CO2 EOR Modelling Using

GEM
Agenda
• Introduction, concepts for CO2-EOR.
• Lab experiments.
• Lab data and fitting EOS parameters.
• Slim tube simulations.
• Sweep efficiency and gravity segregation.
Tutorials
• Matching PVT experiments and swelling tests.
• Core-flood History Matching using GEM
• Full field History Match
• Predictions using WAG
• CO2 optimization using CMOST
Introduction
Concepts
 Introduction
What is CO2-EOR?
• CO2-EOR is a technology that
MISCIBLE
targets the residual oil in depleted Pressure >> MMP
medium oil reservoirs by injecting
CO2 at miscible conditions.

• Injection of CO2 can be used for IMMISCIBLE

pressure maintenance purposes Pressure < MMP
as immiscible process.

• The conditions of miscibility are

reached above the minimum
miscibility pressure (MMP).
 Introduction
Minimum miscibility pressure:
• The minimum miscibility pressure
(MMP) is the lowest pressure at which
an oil and CO2 are completely miscible

• MMP depends on crude oil composition

and reservoir conditions.

• The MMP is specific for individual oil

compositions and must be determined
by performing laboratory analyses such
as using a slim tube apparatus or
through a rising bubble experiment
 Introduction
Miscibility.
High IFT

• Two fluids are miscible

when they dissolve in all
proportions producing an INMISCIBLE CONDITIONS
homogeneous solution.

• Conditions of miscibility No IFT

create a reduction on IFT.

MISCIBLE CONDITIONS
 Introduction
Types of miscibility: First Contact (FCM)
• First contact (FCM).
When an injected fluid
• Multi-contact. becomes instantaneously
miscible with the reservoir oil,
the fluid is said to be ‘first
CO2
C1 D e v e lo p e d -
contact miscible’ (FCM) with
M is c ib ilit y
(V a p o riz in g
the reservoir oil at the
G a s D r iv e ) displacement conditions
(Mihcakan et al. 1993)

F ir s t- C o n ta c t
M is c ib ility

R E S . O IL

C 7+ C 2 -6
 Introduction
Multiple contact.
• CO2 is not first contact miscible
process with most crude oils
within the reasonable range of
reservoir pressures.

• It requires many contacts in

which components of the oil and
CO2 transfer back and forth until
the oil-enriched CO2 cannot be
distinguished from the CO2-
enriched oil in terms of fluid
properties.
 Vaporization of light-
Multiple contact intermediate components

mechanisms

Vaporization.
• The ability of dense-phase CO2 to
extract hydrocarbon components
from oil helps to promote dynamic Vaporization, Extraction or Condensing, and first
contact miscibility depends upon:
miscibility. • Reservoir pressure
• Availability of solvent
• Oil viscosity / API
Extraction. • Reservoir heterogeneity
• The ability of dense-phase CO2 to
extract hydrocarbon components Typical oil characteristics for vaporizing gas
from oil helps to promote dynamic drive:
Deep reservoirs/high pressure
miscibility.
Oil contains significant C2-6 fraction (volatile oil)
Multiple contact
mechanisms

Swelling effect in oil.

• When CO2 reaches conditions for
miscibility in oil creates an effect of
swelling.
Swelling effect: Oil expands
when CO2 become miscible
Multiple contact mechanisms
in a ternary diagram
• The apexes of the diagram represent 100%
concentration of methane, nitrogen or CO2;
intermediate hydrocarbons (C2-C6) and
heavy hydrocarbons (C7+) respectively.
• VO is the saturated vapor curve. LO is the
saturated liquid curve.
• Point A represents the composition of
injected gas A. Point C represents the
composition of crude oil
• The composition of the injected gas is
modified (enriched) as it moves through the
reservoir so that it becomes miscible

