SPE 89357
Development of Gas Assisted Gravity Drainage (GAGD) Process
for Improved Light Oil Recovery
D. N. Rao, S. C. Ayirala, M. M. Kulkarni, and A. P. Sharma, Louisiana State University
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2004 SPE/DOE Fourteenth Symposium on
Improved Oil Recovery held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A., 1721 April 2004.
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
Attempting to overcome natural gravity segregation by
alternating gas injection with water has yielded better EOR
performance in WAG floods than continuous gas injection
(CGI) field projects. However, WAG is still a method to
combat the natural phenomenon of gravity segregation. In
attempting to resolve one problem of adverse mobility, the
WAG process gives rise to other problems associated with
increased water saturation in the reservoir including
diminished gas injectivity and increased competition to the
flow of oil. The disappointing field performance of WAG
floods with oil recoveries in the range of 5-10% is a clear
indication of these limitations.
In order to find an effective alternative to WAG, we have
initiated the development of the Gas-Assisted Gravity
Drainage (GAGD) process. Unlike WAG, the GAGD process
takes advantage of the natural segregation of injected gas from
crude oil in the reservoir. Although gravity-stable gas floods
have long been practiced in selected dipping reservoirs and
pinnacle reefs, this project is aimed at a systematic
development of a recovery process that would be widely
applicable to different reservoir types in both secondary and
tertiary modes.
The GAGD process consists of placing a horizontal
producer near the bottom of the payzone and injecting gas
through existing vertical wells used in prior waterfloods. As
the injected gas rises to the top to form a gas zone, oil and
water drain down to the horizontal producer. The new GAGD
process is being developed using a three-pronged approach:
(1) Design and construction of a scaled physical model to
demonstrate process feasibility and to investigate and
understand the interplay of capillary, gravitational and viscous
forces. (2) Process optimization by determining miscibility
pressures and compositions through the use of the Vanishing
Interfacial Tension (VIT) technique. (3) The process
demonstration at reservoir conditions by conducting horizontal
WAG floods and vertical GAGD floods in 2-meter long cores.
This paper will present the GAGD concept and its advantages
over WAG and a summary of the experimental evidence
collected so far.
1. Introduction
1.1 Status of Gas Injection Projects
Within the last twelve years the miscible CO2 projects have
increased from 52 in 1990 to 66 in 2002 and their production
during the same time period has almost doubled from 95,000
BPD to 187,400 BPD. These data indicate that while the
production (and number) of CO2 miscible projects has
increased steadily over the last two decades, all other gas
injection projects (CO2 immiscible, N2 and flue gas) have
declined or become extinct except for the hydrocarbon
miscible projects. The production from miscible hydrocarbon
gas injection projects in the US has steadily increased from
55,386 BPD in 1990 to 124,500 BPD in 2000 in spite of their
decreasing numbers. However, this trend was reversed in 2002
when the production from hydrocarbon gas floods fell to
95,300 BPD, perhaps due to the increasing price of natural
gas. The overall effect is that the share of production from gas
injection EOR in the US has almost doubled from 23% in
1990 to 44.5% in 2002. This clearly demonstrates the
growing commercial interest that the US oil industry has in
gas injection EOR projects. The relatively high price of
natural gas and the additional benefit of carbon sequestration
tip the scales in favor of CO2 for future gas injection projects.
1.2 Current Practice by Industry
The viscosity of gases injected, whether CO2 or hydrocarbons,
is generally less than one-tenth of that of the oil at reservoir
conditions making mobility control one of the biggest factors
in a successful gas injection project. Research is ongoing on
foams and gels to viscosify the solvents. However, these
techniques, still of experimental nature, are not accepted as a
part of current miscible flood technology. Hence, the WAG
process, first proposed by Caudle and Dyes1 in 1958, has
remained the default option for mobility control in horizontal
gas floods.
Christensen et al.2 have presented a review of 59 WAG field
experiences, starting from the first WAG flood of 1957 by
Mobil in North Pembina field in Alberta, to the latest in the
2 SPE 89357
North Sea. Of the 59 WAG floods around the world, 37
(excluding the four simultaneous water and gas injection
projects) have been in the United States. Of these 37 WAG
floods in the US, 26 have been CO2 floods. In spite of its
predominance in field applications, the performance of the
WAG process has been disappointing. The above noted review
concludes that in a majority of the 59 projects reviewed the
incremental oil recovery was in the range of 5 to 10%, with an
average incremental recovery of 9.7% for miscible WAG
projects and 6.4% for immiscible WAG projects. (The authors
further note that the highest oil recovery was surprisingly
obtained in carbonate formations, and dolomites had higher
predicted recoveries than the average for sandstones). In
comparison, the oil recoveries were much better in the range
of 15 - 40% OOIP in the gravity-stable vertical gas floods
conducted in pinnacle reefs of Alberta3. These field results
indicate the benefits of working with nature by making use of
buoyancy rise of injected gas to displace oil downwards. This
leads us to the question: why not inject the gas always in a
gravity-stable mode at the top of the payzone in order to drain
the oil downwards into a horizontal producer? The proposed
project aims to answer this question by developing suitable
scaling criteria for the new concept, building a visual physical
model to demonstrate the process feasibility, and by
conducting long-core floods in both vertical (gravity-stable)
mode and horizontal (WAG) mode. In addition, the proposed
project also aims to further develop the new Vanishing
Interfacial Tension (VIT) technique4-6 to determine miscibility
conditions in the reservoir.
1.3 Why are the oil recoveries so low in WAG projects?
The conventional WAG process is schematically depicted in
Figure 1. If the injected gas and water slugs flowed as
envisioned in the above schematic, significantly higher oil
recoveries would be obtained due to excellent sweep
efficiency. The fact that the accumulated experience from
several field projects contradicts this high expectation clearly
indicates that the real fluids flow behavior in the reservoir in a
WAG process is significantly different from that envisioned in
Figure 1. Considering the natural tendency of the injected gas
to override and of the water to under-ride, a more realistic
flow pattern could be as depicted in Figure 2. The
consequence of such gas-water segregation is the poor sweep
efficiency resulting in low recoveries as found in field
projects.
1.4 Gravity-Stable Gas Injection Field Projects
The gravity drainage process has been successfully
implemented in many field applications in the US, Canada and
in other parts of the world. Table 1 shows the summary of the
gravity drainage field applications reviewed so far during this
study. Howes3 summarizes the vertical gravity stable
hydrocarbon (HC) miscible floods conducted in Canadian
reservoirs from 1964 - 1987.
The field reviews underscore the applicability of the gas
gravity drainage process to several reservoir types and
characteristics in both secondary and tertiary mode. Gravity
drainage is seen to be best applicable to low connate water
saturation, thick, highly dipping or reef type, and light oil
reservoirs with moderate to high vertical permeability and low
re-pressurization requirements. High recovery factors in the
range of 58 95% OOIP have been reported.
