Fluid Characterization for Miscible EOR
Projects and CO2 Sequestration
Kristian Jessen,* Stanford University, and Erling H. Stenby, Technical University of Denmark
Summary
Accurate performance prediction of miscible enhanced-oil-
recovery (EOR) projects or CO2 sequestration in depleted oil and
gas reservoirs relies in part on the ability of an equation-of-state
(EOS) model to adequately represent the properties of a wide
range of mixtures of the resident fluid and the injected fluid(s). The
mixtures that form when gas displaces oil in a porous medium will,
in many cases, differ significantly from compositions created in
swelling tests and other standard pressure/volume/temperature
(PVT) experiments. Multicontact experiments (e.g., slimtube dis-
placements) are often used to condition an EOS model before
application in performance evaluation of miscible displacements.
However, no clear understanding exists of the impact on the resultant
accuracy of the selected characterization procedure when the fluid
description is subsequently included in reservoir simulation.
In this paper, we present a detailed analysis of the quality of
two different characterization procedures over a broad range of
reservoir fluids (13 samples) for which experimental swelling-
test and slimtube-displacement data are available. We explore the
impact of including swelling-test and slimtube experiments in
the data reduction and demonstrate that for some gas/oil sys-
tems, swelling tests do not contribute to a more accurate prediction
of multicontact miscibility. Finally, we report on the impact that
use of EOS models based on different characterization proce-
dures can have on recovery predictions from dynamic 1D displace-
ment calculations.
Introduction
During the past few decades, a significant effort has been invested
in the studies and development of improved-oil-recovery pro-
cesses. From a technical point of view, gas injection can be a very
efficient method for improving the oil production, particularly in
the case when miscibility develops during the displacement pro-
cess. The lowest pressure at which a gas should be injected into the
reservoir to obtain the multicontact miscible displacement—the
minimum miscibility pressure (MMP)—has consequently attained
a very important status in EOR studies.
Various methods for measuring and calculating the MMP have
been proposed in the literature. Many of these are based on sim-
plifications such as the ternary representation of the compositional
space. This method fails to honor the existence of a combined
mechanism controlling the development of miscibility in real res-
ervoir fluids. Zick (1986) and Stalkup (1987) described the exist-
ence of the condensing/vaporizing mechanism. They showed that
the development of miscibility (MMP) in multicomponent gas-
displacement processes could, independent of the mechanism con-
trolling the development of miscibility, be predicted accurately by
1D compositional simulations. A semianalytical method for pre-
dicting the MMP was later presented by Wang and Orr (1997),
who played an important role in the development and application
of the analytical theory of gas-injection processes. Jessen et al.
(1998) subsequently developed an efficient algorithm for perform-
ing these calculations, reducing the MMP calculation time to a few
* Now with the Mork Family Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at
the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Copyright © 2007 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 97192) was accepted for presentation at the 2005 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 9–12 October, and revised for publication. Original
manuscript received for review 24 October 2006. Revised manuscript received 11 February
2007. Paper peer approved 17 February 2007.
482
seconds even for fluid descriptions of 10 components or more.
Later, Jessen et al. (2001) used this approach to generate approxi-
mate solutions to the dispersion-free, 1D-displacement problem for
multicomponent gas-injection processes.
Analytical and numerical methods for predicting the perfor-
mance of a gas-injection process depend on an EOS to predict the
phase behavior of the mixtures that form in the course of a dis-
placement process. The role of the phase behavior in relation to
numerical diffusion in compositional reservoir simulation has been
pointed out previously by Stalkup (1990) and by Stalkup et al.
(1990). Recently, Jessen et al. (2004) proposed a method to quan-
tify the interplay of the phase behavior and numerical diffusion in
a finite-difference simulation of a gas-injection process. By ana-
lyzing the phase behavior of the injection-gas/reservoir-fluid sys-
tem, a measure of the impact, referred to as the dispersive distance,
can be calculated. The dispersive distance is useful when designing
and interpreting large-scale compositional reservoir simulations.