1. Gas A mixes with Oil C. The resulting composition of the

mixture is along AC, say Point a.
2. Mixture a is in the two-phase region, therefore, separates
into a vapor V1 and a liquid L1
3. Vapor V1 moves ahead of Liquid L1 and contacts Oil C.
The resulting composition of the mixture is along Line
V1C, say at Point b.
4. Mixture b separates into Vapor V2 and Liquid L2
5. Finally, at point e, the vapor becomes miscible with Oil C
because the mixing line lies in the single-phase region.
Condensing / Vaporizing Mechanism

 These two regions are separated INTERMEDIATES INTERMEDIATES

by a transition zone where there

is reduced IFT and minimum tie- Injection Gas Injection Gas

line length
Oil Oil

LIGHT HEAVY LIGHT HEAVY

 The condensing/vaporizing (a) (b)

process is characterized by a
two-phase pseudo-ternary INTERMEDIATES

envelope which does not close P(a) < P(b) < P(c)
Injection Gas
and has an hour glass shape
Oil
 The pinching in the phase LIGHT HEAVY
envelope indicates a region of (c)

reduced IFT
Benefits of CO2 compared to
other gases

 Helps to extract lighter-

intermediate components
from oil.

 Lower gravity segregation

compared to CH4 and N2.

 Injection of CO2 enhances

the oil recovery and
reduces the greenhouse
gas emissions to the
atmosphere.
Benefits of CO2 compared to
other gases
 CO2 appears to be a highly
versatile oil recovery agent.
Useful in low permeability, carbonate
and dipping reservoirs
 Substitute for or enhancement of
water-flood
 Displacer of tertiary oil
 Miscible and immiscible mode
 CO2 flooding is increasing in
popularity.
While CO2 miscible flooding has been High degree of permeability
the most popular method in the past, heterogeneity may cause dilution of
CO2 immiscible flooding and CO2 solvent causing process to go from
sequestration is increasing in miscible to immiscible.
popularity.
Schematic of Miscible Displacement

IN J E C T O R PR O DU CER

a) Best possible situation

ne
le Z o

ank
C O2 R e s id u a l O il

O il B
ib
M is c
b) Gravity override
CO2 R e s id u a l O il

c) Viscous fingering
Most common situation CO2 R e s id u a l O il
due to low CO2 viscosity
Effect of Viscous and Capillary Forces on Sor

 The major controlling factor is W AG N E R & LE A C H

1 .0
usually interfacial tension

FO

DO M
ST
M

S O R /( S O R ) W
O

ER
O

BR O
RE

AB
&

RA

W SK
SL DU

MS
O PR
BO EY

TAB
0 .5

I & B
D

ER

R OW
Nc = Ratio of Viscous Energy/unit

N ELL
 N o n w e ttin g R e s id u a l
W e ttin g R e s id u a l
area To Interfacial Energy/unit area 0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
10 10 10 10 10
 Low σ  large Nc  low Sor C A P IL L A R Y N U M B E R , N c

3.527 x10  2 V  Ft / D   w  Poise

w
N 
c 
ow
 Dynes / Cm
Lab experiments
 Slim Tube test

Phase Behavior Studies

• Phase behavior studies include:

1) slim tube displacements.

2) swelling/extraction tests
3) Viscosity/density measurements .

1) Slim tube tests is that the small-

diameter tube filled with an
unconsolidated porous medium serves
as an idealized medium for CO2 and
crude oil to contact and develop
dynamic miscibility .

The recovery performance at different

pressures can be used to determine
the MMP .
 Swelling/Extraction Tests

Phase Behavior Studies

1. Volume of the fluid in the view cell increased
2) Swelling tests. since CO2 dissolved in and swelled the oil.
2. As pressure was further increased, CO2
density increased
To determine the relationship 3. Dense-phase CO2 had the ability to extract
between saturation pressure, hydrocarbon components from crude oil
swelling factor and CO2 volume more easily than if it were in the gaseous
phase
injected 4. CO2 started vaporizing or extracting
hydrocarbons from crude oil, volume of the
fluid in the view cell was therefore reduced
Laboratory Data and
Fitting EOS Parameters
Idealized Steps in a Simulation Study

Use the PVT package to match:

 Bubble point pressure
 Differential Liberation
 CCE (constant composition expansion)
 CVD (constant volume depletion)
 Separator GOR
 Swelling tests for reservoir fluids/solvent
 CO2/oil behavior and swelling tests
These experiments are usually matched by changing
the following parameters in the EOS:

 Volume shift and critical properties for the

C6+ fractions
 Interaction coefficients
Idealized Steps in a Simulation Study

Match an Equation of State

Run slim tube experiments and match
results with compositional flow
simulation.