2. The Gas Assisted Gravity Drainage (GAGD)
Process
2.1 The Concept and Benefits of GAGD
The idea originated as a natural extension of the gravity-stable
gas injection projects discussed earlier, which amply
demonstrate that working with nature yields significant
benefits over processes designed to combat the natural
phenomenon of gravity segregation. The name was chosen
intentionally to mimic the steam-assisted gravity drainage
(SAGD) process7 being developed for thermal recovery of
heavy oils.
The concept of the GAGD process is shown schematically
in Figure 3. CO2 injected in the vertical wells accumulates at
the top of the payzone due to gravity segregation and displaces
oil, which drains to the horizontal producer straddling several
injection wells. As injection continues, the CO2 chamber
grows downward and sideways resulting in larger and larger
portions of the reservoir being swept by it without any
increase in water saturation in the reservoir. This maximizes
the volumetric sweep efficiency. The gravity segregation of
CO2 also helps in delaying, or even eliminating, CO2
breakthrough to the producer as well as preventing the gas
phase from competing for flow with oil. Within the CO2 filled
chamber, the oil displacement efficiency could be maximized
by keeping the pressure above the minimum miscibility
pressure (MMP). This helps in achieving low interfacial
tension between the oil and the injected CO2, which in turn
results in large capillary numbers and low residual oil
saturations in the CO2 swept region. If the formation is water-
wet, water is likely to be held back in the rock pores by
capillary pressure while oil will be preferentially displaced by
CO2. If the formation is oil-wet, the continuous films of oil
will help create drainage paths for the oil to flow to the
horizontal producer. Thus the proposed GAGD process
appears capable of not only eliminating the two main
problems (poor sweep and water-shielding) of the
conventional WAG processes, but also additional advantages
of increased oil saturation and consequently improved oil
relative permeability near the producing well-bore, and the
lack of competing gas flow. The process makes use of the
existing vertical wells in the field for CO2 injection and calls
for drilling a long horizontal well for producing the draining
oil. The drilling costs of horizontal wells have been
significantly reduced in recent years due to advancements in
drilling technology. In summary, the proposed GAGD process
offers significant potential for increasing not only ultimate oil
recovery but also the rates of recovery compared to that
achievable by the conventional WAG process that is being
widely applied in the US oil fields.
2.2 Physical Model Development
As a part of this project, a scaled physical model is being
constructed not only to demonstrate the process but also to
identify suitable reservoirs parameters as well as to examine
the effect of factors such as (1) miscible/immiscible floods, (2)
GAGD/WAG, (3) wettability, (4) heterogeneity, and others.
Such physical model studies are just a few and far between
SPE 89357
(Claridge8 in 1972; Jackson et al.9 in 1985; and Butler10 in
2000). Such models are very useful in deriving field
implications from well-designed simple experiments and in
comparing different displacement mechanisms. Since the
GAGD concept is new, use of the dimensional similarity
approach will enhance the usefulness of data obtained from
laboratory physical model experiments. A set of dimensionless
groups has to be identified in order to represent similarity of
the laboratory scaled model with the real reservoir. Two
general methods for obtaining dimensionless groups used in
scaling are dimensional analysis and inspectional analysis.
The general procedure of using inspectional analysis
reported by Shook et al.11 is being applied to the GAGD
process under conditions that the injected gas is immiscible in
the crude oil. As can be expected, the mechanisms operative in
the GAGD process appear to be reasonably well represented
by the use of Gravity (or Buoyancy) number, Capillary
number, end-point mobility ratio and an effective geometric
aspect ratio as the dimensionless parameters to be matched
between the field and the model.
For the miscible gas injection process, Doscher and Gharib12
report that, the following equalities must be maintained as
indicated by dimensional analysis and inspectional analysis.
K Dm v K l KPc conducted. The results indicated that it is much harder to
v l
v P vl p p K p p pressure 3-dimensional model than in a partially scaled 2-
= = = = =1
K m
D v K l KPc dimensional model. Gas injection at an injection pressure of 1
v M vl M M K M v l M
The ratio of all these terms for the prototype to the model
can conveniently be kept constant by adjusting the rock and
fluid properties (permeability, grain size, viscosity, density
etc.) in the model. The first term in the above equation
signifies the ratio of gravity forces to the viscous forces. The
second term scales the molecular diffusion to the viscous
forces (ratio of diffusion to convective dispersion). The third
scaling ratio is for the Reynolds number. The fourth scaling
ratio is that for the ratio of the total length of the system to the
number of pores per unit length of the system. If this scaling
ratio is maintained unity, then it is impossible to maintain the
proper scaling of the gravity to viscous forces. Therefore, for
this reason the fourth term is neglected. The last scaling ratio
is that for the capillary forces to the viscous forces. The
scaling factors about which there are some uncertainties are
those which affect the subsequent oil recovery after
breakthrough and not the phenomenon occurring at the solvent
water interfaces viz., frontal displacement, gravity override
and viscous fingering12.
2.2.1 Scaled physical model study on gravity drainage.
Doscher et al.13 reported experimental work on CO2 and N2
floods for recovery of waterflood residual oil under reservoir
conditions. They pointed out that convective mixing or
dispersion is exaggerated in the model.
Chatzis et al.14 reported gravity drainage experimental study
results in both capillary tubes and a long Berea sandstone core.
The formation of an oil bank in the Berea core during the
process with capillary barrier was demonstrated by CT
3
scanning. They concluded that very high oil recoveries under
gravity assisted inert gas injection are only possible when oil
spreads over water (positive spreading coefficient), and the
reservoir is strongly water wet. With short core plugs, the
development and propagation of the oil bank are limited by
the size of the plug, and the use of a capillary barrier at the
producing end is necessary for achieving high capillary
pressure conditions to produce the oil. Capillary end-effect has
a profound impact in laboratory studies, while its role is
negligible on the field scale.
Kantzas et al.15 reported experimental results for both
unconsolidated and consolidated porous media. In controlled
drainage experiments, a capillary barrier was used to stabilize
the displacement by reducing flow rate. The capillary barrier
also prevented gas from breaking through. Ultimate oil
recoveries from unconsolidated experiments were very high,
99% and 94% for oil at connate water saturation and at water-
flooded residual-oil saturation, respectively.
Meszaros et al.16 conducted scaled physical model study of
gravity assisted inert gas injection process. Both low-pressure
and high-pressure scaled physical models were built and
tested. Scaling criteria of Islam and Farouq Ali17 were used. A
total of 23 experimental runs, with N2 and CO2 at different
injection pressures and oil viscosities (750-7500 cp), were
maintain a stable gas front in a geometrically scaled high-
psi increased oil production substantially. In the N2 injection
run, considerable amount of oil was produced after gas
breakthrough. As high as 70% of the oil in place was
recovered using gravity-stable gas injection.
Vizika and Lombard18 analyzed wettability and spreading,