In this work, the analytical theory of gas-injection processes is
used to analyze an extensive database of PVT measurements and
slimtube experiments published by Jaubert et al. (2002a). Jaubert
et al. (2002b) applied the characterization procedure of Avaulleé
et al. (2001) combined with the Peng-Robinson (PR) EOS (Peng
and Robinson 1976) to analyze the database. The main question
addressed in Jaubert et al. (2002b) was whether experimental deter-
mination of the MMP by slimtube experiments is really needed if
other, less-expensive multicontact tests are available. They concluded
on the basis of their analysis that unless pure CO2 is injected into a
reservoir, slimtube experiments may not be needed to accurately pre-
dict the development of miscibility in gas/oil displacements. How-
ever, to our best knowledge, most commercial software does not offer
the characterization procedure of Avaulleé et al. (2001).
The purpose of the present work was to investigate the influ-
ence on EOR performance predictions exerted by the choice of
commonly available characterization methods for the heavy frac-
tion of the reservoir fluid and the choice of EOS. This leads to a
considerable number of combinations. Some options are described
in Chorn and Mansoori (1989). In the present study, two com-
monly applied combinations of characterization procedure and
EOS are investigated.
Experimental Database
In the open literature, the amount of experimental MMP data
where the reservoir-fluid compositions have been described in de-
tail is very limited. To this end, Jaubert et al. (2002a) published a
database (13 reservoir oils, each with one or two injection gases)
including the detailed compositional data, standard PVT experiments,
swelling tests, and MMP determinations from slimtube experi-
ments. That database is used extensively in this comparative study.
Jaubert et al. (2002a) provides a detailed compositional analy-
sis of the heptanes-plus fractions (up to C20+) from fractional
true-boiling-point (TBP) distillations of the reported crude oils.
The database includes amount, molecular weight, and specific
gravity for each of the TBP cuts (C7 to C19) along with the prop-
erties and amounts of the TBP residuum (C20+) at the end of the
TBP distillation. For additional detail on the experimental methods
and standards for characterizing the heptanes-plus fraction by TBP
distillation, the reader is referred to Whitson and Brule (2000).
Figs. 1 and 2 report the variability of the mole fraction and
specific gravity, respectively, of the various TBP cuts as a function
of their molecular weight. The properties and amounts of TBP
residue for each reservoir fluid in the database are shown in
Fig. 3. From Figs. 1 through 3, it is clear that the fluids included
in the database of Jaubert et al. range from light to medium oils
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
 Fig. 1—Mole% vs. molecular weight of various TBP cuts.
that are typically good candidates for miscible-gas-injection
projects (Taber et al. 1997).
Experimental MMP values are reported for injection of multicom-
ponent gases (lean to rich) as well as a single data point for injection
of pure CO2. For two of the reservoir fluids in the database, MMP
values are reported for two different injection gas compositions.
Characterization Procedures
Two different characterization procedures were applied to generate
EOS input from the compositional-analysis data described in the
previous section:
• The characterization method by Pedersen et al. (1989), with
parameters from Knudsen and Stenby (1996), combined with the
Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) EOS (Soave 1972). In the following
sections, we refer to this combination as the SRK method.
• The characterization method suggested by Whitson et al.
(1989) combined with the modified version of the PR EOS (Peng
and Robinson 1976; Robinson and Peng 1978). In the following
sections, we refer to this combination as the PR method.
The two methods for assigning properties to the C7+ fraction of
a reservoir fluid differ mainly in the selection of distribution func-
tion relating molecular weight to mole fractions. In the SRK
method, an exponentially decaying function describes the amount
of fluid with respect to the molecular weight of single-carbon-
number groups (i.e., a discrete representation), whereas the PR
method relies on a gamma distribution of variable shape to relate
molecular weight to mole fractions in a continuous approach. An-
other significant difference between the two methods is the selec-
tion of pseudocomponents representing the TBP cuts and the TBP
residue. In the SRK method, the heavy end (C7+) of the reservoir
fluid is divided into a number of pseudocomponents representing
equal mass fractions, whereas the pseudocomponents in the PR
method are commonly selected on the basis of quadrature points in
a Gaussian integration rule (use of equal mass fractions is also
possible). Both methods are used widely in the petroleum industry
and serve as well-documented reference points in the following
sections. For more details on the characterization procedures, the
reader is referred to Pedersen et al. (1989), Whitson et al. (1989),
and Whitson and Brule (2000).