1. Reduce the number of components

2. Run coreflood experiments and
match results with compositional
flow simulation
3. Develop pseudo relative
permeability with permeability and
PVT data from corefloods
Laboratory Data and Fitting EOS

 Up until now all experiments could be handled by an equation of

state model (EOS).

 Why do we need to take a numerical/experimental look at dynamic

miscibility?

• Thermodynamic miscibility is not the same as flow miscibility

• Flow properties such as the effect of interfacial tension have a large

effect on minimum miscibility pressure.
 Constant Composition Expansion
Pressure Relative Volume Oil Viscosity
(psig) (V/Vsat) (cp)

4000 0.9730 0.4587

3700 0.9784 --
3500 -- 0.4425
3400 0.9838 --
3100 0.9892 --
3000 -- 0.4292
2800 0.9946 --
2500 (BBP) 1.0000 0.4167
2100 1.0776 --
2000 -- 0.4348
1700 1.2081 --
1500 -- 0.4608
1300 1.4464 --
1000 -- 0.4902
900 1.9465 --
500 3.3532 0.5263
250 -- 0.5556
0 -- 1.2195

Differential Liberation
Properties of Liberated Gas
Pressure Cum. GOR(1) Shrinkage(2) Compressibility Viscosity
(psig) (SCF/BBL) (V/Vbp) Factor (cp)

2500 485 1.0000 -- --

2200 430 0.9780 0.8564 0.019
1900 375 0.9500 0.8620 0.018
1600 318 0.9175 0.8705 0.017
1300 265 0.8855 0.8815 0.016
1000 215 0.8550 0.8947 0.015
700 165 0.8260 0.9098 0.014
400 107 0.7980 0.9268 0.013
200 66 0.7700 0.9388 0.012
0 0 0.7005 0.9821 0.010
(1) Standard cubic feet at 60oF and 14.7 psia per barrel at 2500 psig and
256oF
(2) V = Volume of oil at indicated pressure and 256oF
Vbp = Volume of saturated oil at 2500 psig and 256oF
Staged Flash Liberation

First Stage First Stage Stock Tank Stock Tank

Temperature Pressure GOR GOR API Gravity Shrinkage(1)
(oF) (psig) (SCF/STB) (SCF/STB) at 60oF

70 0 753 -- 39.7 0.647

72 100 614 15.7 41.5 0.711
72 300 550 60.5 42.5 0.725
72 500 500 120.0 42.7 0.727

(1) Barrels of residual oil at 60oF and 14.7 psia per barrel of oil at 256 oF and 2500 psig

 Separator tests.
To help determine what is
optimum pressure to run
separator
Measured and Calculated BP’s

Bubble Point Pressure (psia)

Fluid Measurements Calculations (15 comp.)

Reservoir Oil 2514.7 2363.3

Contact 1 4744.7 4579.8
Contact 2 4814.7 4799.5
Contact 3 5439.7 5507.2
Contact 4 4754.7 5469.4
Step 1 - EOS Modelling
7 0 0 0 .0
 Did characterization of c7+ as 5 C.P.
6 0 0 0 .0 1 6 C o m p o n e n ts
pseudo-components, giving 6 C o m p o n e n ts
C r i t i c a l P o in t

P r e s s u r e , p s ia
15 component model. 5 0 0 0 .0

4 0 0 0 .0
 Regressed on compositions
for multi-contact process to 3 0 0 0 .0

tune fluid model 2 0 0 0 .0

0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 .0

 Regression variables were: G lo b a l M o le % R ic h G a s

• Critical pressure and

temperature of a heaviest • A reduced number of components
component will help to improve run time and
complexity of the model.
• Volume translation for • An analysis should be performed
methane. in order to preserve the same
results with less number of
• Exponent θ for interaction components.
coefficient.
Step 2 - Slim Tube Modelling