the two key parameters in oil recovery with three-phase
gravity drainage. Experiments using oil-wet, water-wet, and
fractional-wet porous media with three different fluid systems
were conducted. The three phase relative permeabilities from
the experimental data were obtained by numerical history
matching. It was concluded that the existence of wetting and
spreading films, greatly affected the flow mechanisms and
consequently the recovery kinetics and also the process
efficiency. The highest oil recoveries were obtained for
positive spreading coefficients under water-wet conditions,
due to the flow of oil by spreading films, which maintain the
hydraulic continuity.
Grattoni et al.19studied free gravity drainage in a 2D visual
cell. A good correlation was found between a new
dimensionless group and oil production. The new
dimensionless group was a combination of the capillary
number, the Bond number, and the viscosity ratio. Results and
methods used in the various physical model studies are
summarized in Table 2.
2.2.1 Preliminary Experiments with an Unscaled Model. A
physical model, consisting of a bead pack in a visual model,
was used for preliminary free gravity drainage studies. Figure
4 shows the schematic of the experimental apparatus. The
liquid pump and the floating piston vessels provide means of
saturating and de-saturating the porous media in the visual
model with oil or water. Effluent liquids are collected in a
4 SPE 89357
glass cylinder. A vision system, which consists of a camera,
frame grabber and imaging analysis software, is used to
measure oil and/or water production rates.
The visual model is made of mainly two parallel pieces of
Pyrex glass and an aluminum frame. The inner dimensions of
the model are: 14.92 x 35.23 x 2.54 cm, which gives a volume
of 1336 cc.
Size of glass beads used was in the range of 0.4-0.6 mm.
Dry-packing resulted in a porosity of 0.39 and estimated
permeability of 10 Darcy.
In these tests, de-ionized water, n-decane and paraffin oil,
and air have been used. Some physical properties of these
fluids are shown in Table 3.
Run 1: Free gravity drainage with decane. In this run, the
bead pack was initially saturated with water. Then Decane was
injected at a rate of 6 cc/min to displace water and create a
pre-gravity-drainage condition. Decane broke through after 68
minutes (0.83 pore volume (PV)).
Figure 5 shows the oil recovery as a percentage of initial
oil in place (IOIP) versus time elapsed during the gravity
drainage experiment. During the first ten minutes, production
rate was high and almost constant, after which it decreased
significantly.
There appear to be two stages in this gravity drainage
process. The fist stage corresponds to an oleic single-phase
drainage at a higher rate. In this stage, oil bank in the model
rapidly shrunk while only oil was produced at roughly
constant rate. The second stage was characterized with
twophase flow at a much lower oil drainage rate. In this stage,
both oil and gas were produced in alternative slugs at the
effluent end.
Run 2: Free gravity drainage with paraffin. This run was
conducted in a manner similar to Run 1. Due to much higher
viscosity of paraffin compared to Decane, it was possible to
observe the air-oil interface and its movement within the
model. A clear-cut air/oil interface between the gas and oil
zones was observed (Figure 6). During the test, no water was
produced, supporting the assumption that water (at its initial
saturation of about 10%) was immobile during gravity
drainage.
3. Gas-Oil Miscibility Evaluation
3.1 The Need for Miscibility
The main reason for the presence of large quantities of
residual oil left behind in the reservoir after secondary
waterfloods is the trapping effect caused by surface or
capillary forces caused by high interfacial tension. Miscibility
between the displacing and displaced fluids means, by
definition, that these is no interface between them or that the
interfacial tension is reduced to zero, thereby resulting in a
capillary number of infinity. Therefore, much of the research
effort in the past has been directed at EOR processes that seek
to reduce the interfacial tension by using surfactants with
injected water (chemical flooding) or miscible solvents such
as hydrocarbon gases or CO2. An interesting outcome results
when the capillary number concept is applied to the proposed
GAGD process. Initially, the injected gas, if it were below (but
close to) the minimum miscibility pressure, would create a
three-phase zone of oil, water and gas. The rising gas would
then preferentially displace oil because of its lower interfacial
tension with oil than with reservoir brine. Although the
injected gas may exist as a separate phase below MMP, this
rising gas phase will not compete with the downward flowing
liquids. Thus the three-phase relative permeability effects can
be expected to be largely absent near the producing horizontal
well.
However, in order to accomplish low residual oil saturation
in the gas zone, low gas-oil interfacial tension, or miscibility,
is required. The GAGD process appears to provide an
opportunity to satisfy this requirement by maintaining the
reservoir pressure near the MMP through control of the flow
rates of injected gas and produced liquids. This requires
quality data on MMP and MMC (minimum miscibility
composition) as well as gas-oil compositional effects on gas-
oil, gas-brine and oil-brine interfacial tensions at operating
pressures and temperatures. The measurement of these three
interfacial tensions will also enable the determination of the
spreading coefficient of oil, which controls not only the nature
of distribution of the three phases in the pore space but also
the oil drainage rates through film-flow.
3.2 Background on VIT Technique
The primarily available experimental methods to evaluate
fluid-fluid miscibility under reservoir conditions are the slim-
tube displacement, the rising bubble apparatus and the
pressure composition diagrams. Among these, slim-tube
displacement tests are presently considered as the industry
standard for determining fluid-fluid miscibility conditions.
However, there is ample evidence exists in the current
literature to question the validity of slim-tube displacement
tests for miscibility determination, as cited below.
There is neither a standard design nor a standard operating
procedure nor a standard set of criteria for determining the
miscibility conditions within a slim-tube20. Slim-tube lengths
(5-120 ft), diameter (0.12-0.63 in), type of packing (glass
beads and sand of 50-270 mesh), the permeability (2.5-250
Darcies) and porosity of the packing (32-45 %) and the
displacement velocity (30-650 ft/day) have varied greatly in
the designs used to determine miscibility20. There are more
than 30 studies in the literature that show the effects of these
variables on miscibility conditions, which lead to some
contradictory conclusions20. There exists a considerable
difference of opinion reported in the literature on definitions
of slim tube miscibility such as 80% of the oil in place is
recovered at CO2 breakthrough and 94% at a GOR of 40,000
SCF/bbl21; 90% oil recovery at 1.2 hydrocarbon pore volumes
of CO2 injected22; smooth transition from zero to full light
transmittance over a production interval of several percent of a
pore volume in a 5-ft long vertical sand pack run below the
critical velocity as defined by Dumore23; and breakpoint in the
oil recovery versus pressure curve is clearly identifiable,
where a slim-tube miscibility can be defined24. No direct and
quantitative information on interfacial tension, an important
thermodynamic property related to miscibility, is provided in
slim-tube tests6.
A new Vanishing Interfacial Tension (VIT) technique has
been reported recently in literature for experimental evaluation
of gas-oil miscibility conditions4-6. This technique relies on a
SPE 89357
unique and theoretically sound fundamental concept that at
miscibility, the interfacial tension between the fluids must