All fluid characterizations were performed using a total of 15
components (defined and pseudocomponents). Because H2S is
present only in minor amounts throughout the database, CO2 and
H2S are combined in all fluid descriptions, allowing for a total of
five pseudocomponents to represent the C7+ fraction.
Tuning Approach
When a given combination of characterization procedure and EOS
is used to generate a fluid description, the predictive capability in
the original form may not be sufficient to represent all experimen-
tal data with appropriate accuracy. Consequently, tuning of model
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 2—Density at 1 atm (14.7 psi) and 15°C (59°F) vs. molecular
weight of various TBP cuts.
parameters is typically performed to improve on the accuracy by
regression of experimental data. In this work, we investigate the
performance of the SRK and PR methods at four stages:
1. Pure prediction based on the default characterizations
2. After regression of standard PVT measurements such as con-
stant-mass expansion (CME) and differential-depletion experi-
ments (DDEs)
3. After regression of CME, DDE, and swelling test(s)
4. After regression of CME, DDE, swelling test, and MMP
Stages 1–3 allow for an evaluation of the impact of the indi-
vidual standard PVT experiment and the benefit of including
swelling-test data in the regression on the accuracy of the predicted
MMP. This can be a useful step in assessing the uncertainty of
EOS prediction in cases where a limited set of experimental data
is available.
At Stage 4 of the tuning process, we include the experimental
MMP in the regression. At this point, the true strength of the
analytical theory of gas-injection processes becomes evident. If
traditional multicell approaches or slimtube simulations for pre-
diction of MMP are used in the regression of experimental MMP
data, the regression process can easily become very CPU intensive.
Instead, we use the key-tie-line algorithm of Jessen et al. (1998)
for prediction of the MMP as implemented in our Miscible Injec-
tion PVT software (MI-PVT). The efficiency of the key-tie-line
approach makes the inclusion of MMP data in the parameter-
estimation process very inexpensive, even when more than one
MMP data point must be matched. In our implementation, the CPU
requirement for parameter estimation including MMP is, in gen-
eral, no more than a few minutes.
Fig. 3—Properties and amounts of TBP residue.
483
 The possible options for selecting regression parameters when
tuning a 15-component fluid description are essentially endless. A
commonly used tuning parameter is the molecular weight of the
TBP residue (Mw+). Because of experimental uncertainties, this
quantity is usually not measured with more than 10% accuracy.
Consequently, Mw+ can be adjusted before a recharacterization if,
for example, the predicted saturation pressure is in error. However,
it often occurs that such an adjustment is insufficient to ensure
appropriate overall accuracy and that more parameters must be
adjusted. To reduce the degrees of freedom when tuning the two
EOS models to the experimental data, we restrict our tuning ap-
proach to involve columns of pseudocomponents. That is, for ex-
ample, we adjust the column of critical temperatures (Tc) for all
pseudocomponents by a common factor. By this approach, we
preserve the trends of the original fluid characterizations. At
Stages 2 and 3, we adjust only Tc and the critical pressures (pc) of
the pseudocomponents. However, in some cases, more adjustable
variables are required to obtain the desired accuracy of the model.
In such cases, we include the acentric factor (␻) and the volume
shift parameter (S) of the pseudocomponents in the regression.
Throughout this work, no binary-interaction coefficients are in-
cluded in the regression of experimental data. This results in a
maximum of four adjustable parameters.
A standard Marquard-Levenberg algorithm was used for the
data regression. The experimental data (pressures, densities, and
relative volumes) were assigned different weights in the param-
eter-estimation process to reflect the relative importance in the
context of miscible displacements. In this work, the weights were
fixed at 50, 10, and 1 for pressures, densities, and relative volumes,
respectively. For each fluid system, the experimental data were
inspected for internal consistency before parameter estimation, and
no significant discrepancies were observed.
Characterization Results
The 13 reservoir oils in the work of Jaubert et al. (2002a) were
characterized with methods PR and SRK. They are referred to in
the following section as Jaubert Fluid 1 through 13 (JF1 through
JF13). For each of the 13 fluids and each of the characterization
procedures, the predicted values were compared with the experi-
mental values at each of the four stages listed above. To compare
484
the accuracy of the characterization procedures at the different
stages, we use the average-relative-error percent of
1. Saturation pressures from CME/DDE and swelling test(s): ⌬Psat
2. Overall fluid densities from CME and CME during swelling
test(s) and liquid-phase densities from DDEs: ⌬␳fluid
3. Relative volumes from CME experiments: ⌬Vrel
4. MMP from slimtube experiments: ⌬MMP
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the results of characterization and
tuning for the investigated fluids JF1 through JF13. JF8 is omitted
from the table for formatting purposes without changing the over-
all picture. The number of experimental data points included in
each of the average relative errors is listed in the tables (in paren-
theses) and varies from two data points (Psat and MMP only) for
JF8 to 457 data points for JF5.