 History match slim tube

results

 Reduce the number of B.T.

components

 Account for IFT effects

100

% R E C O V E R Y A T 1 .2 H C P V O F C O 2 IN J E C T E D
90
I n i ti a lly in t e r p r e t e d t o b e
m i n i m u m m is c ib le p r e s s u r e

80

70

M is c ib le
60

Im m is c ib le

50
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
T E S T P R E S S U R E ( P S IG )
Slim Tube Recoveries

Measured and Calculated Oil Recovery (% Initial Oil in Place)

from Slim Tube Displacements at Different Pressures

Measurements Calculated with Calculated with

15 comp. 6 comp.
Pressure at break- at 1 PV at break- at 1 PV at break- at 1 PV
(psia) through injected through injected through injected
1916 37.0 57.4 37.1 57.5 38.4 58.3
3640 58.1 78.7 58.0 78.7 58.9 79.1
3858 69.2 85.0 67.6 81.8 68.7 82.1
4366 77.0 87.7 76.5 87.5 76.5 86.0
5091 77.6 87.6 78.9 90.4 77.3 88.1
6540 79.0 88.1 81.1 91.4 78.5 89.5
Idealized Steps in a Simulation Study
1. With PVT package match bubble point
pressure, differential liberation, constant
composition expansion, separator GOR,
swelling tests for reservoir fluids/solvent.
Typical matching parameters are the critical
properties and volume shift parameters for the
C6+ fractions and interaction coefficients
(Pedersen 1989, McCain 1990)

2. If CO2 and oil phase behavior measurements

are done, a PVT package can be used to match Matching PVT Experiments
CO2/oil behavior and swelling tests (Grigg et al,
1983)

3. Run slim tube experiments and match results

with compositional flow simulation. Often it
will be necessary to reduce the number of
components for flow simulation. Typical
matching parameters are relative permeability
functions of interfacial tension (IFT), relative
permeability and adjusting correlations of IFT
(Macleod-Sugden Correlation). Results at this
stage are often sensitive to block sizing
(Stalkup, 1988; Camy et al, 1977). Explicit
formulation is often needed to reduce
numerical dispersion (Nutakki et al, 1991)
Idealized Steps in a Simulation Study
4. Run coreflood experiments and match results Matching Coreflood
with compositional flow simulation. Often results
Experiments
at this stage will be strongly affected by reservoir
heterogeneity. Typical matching parameters are
relative permeabilities (Gardner et al, 1984)

5. Develop pseudo relative permeability with relative

permeability and PVT data from corefloods,
accounting for megascopic effects such as
heterogeneity, dispersion and flow mechanism
(Stalkup, 1983; Camy et al, 1977; Haldorsen, 1986)

6. If pilot test data is available it is strongly

recommended that the field simulation data be
characterized by history matching data (Stalkup,
1983). Often at this stage residual oil saturations
(Sorm) are increased to account for megascopic
bypassing

7. All of these steps are time consuming and rarely

are all the steps done totally. The estimated time
to do all this work 2 years.
Slim Tube Simulations and
the
Effect of Interfacial Tension
Slim Tube Recoveries at 1.0 PV Inj.

1 0 0 .0

O il R e c o v e r y a t 1 . 0 P V In je c t e d , %
9 0 .0

8 0 .0

7 0 .0

15 C o m p o n e n ts ( IF T )
15 C o m p o n e n ts ( n o IF T )
6 0 .0
6 C o m p o n e n t s ( IF T )
E x p e r im e n ta l D a ta

5 0 .0
2 0 0 0 .0 4 0 0 0 .0 6 0 0 0 .0 8 0 0 0 .0
P r e s s u r e , p s ia

Having a relative permeability as a function of IFT was

critical at getting a match
IFT Effects on Rel. Permeability In GEM

 The match is good at all the pressures

At higher IFT, the relative permeability curves are:

4
~  1  S wc  S org  S g 
krog   
 1  S wc  S org 

2
~  Sg 
krg   
 1  S wc 
IFT Effects on Rel. Perm. In GEM

 With Swc = 0.0 and Sorg = 0.3. The previous relative permeability
curves are allowed to approach straight lines as the IFT is
lowered.
The following expressions are used:
~
k rog  f    krog   1  f     S o
~
k rg  f    krg   1  f     S g
f      / ref  2

Where σ is the IFT between the oil and gas phase in mN.m
calculated from the Macleod-Sugden correlation and σref is the
reference interfacial tension, below which the effect of IFT on
relative permeability is taken into account
Ternary Diagram at 4015 psia

C7+

p = 4 0 1 5 p s ia

C H4 , C O2 , N 2 C2 - C 6
V a p o r (1 5 c o m p o n e n ts ) S o lv e n t
L iq u id (1 5 c o m p o n e n t s ) O il
x E x p e r im e n ta l d a ta
Ternary Diagram at 5091 psia

C7+

p = 5 0 9 1 p s ia

C H4 , C O2 , N 2 C2 - C 6
V a p o r (1 5 c o m p o n e n ts ) S o lv e n t
L iq u id (1 5 c o m p o n e n t s ) O il
Phase Density Profiles Along Slim Tube

8 0 0 .0

7 0 0 .0
3
P h a s e M a s s D e n s ity , k g /m

6 0 0 .0

5 0 0 .0

4 0 0 .0

3 0 0 .0

2 0 0 .0
In je c te d
H2 0
1 0 0 .0
0 .0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0 2 0 .0 2 5 .0 3 0 .0 Sw + C O 2

D is ta n c e , fe e t
D C B A

Vapor L iq u id TW O PH ASE ZO N E
2 9 1 6 p s ia C O 2 S w o lle n C O 2 S w o lle n O il D is p la c e d S o lu tio n R e s e r v o ir

C O 2 D is s o lv e d in O il
4 3 6 6 p s ia R e s id u a l O il N e a rly M is c ib le G a s - I m m is c ib le F lu id
5 0 9 1 p s ia C O 2 In j e c t i o n w it h In je c t e d G a s w ith R e s e r v o ir F lu id

 Note the distance required to

achieve miscible pressure and D IS T A N C E
f r o m i n je c t o r t o p r o d u c e r

lack of miscible pressure at

4366 psi
IFT Profile Along Slim Tube

1
10
In te r fa c ia l T e n s io n , m N /m

0
10

1 0 -1
IF T P r o f ile s a t 0 .8 P . V . I n je c te d
2 9 1 6 p s ia
-2 3 8 5 8 p s ia
10
4 3 6 6 p s ia
5 0 9 1 p s ia

1 0 -3
0 .0 5 .0 1 0 .0 1 5 .0 2 0 .0 2 5 .0 3 0 .0
D i s ta n c e , fe e t

Adjusted parameters in the IFT equation

Note the distance required to achieve miscible pressure and lack of miscible
pressure at 4366 psi
Slim Tube Simulations and Effects of IFT

Calculated Pseudo-Ternary Diagrams for Sigmund et al (1979)

Oil with Rich-Gas Injection at 15,000 kPa
C2 - C 5

1 5 ,0 0 0 k P a 1 4 C o m p o n e n ts
9 6 .6 o C 6 C o m p o n e n ts

In je c tio n G a s

R e s e rv o ir O il

C1 , N 2, C O 2 C 6+
Principles of Miscible Flooding
Slim Tube Simulations and Effects of IFT

Calculated Pseudo-Ternary Diagrams for Sigmund et al (1979)

Oil with Rich-Gas Injection at 19,000 kPa

C2 - C5

1 9 ,0 0 0 k P a 1 4 C o m p o n e n ts
9 6 .6 o C 6 C o m p o n e n ts

In je c tio n G a s

R e s e r v o ir O il

C1 , N 2, C O 2 C 6+
Principles of Miscible Flooding
Slim Tube Simulations and Effects of IFT