reduce to zero. In this method, the interfacial tension between
the fluids is measured at reservoir temperature at varying
pressures or enrichment levels of gas phase. The minimum
miscibility pressure (MMP) or minimum miscibility
enrichment (MME) is then determined by extrapolating the
plot between interfacial tension and pressure or enrichment to
zero interfacial tension. In addition to being quantitative in
nature, this new VIT technique is quite rapid as well as cost
effective. Therefore, we are developing the conceptually
sound VIT technique further to determine the influence of
compositional path during gas-oil displacements on interfacial
tension and miscibility.
3.3 Solubility, Miscibility and Interfacial Tension
The terms, miscibility, solubility and interfacial tension, are
widely used in the phase behavior studies of ternary fluid
systems. Review of literature shows that zero interfacial
tension is a necessary and sufficient condition to attain
miscibility25-27. Blanco et al.28 measured vapor-liquid
equilibrium data at 141.3 kPa for the mixtures of methanol
with n-pentane and n-hexane and determined upper critical
solubility for methanol, n-hexane mixtures from measured
miscibility data. This intuitively indicates the relation of
miscibility with upper critical solubility of a solute in solvent
for ternary fluid systems. Lee29 modified the adsorption model
proposed by van Oss et al.30 by the inclusion of equilibrium
spreading pressure to calculate the liquid-liquid interfacial
tension. He found an important relationship between
equilibrium interfacial film pressure and the interfacial tension
for prediction of miscibility of liquids and reported that all the
theory of miscibility of liquids is applicable to the solubility of
a solute in a solvent. Thus, the distinction between the terms
miscibility and solubility appears to be somewhat hazy,
leading to their synonymous use in some quarters.
Furthermore, the relation of these two properties with
interfacial tension has been largely remained unexplored.
Hence, the objectives of the study under this section are to
correlate miscibility and solubility with interfacial tension as
well as to investigate the applicability of the new VIT
technique to determine the miscibility in ternary fluid systems.
For this purpose, the standard ternary liquid system of ethanol,
water and benzene is chosen since their phase behavior and
solubility data are readily available31,32.
From the ternary phase diagram of the standard system of
ethanol, water and benzene31, it can be seen that the limiting
tie line passing through the oil (benzene) intersects the solvent
(aqueous ethanol) at an ethanol enrichment of 76%. Hence,
this becomes the minimum miscibility ethanol enrichment for
the system to attain miscibility. The solubility of benzene in
aqueous ethanol at various ethanol enrichments32 is given in
Table 4 and plotted in Figure 7, from which, the following
important observations can be made.
The solubility of benzene in aqueous ethanol begins at an
ethanol enrichment of 35% and then gradually increases to
become completely soluble at 78% ethanol enrichment,
exhibiting an exponential relationship between solubility and
enrichment. The solubility characteristics can be divided into
three regions: (1) Region 1, exists at ethanol enrichments
5
below 35%, where benzene is completely insoluble; (2)
Region 2, exists at ethanol enrichments between 35% and
78%, where benzene is partially soluble. In this region, below
the solubility curve, benzene is completely soluble, whereas
above the solubility curve, benzene is completely insoluble.
This region can be termed as partially soluble region and (3)
Region 3, exists at ethanol enrichments above 78%, where
benzene is soluble in all proportions and hence this can be
called the miscible region. Thus, this study is able to
distinguish between solubility and miscibility. Therefore, the
minimum miscibility ethanol enrichments for this standard
ternary fluid system by both the phase diagram (76%) and the
solubility data (78%) appear to match closely.
The interfacial tension between benzene and aqueous
ethanol at various ethanol enrichments is measured in pendent
drop mode, using the Axisymmetric Drop Shape Analysis
(ADSA) technique. The IFTs between the fluids could not be
measured above 40% ethanol enrichment, using the drop
shape analysis. At these ethanol enrichments, pendent drops
could not be formed as the oil quickly escaped in streaks
through the solvent, indicating proximity to miscible region.
The measured values of interfacial tension for benzene in
aqueous ethanol at various ethanol enrichments are given in
Table 4 and summarized in Figure 7. As can be seen, IFT
decreases exponentially as the ethanol enrichment in the
aqueous phase is increased. In order to determine the existence
of a direct correlation between solubility and IFT, the
solubility is plotted against reciprocal IFT in Figure 8.
Solubility is linearly related to (1/IFT), indicating a strong
mutual relationship between these two thermodynamic
properties.
From the correlation of miscibility and solubility with
interfacial tension obtained in this study, it is evident that IFT
must become zero at 78% ethanol enrichment, since benzene
is not only miscible31, but also completely soluble32 at this
ethanol enrichment. Hence, further attempts are being made
to use capillary rise technique for measuring low IFTs needed
to clearly show the vanishing nature of IFT at 78% ethanol
enrichment for benzene-water-ethanol ternary liquid system
(as indicated by the extrapolated IFT line in Figure 7). All
these results obtained so far for the standard ternary liquid
system of ethanol, water and benzene positively indicate the
applicability of the new VIT technique to determine the
miscibility of ternary liquid systems as well.
3.4 Mass Transfer Effects on Interfacial Tension
While most of the thermodynamic properties refer to
individual fluid phases, interfacial tension (IFT) is unique in
the sense that it is a property of the interface between the fluid
phases. Hence, it is strongly dependent on the composition of
phases in contact, which in turn dependent on the mass
transfer interactions between the phases. In order to study the
mass transfer effects on IFT, the IFT measurements of VIT
technique have been compared against Macleod-Sudgens33,34
Parachor model predictions, using Weinaug and Katzs35
molar averaging technique for multi-component hydrocarbon
systems. In Parachor model, Parachor values of pure
components are used, considering each component of the
mixture as if all the others are absent. Due to this assumption,
the counter-directional mass transfer mechanisms that affect
6 SPE 89357
the interfacial tension between the fluids are neglected in this
model. Terra Nova reservoir fluids have been used since the
phase behavior data for IFT computations and the IFT
measurements are readily available.
The phase behavior data for the Terra Nova reservoir from
reference36 is used in IFT computations. IFT measurements, at
various solvent enrichments from reference6 are used for
comparison with model predictions. A mixture consisting of 8
mole% of crude oil and 92 mole% of solvent is used as the
feed composition in the calculations in order to match the
composition used in the experiments.
The comparison of experimental IFTs with Parachor model
predictions for different C2+ enrichments of solvent at 30 MPa
and 96oC is given in Table 5 and shown in Figure 9. As can
be seen, the match between the experiments and the model
predictions is very poor and significant IFT under-predictions
are obtained with the Parachor model. This is mainly
attributed to the absence of mass transfer effects in the
Parachor model. This not only points out the importance of
mass transfer effects on IFT, but also the fact that the IFT
measurements used in the VIT technique for Terra Nova
miscibility evaluation include all the mass transfer effects in
them.
4. Experimental Evaluation of Gas Injection Modes
4.1 Background
As noted earlier, the gas injection EOR processes contribute a