To illustrate the accuracy of the EOS models at Stage 4 in the data
regression, Figs. 4 through 7 compare the calculated (SRK-method
characterization) and experimental values for JF12. The accuracy
for JF12 is representative for all other fluids in the database.
At each stage of the regression procedure, we observe the fol-
lowing predictive behavior of the two characterization approaches:
Stage 1
• The default PR-method characterization predicts, with few
exceptions, the experimental saturation pressures more accurately
than the default SRK-method characterization.
• The default SRK-method characterization predicts, in general,
the MMP more accurately than the default PR characterization.
• Fluid densities and relative volumes are predicted with simi-
lar accuracy by the two methods.
Stage 2
• Saturation pressures of the original reservoir fluids, as well as
the saturation pressures reported for the swelling tests, are pre-
dicted equally well by the two methods, with JF13 as the only
exception. We note that swelling-test data are not included at this
stage. For JF13, the injection gas used in the swelling test is pure
CO2. This reservoir fluid is the heaviest of the fluids in the data-
base and causes the PR method some problems because of the high
values of binary-interaction coefficients between CH4 and the
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
pseudocomponents (up to 0.13). The problem arises because the
PR-method characterization prematurely predicts a liquid/liquid
split (LLE), forming a hydrocarbon-rich liquid phase and a CO2-
rich liquid phase. This, in turn, results in an overprediction of
saturation pressures at higher solvent (CO2) concentrations. The
problem can be mitigated by reducing the binary-interaction coef-
ficients manually and repeating the regression of standard PVT
data (CME and DDE). The SRK method does not make use of
interaction coefficients between CH4 and pseudocomponents and
hence is less likely to predict LLE inaccurately.
• For a majority of the investigated reservoir fluids, regression
of Tc and pc to CME/DDE data does not improve on the accuracy
of the predicted MMP.
Stage 3
• Including swelling-test experiments in the regression does
not, on average, improve significantly on the prediction of the
MMP for both characterization methods.
Fig. 4—Experimental and calculated saturation pressure at vari-
ous temperatures for JF12. The critical point is predicted.
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Stage 4
• The predicted CME, DDE, swelling test, and MMP at Stage
4 are, by both methods, in satisfactory agreement with the experi-
mental results for all the investigated reservoir fluids. All experi-
mental MMP values can be calculated within the accuracy of slim-
tube experiments (≈5%).
• No significant differences in predictive capabilities of the
two characterization methods are observed.
Dispersive Distance and Miscibility With
Pure CO2
As described in the introduction, the analytical theory of gas-
injection processes makes it possible to evaluate the interplay of
phase behavior and numerical diffusion of a given fluid system
(Jessen et al. 2004). The dispersive distance is defined as the
distance between the point in composition space that becomes a
critical point at the MMP and the dilution line (in composition
Fig. 5—Experimental and calculated overall fluid densities
from CME experiments with JF12 at temperatures from 299.85
to 394.45 K.
485
Fig. 6—Comparison of calculated and experimental behavior of
an isothermal swelling test (JF12): saturation pressures and
saturated liquid densities.
space) that is defined by the oil and the injection-gas compositions.
The larger the dispersive distance, the more sensitive a displace-
ment calculation will be to the gridblock size used in single-point-
upwind, finite-difference-based compositional simulation (numeri-
cal diffusion). Numerical artifacts in coarse-grid simulations can
easily render the performance prediction of multicontact miscible
floods unreliable. To investigate if the two characterization meth-
ods will display different sensitivity when the fluid descriptions
are ultimately included in reservoir simulations, the dispersive
distance has been calculated for the 13 fluid systems and is re-
ported in Table 3. In general, the dispersive distances for the SRK
and the PR methods are in excellent agreement, with the PR
method marginally higher for the gas/oil systems reported by Jaub-
ert et al. (2002a). Only one example was found where the calcu-
lated values are very different. This occurs for JF8, where the
calculated dispersive distance of the PR method is almost an order
of magnitude greater than that of the SRK method. However, only
two data points (psat and MMP) are used in the regression, and
consequently, the overall quality of the resultant EOS models can-
not be examined in great detail.