Calculated Pseudo-Ternary Diagrams for 6 Component Sigmund et al (1979) Oil-Rich Gas

System with Only One C6+ Component

C2 - C 5

1 5 ,0 0 0 k P a 1 4 C o m p o n e n ts
9 6 .6 o C 6 C o m p o n e n ts

In je c tio n G a s

R e s e r v o ir O il

C1 , N 2, C O 2 C 6+
Recap of Laboratory Data

EOS modelling without any calibration to experimental data can be

misleading

Need more than one C6+ component to characterize the oil

The break in oil recovery for slim tube tests does not always indicate
thermodynamic miscibility

Thermodynamic miscibility pressure is not the same as minimum

miscible pressure

IFT is an important effect for slim tube experiments

Field Applications of
Miscible Flooding
Field Applications of Miscible Flooding
General Considerations

Key points in miscible flooding simulation (field scale)

– The "fluid model" should be calibrated to experimental lab data before
proceeding to field scale simulation
– Heterogeneity (permeability variation) is usually extremely important for
miscible flood predictions. Spend a lot of time doing reservoir
characterization for the simulation study
– Design of miscible flood simulation requires a number of choices:
• Type of flood (FCM, condensing, vaporizing, CO 2)

• Flow mechanism (vertical flood, gravity segregation)

• Slug size
• WAG or no WAG
Field Applications of Miscible Flooding
General Considerations

– Determine what type of flow mechanisms and heterogeneity you have

before you do field scale grid design (vertical drive, gravity dominated
horizontal flood, viscous dominate horizontal flood)
– Use fine scale cross-sectional models to answer questions about

• Viscous fingering

• Slug size

• Vertical heterogeneity / layering

• Displacement efficiency
Field Applications of Miscible Flooding - Target Oil

In general, water flooding and primary depletion give recoveries in the 20-40%
range, this means that 60-80% of the original oil is not recovered

Reasons for incomplete recovery are:

– Incomplete contact or poor volumetric sweep
• Reservoir heterogeneity
• Continuity, directional permeability, fracturing, zonation
• Gravity segregation
• Well pattern and spacing
• High viscosity oil
– Inefficient displacement
• Capillary forces
• High viscosity oil

Miscible flood simulation must take account of displacement efficiency and

volumetric sweep
Field Applications of Miscible Flooding
Field Scale Simulation

Primary considerations
– Vertical permeability and solvent-oil segregation
– Reservoir heterogeneity (permeability distribution)
– Injectivity and productivity of wells
– Loss of miscibility pressure
– Inter-pattern flow

Secondary considerations
– Water blocking
– Viscous fingering
– Hysteresis in relative permeability

Miscible flooding simulation studies cannot take all factors into account
simultaneously, they must be studied in steps.
Field Applications of Miscible Flooding
Design and Prediction Considerations

Reservoir description
– Areal permeability distribution
– Vertical permeability distribution
– Distribution of fractures and faults
– Fluid distribution
– Injectivity and productivity
– Barriers
– Continuity
Sweep efficiency
– Gravity
– Viscous fingering
– Fractures
– Permeability stratification
– Mobility ratio
Sweep Efficiency
Field Applications of Miscible Flooding
Macroscopic View of Oil Recovery

In je c tio n In je c t io n

C O 2/
 Use large scale models to s o lv e n t o il

answer questions about

• Areal/vertical sweep efficiency



•

Pattern influx / outflux
 

  

  

 
Field Applications of Miscible Flooding
Illustration of Types of Sweep Efficiency

P ro d u c e r I n je c t o r P ro d u c e r
B

A B

C r o s s S e c t io n a l V ie w
In je c to r A r e a l V ie w
A r e a l S w e e p E f f ic ie n c y V e r t ic a l S w e e p E f f ic ie n c y
Field Applications of Miscible Flooding
Sweep Efficiency

Determining Vertical Sweep Efficiency (E v )

Stratified Reservoir

CO 2 INJECTOR WELLBORE

LOW PERMEABILITY

INTERMEDIATE PERMEABILITY

HIGH PERMEABILITY

LOW PERMEABILITY

INTERMEDIATE PERMEABILITY
Compositional Versus
Pseudo-Miscible Simulation
Field Applications of Miscible Flooding

When do I need to use a compositional simulator and when can I

use a pseudo-miscible simulator?