substantial portion of the oil from light oil reservoirs, and their
importance is continuing to rise. Nearly all the commercial gas
injection projects today employ the WAG method. In the
United States, most of the WAG applications are onshore,
employing a wide variety of injection gases for a wide range
of reservoir characteristics in the miscible mode. Although
many types of injectant gases have been used in the
commercial WAG floods, CO2 and Hydrocarbon gases form
the major share of injectant types (~ 90%).
Although field applications have repeatedly proven the
moderate success (with recovery of 5 10% OOIP) of the
WAG process, it has remained the default process due to the
absence of a viable alternative. Hence the full utilization of
EOR potential in the U.S. requires the development of new
and more efficient gas injection processes that would
overcome the limitations of the WAG process.
Since WAG process is the dominant gas injection method,
its experimental evaluation and performance assessment
against the GAGD process, being developed, is critical.
Coreflood experiments at reservoir conditions have been
conducted in tertiary recovery mode by employing three
modes of injection, namely continuous gas injection (CGI),
water alternating gas (WAG) and gas assisted gravity drainage
(GAGD).
4.2 Laboratory Studies
Coreflood experiments have been conducted with the
objective of evaluating the effects of (i) mode of gas injection,
(ii) miscibility development and (iii) core length on gas-oil
displacements in Berea sandstone cores, n-Decane and 5%
NaCl brine as synthetic fluids and reservoir fluids from the
Yates reservoir in West Texas.
Miscible floods at 2500 psi and immiscible floods at 500 psi
have been carried out, using 1-ft Berea cores, n-Decane and
two different brines, namely the commonly used 5% NaCl
solution and the multi-component reservoir brine from the
Yates reservoir. Each of the corefloods consisted of a series of
steps including brine saturation, absolute permeability
determination, flooding with oil to initial oil saturation, end-
point oil permeability determination, flooding with brine to
residual oil saturation, end-point water permeability
determination, and finally, tertiary gas injection to recover the
waterflood residual oil.
A common comparison parameter was required for the fair
and consistent performance evaluation of the various tertiary
gas injection mode corefloods. Hence, a parameter, Tertiary
Recovery Factor (TRF), defined as the oil recovery per unit
volume of gas injection was used along with conventional
recovery plots.
4.3 CGI Versus WAG
Figure 10 (a, b) shows the comparison of miscible CGI and
WAG performance for n-Decane and Yates reservoir brine.
Figure 10 (a) is the conventional oil recovery plot (as %
ROIP), which suggests that the CGI flood is better in
performance than the WAG flood. These conclusions are
somewhat misleading since the amount of CO2 injected in
WAG floods is only half that in CGI. Figure 10 (b) plots the
same data on the TRF basis, which shows that the TRF value
for the CGI flood decreases significantly in later stages of the
flood, while the WAG employment arrests this decline.
However, WAG floods lagged behind CGI floods in terms of
production rate.
It is interesting to note in Figure 10 (b), that the WAG
floods demonstrated periodic increases corresponding to gas
injection wells in the TRF throughout the life of the flood,
while, for CGI miscible flood, TRF crested at ~ 0.7 PV
injection and later declined with increasing gas injection.
These plots clearly demonstrate that the WAG process, due to
better mobility control, had better CO2 utilization efficiency
compared to CGI. Similar TRF trends were also observed
when 5% NaCl brine was used. These results indicated that
optimum performance could be obtained by a combination of
CGI and WAG modes of gas injection.
Similar comparisons of immiscible and miscible WAG
coreflood experiments showed the distinct advantage of
miscibility development in floods. Figure 11 (a, b) compares
the miscible and immiscible WAG flood performance for n-
Decane and Yates reservoir brine system. Higher oil
recoveries for miscible displacements can be observed, which
is attributed to large reduction in interfacial tension between
the displacing and displaced fluids due to miscibility
development resulting in very high capillary numbers and near
perfect microscopic displacement efficiency.
4.4 Evaluation of Modes of Gas Injection in Long Cores
The immiscible gas assisted gravity drainage (GAGD) flood
was conducted in a 6-ft Berea core using 5% NaCl brine and
n-Decane. Initially floods with long cores have been
conducted with n-Decane, 5% NaCl brine prior to exposing
the cores to crude oils. Immiscible CGI and WAG floods were
conducted at similar conditions for comparison with GAGD
floods. Results of these floods are included as Figure 12.
SPE 89357
Figure 12 shows amplification of the difference in the
recoveries between CGI and WAG, which were not obvious in
1-ft immiscible corefloods. This shows that gravity
segregation would be more pronounced in the longer cores;
hence long core tests are not only appropriate and useful but
also essential for performance assessment of floods involving
gravity segregation effects.
Figure 12 shows that the GAGD process has the highest
recovery efficiency compared to WAG and CGI. The GAGD
process produces nearly 8.6% higher tertiary EOR oil than
WAG and 31.3% over CGI even in the immiscible mode.
Miscible floods in long cores are planned for the future.
Conclusions
The short and long core floods have clearly demonstrated the
high oil recovery potential of the GAGD process compared to
that of WAG. As expected, miscible CO2 floods have out
performed the immiscible floods in all three modes of gas
injection (CGI, WAG and GAGD).
The mechanistic parameters governing the effectiveness of
the GAGD process are being identified through visual model
tests in order to enable optimum design strategy for field
applications.
Our continuing work with interfacial tension measurements
appear to indicate the suitability of the VIT technique to infer
multiple contact miscibility involving condensing and / or
vaporizing mass transfer effects.
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared with the support of the U.S
Department of Energy under Award No. DE-FC26-02NT-
15323. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or
recommendations expressed herein are those of authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the DOE. The financial
support of this project by the U.S Department of Energy is
gratefully acknowledged. The authors also thank Dr. Jerry
Casteel of NPTO/DOE for his support and encouragement.
Thanks are due to Dr. Karsten Thompson and Mr. Paul
Rodriguez of LSUs Chemical Engineering Department for
lending and helping with their unscaled physical model used
in this study.
Nomenclature
K = permeability
v = fluid velocity
= fluid density
l = characteristic length
l = length of trapped oil volume
Pc = capillary pressure
= characteristic viscosity
= differential of that quantity
Subscripts
M= model
P = prototype
7
References
1. Caudle, B.H. and Dyes, A.B.: "Improving Miscible
Displacement by Gas-Water Injection", Transactions of AIME,
213 (1959), 281-284.
2. Christensen J.R., Stenby, E.H. and Skauge, A.: "Review of
WAG Field Experience", Paper SPE 39883, presented at SPE
International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition,
Villahermose, Mexico, 3-5 March 1998.
3. Howes, B.J.: Enhanced oil recovery in Canada: Success in
progress, JCPT, November December 80-88, 1988.
4. Rao, D.N.: A New Technique of Vanishing interfacial Tension
for Miscibility Determination, Fluid Phase Equilibria, 139
(1997) 311-324.
5. Rao, D.N., Mcintyre, F.J. and Fong, D.K.: Application of a
New Technique to Optimize Injection Gas Composition for the
Rainbow Keg River F Pool Miscible Flood, JCPT, 38 (Dec.
1999).
6. Rao, D.N. and Lee, J.I.: Application of the New Vanishing
