0.42
0.45
0.53
0.48
0.25

0.48
0.41
0.42
0.41
0.40
0.59
0.62
0.63
0.60
0.54
0.66
0.39
0.44
0.47
0.41
0.52
0.41
0.51
0.35
0.55
0.51
0.53
0.40
0.41
0.63
0.44
0.46
0.48
0.54
0.50
0.35

MMP
CO2
(psia)

MMP Palas
K gas
(psia)

MMP Tapis
sep. gas
(psia)

MME CO2
(volume
fraction LPG)

2882

3636

5332

2101
2400

2758
2929

3338
3527

1801
2384
2335
2408
2099
1400
1200
1200
1400
1800
1250
2186
1894
2079
2498
2123
2100
1631
2590
1300
1550
1900
2100
2198
1200
2590
2000
2000
1340
1630
2517

2675
2989
2833
2994
2614
2826
2826
2882
2882
2843
2761
2694
2464
2972
3055
2797
2730
2272
2864
2524
2516
2895
2633
2811
2603
2982
2724
2903
2494
2528
2701

3316
3599
3477
3616
3197
3590
3590
3637
3637
3601
3726
3267
3081
3630
3689
3630
3305
3003
3439
3189
3175
3644
3211
3402
3465
3718
3385
3566
3163
3196
3282