Rule of thumb:
– When the process is first contact miscible use pseudo-miscible option
– When the process is multi-contact miscible with long transition zones use
compositional simulation
– When chase gas following solvent will cause loss of miscibility use
compositional model
– For volatile oils, use compositional simulator
Field Applications of Miscible Flooding
Choice of Simulators

Dilemma
– Use of compositional simulator is probably more rigorous but more intense
CPU use means that less geological heterogeneity can be accounted for

P s e u d o M is c i b le C o m p o s it i o n a l

P hase
G e o lo g y
B e h a v io r
+
V is c o u s
F in g e ri n g
Flow Regimes and
Gravity Segregation
Field Applications of Miscible Flooding - Flow Regimes

N o n - G r a v ity D o m in a te d

V e r tic a l F lo o d
Classification of miscible flooding
process according to impact of gravity

G r a v ity D o m in a te d
Field Applications of Miscible Flooding - Flow Regimes

G a s i n je c t e d a b o v e o i l -
o il p ro d u c e d fro m b e lo w
Vertical miscible flood illustration of a gravity
stabilized miscible flood
G as

O il

W a te r Z o n e
Schematic of Gravity Stabilized Flood

10% G as ( T r a ilin g E d g e )
9 0 % S o lv e n t

D ry G a s

M is c ib le
S lu g
q
< V c
O il A

9 0 % S o lv e n t ( L e a d in g E d g e )
1 0 % O il

O r ig in a l O il- W a t e r

In modelling vertical miscible floods, simulations require a large number of grid blocks in the
vertical direction to account for heterogeneity and mixing zone
Gravity Segregation in a Horizontal Reservoir

To determine amount of vertical gridding must identify flow regimes first

Gravity forces play a dominant role in displacement
Density difference between oil and injectant causes segregation resulting in their
incomplete contact
– Water under-running when ρw >> ρo
– Gas over-riding when ρg << ρo
Ratio of viscous and gravity forces is most illustrative of the effect of gravity
– For a linear, isotropic (kh = kv) system
– Scaling coefficient

 P  VIS 2050q oL

 P  GR KAh
Gravity Segregation in a Horizontal Reservoir

Where:
A - Area, ft2
q - Flow rate, Res bbl/day (can't control that much)
µo - Oil viscosity, CP
L - Length, Ft
K - Absolute permeability, mD K K h xK v
∆ρ - Density difference, gm/cm3
h - Thickness, ft
For an un-isotropic system,

The higher the ratio, the higher the contact efficiency

The only practical way to improve contact efficiency is to lower ∆ρ value

Gravity Override

IN J E C T O R PR O D U C ER

S O LV EN T
O IL

H O R IZ O N T A L R E S E R V O IR
Gravity Override

100

C O N T A C T E F F IC IE N C Y A T B T , %
 
80
 

60  


40 

M = 5 .7 6
20
M =200
  
0
0 .1 1 10 100
(  P )V IS
( P )G R

M is mobility ratio = Driving mobility/Driven mobility

Gravity Override

IN J E C T O R PRO D U C ER
LO W R ATES
L O W IN J E C T IO N R A T E S

IN J E C T O R PRO D U C ER
H IG H R A T E S

High production and injection rates improve vertical sweep efficiency by

decreasing gravity override
Gravity Segregation

One strategy to reduce gas segregation is to operate at higher pressures

1 .0
o
TEM P. = 105
0 .8
O IL
D E N S IT Y , G M /C C

0 .6
C O2

0 .4

0 .2
N2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
P R E S S U R E , P S IA

CO2 has favorable characteristics to reduce gravity segregation

It is the only gas that has this density behavior