Interfacial Tension Technique to Evaluate Miscibility
Conditions for the Terra Nova Offshore Project, Journal of
Petroleum Science and Engineering, 35 (2002) 247-262.
7. Butler, R.M.: A New Approach to the Modeling of Steam-
Assisted Gravity Drainage, JCPT, May-June 1985, pages 42-
51.
8. Claridge, E.L., "A trapping Hele-Shaw Model for Miscible-
Immiscible Flooding", Paper SPE 4105, 47th Annual Fall
Meeting, San Antonio, October 8-11, 1972.
9. Jackson, D.D., Andrews, G.L., and Claridge, E.L., " Optimum
WAG Ratio vs. Rock Wettability in CO2 Flooding", SPE
14303, 60th Annual Conf. And Exh., Las Vegas, Septemebr 22-
25, 1985.
10. Butler, R.M., Thermal Recovery of Oil and Bitumen,
GravDrain Inc., Calgary, Canada, 1998.
11. Shook, M., Li, D. and Lake, L.W.: scaling Immiscible Flow
Through Permeable Media by Inspectional Analysis, In Situ,
16(4), 311-349,1992.
12. Gharib, S. and Doscher, T.M.: Physically Scaled Model
Simulating the Displacement of Residual Oil by Miscible CO2
in Linear Geometry, Paper SPE 8896, presented at the 50th
California regional meeting of the society of petroleum
engineers of AIME held in Los Angeles, California, April 9-11,
1980.
13. Doscher, T.M., Oyakan, R.O. and Arabi, M.EI.: The
Displacement of Residual Crude Oil by CO2 and Nitrogen in
Gravity Stabilized Systems, SPE J., Dec. 1984.
14. Chatzis, I, Kantzas, A. and Dullien, F.A.L.: On The
Investigation of Gravity-Assisted Inert Gas Injection Using
Micromodels, Long Berea Sandstone Cores, and Computer-
Assisted Tomography, Paper SPE 18284, preseneted at the 63
rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers held in Houston, TX, October 2-5,
1988.
15. Kantzas, A., Chatzis, I. and Dullien, F.A.L.: Mechanisms of
Capillary Displacement of Residual Oil by Gravity-Assisted
Inert Gas Injection, Paper SPE 17506, presented at the SPE
Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, held in Casper, WY, May
11-13, 1988.
16. Meszaros F., Chakma, A., Jha, K.N. and Islam, M.R.: Scaled
Model Studies and Numerical Simulation of Inert Gas Injection
with Horizontal Wells, Paper SPE 20529, presented at the 65th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers held in New Orleans, LA, September 23-
26, 1990.
8 SPE 89357
17. Islam M.R. and Farouq Ali, S.M.: Scaling of In-situ
Combustion Experiments, J. Pet. Sci. Eng., vol. 6, 367-379.
18. Vizika, O. and Lombard, J.M.: Wettability and Spreading:
Two Key Parameters in Oil Recovery with Three-Phase Gravity
Drainage, SPERE (Feb. 1996) 54-60.
19. Grattoni, C.A., Jing, X.D. and Dawe, R.A.: Dimensionless
Groups for Three-Phase Gravity Drainage Flow in Porous
Media, J. Pet. Sci. & Eng., 29 (2001), 53-65.
20. Elsharkawy, A.M., Poettmann, F.H. and Christiansen, R.L.:
Measuring CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressure: Slim-Tube or
Rising-Bubble Method? Energy & Fuels, 10 (1996) 443-449.
21. Holm, L.W. and Josendal, V.A.: Effect of Oil Composition on
Miscible-Type Displacement by Carbon Dioxide, SPEJ (Feb.
1982) 87-98.
22. Williams, C.A., Zana, E.N. and Humphrys, G.E.: Use of Peng-
Robinson Equation of State to Predict Hydrocarbon Phase
Behavior and Miscibility for Fluid Displacement, Paper SPE
8817, presented at the 1st Joint SPE/DOE Symposium on
Enhanced Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April 20-23, 1980.
23. Perry, G.E.: Weeks Island S Sand Reservoir B Gravity Stable
Miscible CO2 Displacement, Iberia Perish, Louisiana, Third
Annual Report, DOE/METC-5232-4, June 1980.
24. Johnson, J.P. and Pollin, J.S.: Measurements and Correlation
of CO2 Miscibility Pressures, Paper SPE 9790, presented at the
2nd Joint SPE/DOE Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery,
Tulsa, April 5-8, 1981.
25. Holm, L.W.: Miscible Displacement, in H.B. Bradley (Ed.),
Petroleum Engineering Hand Book, Society of Petroleum
Engineers, Richardson, TX (1987) 1-45.
26. Lake, L.W.: Enhanced Oil Recovery, Prentice-Hall Englewood
Cliffs, NJ (1989) 234.
27. Benham, A.L., Dowden, W.E. and Kunzman, W.J.: Miscible
Fluid Displacement Prediction of Miscibility, Petroleum
Transactions Reprint Series No. 8, Society of Petroleum
Engineers of AIME (1965) 123.
28. Blanco, A.M. and Ortega, J.: Experimental Study of
Miscibility, Density and Isobaric Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium
Values for Mixtures of Methanol in Hydrocarbons (C5, C6),
Fluid Phase Equilibria, 122 (1996) 207-222.
29. Lee, L.H.: Relevance of Film Pressures to Interfacial Tension,
Miscibility of Liquids, and Lewis Acid Base Approach,
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 214 (1999) 64-78.
30. van Oss, C.J., Chaudhury, M.K. and Good, R.J., Adv. Colloid
Interface Sci., 28 (1987) 35.
31. Chang, Y.C. and Moulton, R.W.: Quaternary Liquid Systems
with Two Immiscible Liquid Pairs, Industrial Engineering
Chemistry, 45 (1953) 2350-2361.
32. Sidgwick, N.V. and Spurrel, W.J.: The System Benzene-Ethyl
Alcohol-Water between +25o and 5o, Journal of Chemical
Society, 117 (1920) 1397-1404.
33. Macleod, D.B.: On a Relation Between Surface Tension and
Density, Trans. Faraday Soc., 19 (1923) 38-42.
34. Sudgen, S.: The Variation of Surface Tension with
Temperature and Some Related Functions, Journal of
Chemical Society, 1924, 32-41.
35. Weinaug, C.F. and Katz, D.L.: Surface Tensions of Methane-
Propane Mixtures, Industrial Engineering Chemistry, 35
(1943) 239-246.
36. Ayirala, S.C., Rao, D.N. and Casteel, J.: Comparison of
Minimum Miscibility Pressures Determined from Gas-Oil
Interfacial Tension Measurements with Equation of State
Calculations, Paper SPE 84187, presented at the 2003 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, October 5-8,
Denver, Colorado, 2003.
37. Gillham, T.H., Cerveny, B.W., Turek, E. A. and Yannimaras,
D.V.: Keys to increasing production via air injection in Gulf
coast light oil reservoirs, Paper SPE 38848, presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, TX, Oct 5-8, 1997.
38. Carlson, L.O.: Performance of Hawkins Field Unit Under Gas
Drive-Pressure Maintenance Operations and Development of an
Enhanced Oil Recovery Project, Paper SPE 17324, presented
at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium held in
Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 17-20, 1988.
39. Johnston, J.R.: Weeks Island Gravity Stable CO2 Pilot, Paper
SPE 17351, presented at the SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery
Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Aril 17-20, 1988.
40. Nute, A.J.: Design and evaluation of a gravity stable, miscible
CO2 solvent flood, Bay St. Elaine field, Paper SPE 11506,
presented at the Middle East Oil technical conference of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, held in Manama, Bahrain,
March 14-17, 1983.
41. Backmeyer, L.A., Guise, D.R., MacDonell, P.E. and Nute, A.J.:
The Tertiary Extension of the Wizard Lake D-3A Pool
Miscible Flood Paper SPE 13271, presented at the 1984 SPE
59th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, Texas, September 16-19, 1984.
42. Da Sle, W.J. and Guo, D.S.: Assessment of a Vertical
Hydrocarbon Miscible Flood in the Westpem Nisku D Reef,
SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1990, pp. 147-154.
43. Bangla, V.K., Yau, F. and Hendricks, G.R.: Reservoir
performance of a Gravity stable vertical CO2 miscible flood:
Wolfcamp reservoir, Wellman Unit, Paper SPE 22898,
presented at the 66th annual technical conference and exhibition
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, held in Dallas, TX, Oct
6-9, 1991.
44. DesBrisay, C.L., Ghussein, F.E. and Holst, P.H.: Review of
Miscible Flood Performance, Intisar D field, Socialist
Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Paper SPE 10245, presented
at the 56th Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME, held in San
Antonio, TX, Oct 5 - 7, 1981.
45. Gunawan, S., Caie, D.: Handil Field: Three years of lean gas
injection into water flooded reservoirs, Paper SPE 57289,
presented at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery
Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Oct 25-26, 1999.
SPE 89357 9