As an additional test of the two characterization methods, the
MMP and dispersive distance for injection of pure CO2 were cal-
culated for all reservoir fluids. The results are given in Table 3 and
are compared with the dry/lean-gas MMPs from the database. For
486
Fig. 7—Calculated and experimental overall fluid densities from
CME during swelling test: JF12 (Fig. 6). “Beta” refers to the mole
fraction of solvent in the overall mixture.
both the MMP and the dispersive distance, the two methods are
found to be in good agreement. By comparing the MMP for in-
jection of pure CO2 with the lean-rich-gas MMP from the data-
base, it is clear that all the investigated reservoir fluids could, in
terms of the local displacement efficiency, be produced efficiently
by a miscible flood in concert with CO2 sequestration.
Flow Predictions
As a final comparison of the investigated characterization meth-
ods, we consider two 1D displacement calculations where gas is
injected to displace reservoir fluid JF10 at near-miscible condi-
tions. To isolate the effects of phase behavior from the transport
properties, the f-theory viscosity model of Quinones-Cisneros
et al. (2004) was used to generate a fictive set of viscosity data with
the PR method. The SRK characterization was then tuned to the
fictive data set to ensure that, at least, the viscosities of the original oil
were calculated identically by the two fluid descriptions. Note that
the regression of viscosity data by the f-theory does not change the
results of PVT calculations. The fictive viscosity data from the
PR-method characterization are compared with the prediction of
the SRK-method characterization after regression in Fig. 8.
The MMP for JF10 and associated injection gas (G10) is re-
ported to be 287 bar (Table 3). To compare the predicted displace-
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 8—Oil viscosities calculated by the SRK- and PR-method
fluid descriptions used in the displacement calculations for
reservoir fluid JF10.
ment efficiency when using the PR and SRK methods, near-
miscible dispersion-free 1D calculations were performed at 250
and 260 bar. The dispersion-free displacement calculations were
performed by the approach of Jessen et al. (2001). The saturation
profiles after 0.5 pore volumes injected (PVI) at 260 bar and after
0.75 PVI at 250 bar are shown in Fig. 9. The saturation profiles
predicted by the two methods are in excellent agreement for both
displacement calculations. In particular, the leading edge of the
displacement that sets the breakthrough time is predicted to be
almost identical for the two characterization procedures in both
calculation examples. Recovery predictions for the two displace-
ments are compared in Fig. 10. The calculated recovery curves
using the SRK- and the PR-method fluid descriptions are in good
agreement, suggesting that marginal differences should be ex-
pected between a reservoir simulation using the PR- and the SKR-
fluid description.
The fact that two fundamentally different approaches for as-
signing properties to the pseudocomponents representing the C7+
fraction of the reservoir fluid result in almost identical prediction
of the displacement behavior suggests that the regression of ex-
perimental data was performed in a consistent fashion. Further-
more, the observation demonstrates that the predictive capabilities
of the two characterization methods are close to identical when
care is taken to accurately represent appropriate experimental data
(MMP). A similar agreement should not be expected for injection
of pure CO2 without additional tuning to appropriate experimental
data. This is because the MMP values calculated by the two meth-
ods for pure CO2 (Table 3) differ more (10%) than the MMP
values predicted by SRK and PR for the injection gas composition
that was included in the regression (0.4%).
Discussion and Conclusions
Based on an extensive database of detailed fluid descriptions with
experimental PVT and MMP data, the two most commonly used
methods for reservoir-fluid modeling have been compared. The
characterization procedures of Whitson et al. (1989) and Pedersen
et al. (1989) each combined with the cubic EOS with which they are
most often used, (i.e., the PR EOS and SRK EOS, respectively).