Table 1: Summary of Gravity Drainage Field Applications

Property

Weeks Island

Wizard Lake

Handil Main
Dexter Sand

S RB - Pilot
Hackberry

Wolfcamp
St. Elaine

Westpem

Intisar D
Hawkins

Nisku D
West

Zone
Reef
D3A
Bay
Reference 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
Starting Date Jul 1996 Jan 1975 Oct 1978 May 1982 Oct 1983 Jan 1981 Mid-1983 Dec 1969 Nov 1995
Approximate Size (Acres) 90 N/A 90 0.4 (Pilot) 3725 320 1306 3325 2965
State / Country Louisiana/ Texas/ Louisiana/ Louisiana/ Alberta/ Alberta/ Texas/ Libya Borneo
USA USA USA USA Canada Canada USA
Rock Type Sand- Sand-stone Sand- Shly-Sand Dol-omite Carb- Lime- Biomicrite/ Sand-
Stone stone onate Stone Dolo. Stone
Porosity (%) 27.6 23.9 27 26 32.9 10.94 12 8.5 22 25
Permeability (mD) 300 1000 3400 1200 1480 1375 1050 110 200 10 2000
Connate Water Sat. (%) 19 23 13 10 15 5.64 11 20 16 - 38 22
WF Residual Oil Sat. (%) 26 35 22 20 35 Sec. GF 35 20 - 30 28
GI Residual Oil Sat. (%) 8 12 1.9 N/A 24.5 5 10 N/A N/A
Reservoir Temperature (oF) 205 195 168 225 164 167 218 151 226 N/A
Bed Dip Angle (Degrees) 23 35 8 26 36 Reef Reef Reef Reef 5 12
Pay Thickness (ft) 31 30 230 186 35 648 292 824 950 50 82
Oil API Gravity 33 25 32.7 36 38 45 43.5 40 31 34
Oil Viscosity (cP) 0.9 3.7 0.45 0.667 N/A 0.19 0.43 0.46 0.6 1.0
Bubble Pt Pressure (psi) 3295 1985 6013 N/A 2154 3966 1375 2224 2800 3200
GOR (SCF/STB) 500 900 1386 584 567 1800 450 509 2000
Oil FVF at Bubble Pt 1.285 1.225 1.62 1.283 1.313 2.45 1.284 1.315 1.1 1.4
Injection Gas Air N2 CO2 CO2 HC HC CO2 HC HC
Reservoir Pressure at end of WF (psi) 3484 1985 5000 3334 2370 4060 970 4100 1000
Minimum Miscibility Pressure (psi) -- -- N/A 3334 2131 4640 1900 4257 --
WF recovery (% OOIP) 60 60 60 - 70 76.5* 62.9* N/A 56.3* N/A 58
Gas Flood Recovery: (%OOIP) 90.0 > 80.0 60.0 85.0 95.5 84.0 74.8 67.5 N/A
Note: * Based on Reported Saturations.

Table 2: Summary of Physical Model Studies of Gas Table 4: Summary of Solubility and Interfacial Tension
Injection Processes Data of Benzene in Water at Various Ethanol Enrichments
Model Meszaros et al.22 Vizika and Chatzis et Grattoni et Doscher
Lombard16 al.20 al.24 et al.19 Solubility (Sidgwick et al.) Interfacial Tension
Scaling Butler et al. Islam No No No Doscher Benzene IFT
and Farouq Ali and Benzene Solubility
law Solvent (mole%) Solvent (mole%) (dynes/cm)
Gharib
(gms/liter)
Geometry 2D 1D 1D 1D 1D
Ethanol Water Ethanol Water
Material Sand Sand Berea Glass beads Sand
34.8 65.2 134.3 0 100 32.94
Pressure 4200 kPa/Low No 5 psi No 2906
pressure psi/180o F
46.6 53.4 343.2 10 90 12.52
CO2/N2 Air N2 Air N2/CO2 53.3 46.7 629.1 20 80 4.88
Gas
61.2 38.8 1284.6 30 70 2.62
Oil 750 4000 cp Soltrol 170 Soltrol 170 Paraffin 38o Crude
70.6 29.4 2351.6 40 60 1.17
Recovery 70% 70-87 % 40% 70% 70%
78.0 22.0 5760.1 - - -

Table 5: Comparison of IFT Measurements with Parachor

Model Predictions for Terra Nova Fluids at 30 MPa and
96oC
Table 3: Fluids Properties
Fluids Specific Dynamic Interfacial Enrichment IFT (dynes/cm)
density viscosity (cP) tension (C2+ %)
(dynes/cm) Experimental 6 Parachor Model
n-decane 0.734 0.84 DW = 49.0 9.49 3.19 0.78
paraffin 0.864 64.5 Did not 11.79 3.09 0.66
measure 14.22 2.60 0.58
De-ionized 1 1.0 WA = 72 18.57 2.02 0.41
Water 24.64 1.07 0.23
Air 0.0012 0.0182 AD = 51.4 27.77 0.73 0.15
10 SPE 89357

Switch Valve
Gas/Water/Oil
Gas

Gas mass-flow Pressure Flow line

controller regulator Oil
p1 Visual model
with bead
pack inside
p4
Figure 1: Conceptual Drawing of CO2-WAG Process
(Extracted from the US-DOE Website)
Water CCD
Signal lines Transfer
Camera
vessel

Data
acquisition
Figure 4: Schematic of the Experimental Apparatus

1.00
B
0.80
Recovery (IOIP)
A
0.60

Figure 2: Probable breakdown of a WAG cycle 0.40

0.20

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (min)
Figure 5: Experimental Run 1: Oil Recovery in Free Gravity
Drainage (with decane) starting at Connate-Water Condition

Figure 3: Concept of the New Gas Assisted Gravity Drainage Figure 6: Illustration of Oil-Gas Interface in the
(GAGD) EOR Process Visual Model in Run 2
SPE 89357 11

7000 35
100%

90%
6000 30
Solubility of Benzene (gms/lite

80%

IFT of Benzene (dynes/cm

5000 25
y = 32.94e -0.0858x y = 6.7004e 0.0852x
R2 = 0.9912 R2 = 0.9955 70%
4000 20

Oil Recovery (% ROIP)

60%
3000 Soluble in all 15
Com pletely
Partially Praportions or 50%
Insoluble
Soluble Region Miscible Region
Region
2000 10
40%

1000 Insoluble Soluble 5

30%

0 0
20% EXPT 9: MIS. CGI - Yates Brine
0 20 40 60 80 100

Ethanol Enrichment in Water (mole%) 10% EXPT 10: MIS. WAG - Yates Brine
Solubility IFT Extrapolated IFT

0%
Figure 7: The Dependence of Solubility and IFT of Benzene 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
in Water on Ethanol Enrichment in Aqueous Phase P V Injected

Figure 10 (a): Conventional Recovery Plot

7000 1.2

6000
Solubility of Benzene (gms/liter)

1.0
5000
y = 223.19x
R2 = 0.9826
4000
0.8
Tertiary Recv. Factor (ROIP / PV of CO2 Inj'd.)

3000

0.6
2000

1000
0.4
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1/IFT (cm/dyne) 0.2 EXPT 9: MIS. CGI - Yates Brine

EXPT 10: MIS. WAG - Yates Brine

Figure 8: Correlation of Solubility of Benzene in Ethanol,
Water Mixture with Reciprocal Interfacial Tension 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
P V Injected

3.5 Figure 10 (b): TRF Recovery Plot

Figure 10: Effect of Mode of Injection on Tertiary Recovery
Experimental
3.0 in 1-ft Berea Cores
Parachor
80%

2.5 EXPT 8: IMM. WAG - Yates Brine

70%
IFT (dynes/cm)

EXPT 10: MIS. WAG - Yates Brine

2.0
60%
Oil Recovery (% ROIP)

1.5 50%

1.0 40%

0.5 30%

20%
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
10%
C2+ Enrichment (Mole%)
0%
Figure 9: Comparison between IFT Measurements and 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Parachor Model Predictions for Terra Nova Fluids at 30 MPa P V Injected

and 96oC Figure 11 (a): Conventional Recovery Plot

12 SPE 89357

1.2 70%

60%
1.0

50%
Tertiary Recovery Factor ( ROIP / PV of CO2 Inj'd.)

0.8

Recovery (%ROIP)
40%

0.6

30%

0.4
20%

0.2
EXPT 8: IMM. WAG - Yates Brine 10%
GAGD WAG CGI
EXPT 10: MIS. WAG - Yates Brine

0.0 0%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
P V Injected
P V Injected
Figure 11 (b): TRF Recovery Plot
Figure 11: Effect of Miscibility Development on Tertiary Figure 12: Comparison of GAGD floods with WAG and CGI
Recovery in 1-ft Berea Cores in Immiscible Mode in 6-ft Long Berea Cores.