The results of matching experimental PVT, swelling-test, and
slimtube data, based on the investigated fluid-characterization
methods and the selected tuning strategies, suggest that the con-
clusion of Jaubert et al. (2002b) may not be valid in general. We
find that experimental determination of the MMP is indeed a valu-
able data point when building an EOS model to be used in EOR
performance evaluation. For only a few of the investigated fluid
systems, the accuracy of the calculated MMP based on regression
to standard PVT experiments and swelling tests alone will be
appropriate for prediction of the local displacement efficiency and
design of injection-gas compositions for potential EOR projects.
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering
Fig. 9—Saturation profiles of near-miscible-displacement cal-
culations for JF10. Calculated MMP is 269 bar with SRK and
268 bar with PR relative to the experimental value of 287 bar
(∼6% error).
In summary, the conclusions of this study are as follows:
1. Without regression of experimental PVT data, the characteriza-
tion procedure of Whitson et al. (1989) in general predicts the
saturation pressure of the investigated reservoir fluids more ac-
curately than the approach of Pedersen et al. (1989). The oppo-
site trend is observed for default predictions of the MMP.
2. Regression of standard PVT experiments (CME and DDE) does
not ensure an accurate calculation of the MMP.
3. Including swelling-test data in the parameter estimation im-
proves only slightly the accuracy of the calculated MMP.
4. When the experimental MMP data are included in the parameter
estimation, no significant difference is observed between the
investigated characterization methods.
5. The key-tie-line approach for calculation of the MMP is highly
suitable for implementation in regression software because of
the low CPU requirement per MMP calculation.
6. The dispersive distance calculated by the two methods is found
to be in good agreement and does not suggest any significant
difference in the sensitivity to numerical diffusion in finite-
difference-based compositional simulation.
7. Predictions of the MMP and the dispersive distance for injec-
tion of pure CO2 based on the final fluid descriptions are in
excellent agreement.
8. With good agreement in the predicted MMP, predictions of local
displacement efficiency and, consequently, the predicted break-
through time and oil recovery from 1D dispersion-free simula-
Fig. 10—1D recovery of oil in place (OIP) by near-miscible
displacements of JF10. Calculated MMP is 269 bar with SRK
and 268 bar with PR relative to the experimental value of 287
bar (∼6% error).
487
 tion at near-miscible conditions are almost identical for the two
fluid models.
The above conclusions are based on the given database, and it
should be noticed that the investigated fluids cover the range of
medium-to-light oils and rich-to-light hydrocarbon gases. The con-
clusions may be different for heavy oils and high-pressure/high-
temperature fluids.
Nomenclature
Mw ⳱ molecular weight
Pc ⳱ critical pressure
S ⳱ volume shift parameter
Tc ⳱ critical temperature
␻ ⳱ acentric factor
⌬MMP ⳱ average relative error in predicted MMP (%)
⌬Psat ⳱ average relative error in predicted saturation
pressures (%)
⌬Vrel ⳱ average relative error in predicted relative volumes
(%)
⌬␳fluid ⳱ average relative error in predicted fluid densities (%)
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to Jean-Noël Jaubert for providing us with
an electronic version of the experimental data sets. The first author
also would like to acknowledge financial support from the mem-
bers of the Stanford University Petroleum Research Institute for
Gas Injection.
References
Avaulleé, L., Duchet-Suchaux, P., Durandeau, M., and Jaubert, J.N. 2001.
A New Approach in Correlating the Thermodynamic Oil Properties.
J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 30 (1): 43–65.
Chorn, L.G. and Mansoori, G.A. 1989. C7+ Fraction Characterization. In Ad-
vances in Thermodynamics, vol. 1. New York City: Taylor & Francis.
Jaubert, J.N., Avaullee, L., and Souvay, J.F. 2002a. A Crude Oil Data Bank
Containing More Than 5,000 PVT and Gas Injection Data. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 34 (1–4): 65–107.
Jaubert, J.N., Avaullee, L., and Pierre, C. 2002b. Is It Still Necessary to
Measure the Minimum Miscibility Pressure? Industrial Engineering
Chemistry Research 41 (2): 303–310.
Jessen, K., Michelsen, M.L., and Stenby, E.H. 1998. Global Approach for
Calculation of Minimum Miscibility Pressure. Fluid Phase Equilibria
153 (2): 251–263.
Jessen, K., Wang, Y., Ermakov, P., Zhu, J., and Orr, F.M. Jr. 2001. Fast
Approximate Solutions for 1D Multicomponent Gas Injection Prob-
lems. SPEJ 6 (4): 442–451. SPE-74700-PA. DOI: 10.2118/74700-PA.
Jessen, K., Stenby, E.H., and Orr, F.M., Jr. 2004. Interplay of Phase Be-
havior and Numerical Dispersion in Finite Difference Compositional
Simulation. SPEJ 9 (2): 193–201. SPE-88362-PA. DOI: 10.2118/
88362-PA.
Knudsen, K. and Stenby, E.H. 1996. PVT Behavior of Reservoir Fluids
Over a Wide Range of Temperatures. Internal report, Technical Uni-
versity of Denmark: Department of Chemical Engineering, Lyngby.
488
Pedersen, K.S., Fredenslund, A., and Thomassen, P. 1989. Contributions in
Petroleum Geology & Engineering 5. In Properties of Oils and Natural
Gases, Vol. 5. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.
Peng, D-Y. and Robinson, D.B. 1976. A New Two-Constant Equation of
State. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals 15 (1): 59–64.
Quinones-Cisneros, S.E, Dalberg, A., and Stenby, E.H. 2004. PVT Char-
acterization and Viscosity Modeling and Prediction of Crude Oils.
Petroleum Science and Technology 22 (9): 1309–1326.
Robinson, D.B., and Peng, D.-Y. 1978. The Characterization of the Hep-
tanes and Heavier Fractions. GPA Research Report 28, Tulsa.
Soave, G. 1972. Equilibrium Constants from a Modified Redlich-Kwong
Equation of State. Chem. Eng. Sci. 27 (6): 1197–1203.
Stalkup, F.I. 1987. Displacement Behavior of the Condensing/Vaporizing
Gas Drive Process. Paper SPE 16715 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 27–30 September. DOI:
10.2118/16715-MS.
Stalkup, F.I. 1990. Effects of Gas Enrichment and Numerical Dispersion
on Enriched-Gas-Drive Predictions. SPERE 5 (4): 647–655. SPE-
18060-PA. DOI: 10.2118/18060-PA.
Stalkup, F.I., Lo, L.L., and Dean, R.H. 1990. Sensitivity to Gridding of
Miscible Flood Predictions Made With Upstream Differenced Simula-
tors. Paper SPE 20178 presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Re-
covery Symposium, Tulsa, 22–25 April. DOI: 10.2118/20178–MS.
Taber, J.J., Martin, F.D., and Seright, R.S. 1997. EOR Screening Criteria
Revisited—Part 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhanced
Recovery Field Projects. SPERE 12 (4): 189–198. SPE-35385-PA.
DOI: 10.2118/35385-PA.
Wang, Y. and Orr, F.M. Jr. 1997. Analytical Calculation of Minimum
Miscibility Pressure. Fluid Phase Equilibria 139 (1–2): 101–124.
Whitson, C.H., Anderson, T.F., and Søreide, I. 1989. C7+ Characterization
of Related Equilibrium Fluids Using the Gamma Distribution. Ad-
vances in Thermodynamics, vol.1—C7+ Characterization. eds. Chorn
and Mansoori, 35–56. New York City: Taylor & Francis.
Whitson, C.H. and Brule, M.R. 2000. Phase Behavior. Monograph Series,
SPE, Richardson, Texas, 20.
Zick, A.A. 1986. A Combined Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism in the
Displacement of Oil by Enriched Gases. Paper SPE 15493 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
5–8 October. DOI: 10.2118/15493-MS.
Kristian Jessen is an assistant professor in the Mork Family De-
partment of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at
the University of Southern California. He holds MS and PhD de-
grees in chemical engineering from the Technical University of
Denmark. He is a cofounder of the company Tie-Line Technol-
ogy, specializing in software/algorithms for modeling phase
behavior and miscibility in relation to EOR. Erling H. Stenby is a
professor of applied thermodynamics at the Department of
Chemical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark. Since
1994, he has been director of the Center for Phase Equilibria
and Separation Processes (IVC-SEP). He has been a visiting
professor in France and China and a consultant for companies
in several countries. In 2001, he cofounded the company Tie-
Line Technology, specializing in modeling phase behavior and
miscibility in relation to gas injection processes.
October 2007 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering