Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
IIWliscibility
lPressuh3-Part 2: Correlation
F,M. Orr Jr., SPE, Stanford U.
M.K. Silwa, * SPE, New Mexico Petroleum
Recovery Research
Center
W?
/4/5d
SutIimary. .A new correlation for C02 minimum miscibdify pressure (MMP) is proposed and tested. ,The comdation is. based
on experimental evidence that extraction of hydrocarbons from a cmde oil depends most strongly on the size of the hydrocarbon
molecules. Thus, an oil rich in hydrocarbons that are efficiently extracted shotdd show a lower MMP than a heavier oiJ. The only
crude-oil data needed for use of the correlation are a carbon-number distribution, which can be obtained easiJy by chromatography.
The density of C02 at the MMP is correlated agaimt a weighted-composition parameter. The MMP of any oil at a given
ikmperahtre is estimated as the pressure required to yield that C02 density. The effects of contaminants in C02 can be estimated
easily by calculating the pressure rcquiroi to give a mixture densig equal to that required for pure COZ.
Correlation accuracy was tested by comparing predicted and measured MMPs for 35 oifs. The proposed correlation produces
MMP estimates accurate to witMn about 10% for most oils. Comparison of correlation predictions with those of other commonly
used correlations indicates that the proposed correlation is significantly more accurate, pariictdarly for recombined oik.
Introrfuation
Loo,
Ij
Wjq+=
~,.
,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ... . . ...
(7-)
,~wi
log ki = [-4.175
10
x 10-21Ci + 0.7611
. .
,.
.,= ~..
\
:
~N \
s
,:
>:
,!
.x
0.1
0.01
O
1 I
8
1. 1 !
12
.16
CARBON
I
20
24
28
3236
Wco2
NUMBER
1WC02
, . . . . .............................(3)
Ki=
Wio
I WC020
F=zKiwic2+,
. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(I)
TABLE 1-WEIGHTED
C2+ PARAMETER
CALCULATED
,,
Field
C6-through-C,z
C ,3-through.C20
(weight fraction)
(weight fraction)
0.154
,0.267
0.416
0.384
Farnsworth
Wilmington
Ford Zone
c%, +
(weight fraction)
.
C5-through-CaolC5+
(weight fraction)
Run,
Temperature
at MMP
XW;K,
(F)
(g/cm)
0.43
0.35,
0.57
0.65
0.768
1.001
165
.130
165
165
171
0.778
0.701
0.698
0.651
0.561
0.582
0:592.
0.552
0.515
0.553
0.521
0.420
0.513
North Dundas
0.231
0.469
West Poison
Spider
Dominguez
0.392
0.308
0.30
0.30
0.70
0.70
0.960
1.239
0.365
0.365
0.27
0.73
i .206
Bandini
0.336
0.464
0,20
0.80
1.13.7
Mead-Strawn
0.342
0.473
0,165
0.815
1,205
2,466
150
185
165
,137
135
190
165
1.595
165
Mead-Strawn
(C5-throughC 12 cut)
Mead-Strawn,
(C,-throughC30 cut)
the weightedc,+
PC02
Weighted C2+
Parameter
,,
cuts, a value of Ki correspondingto m averagenumberof carbon
atoms for each cut was used. Tbe weighting value for the
C5-through-C,2 cut was taken to be th~ v.&e for C9; for
C @hrough-C30, the ,value for C22; aid for C31+, tbe value for
C33. A more detailed compositional analysis of two of the oils
showed these to be reasonable values. The more detailed analyses
yieldeda Cz+ parameterof 0.840 comparedwith 0.768 for Farnsworth and 1.2Cilcompared witi 1.205 for M&-Stmwn. The more
detailed analysis was used to calculated C2+ parameters for the
C5-fhrou h-C12 and C#trough-C30 cuts dmcossed by Helm and
Josendal. 3. Fig. 2 ts a plot of the weighted C2+ pammeter vs. the
density of C02 at the MMP for the seven oils. A Iiie through the
points was determined by least squares for F< 1.467. For larger
values, a constant value of 0.42 g/cm3, &e critical density of C02,
was ued. That vatue ensures that for very light oils, the corr.latio gives the critical density of C02 as the density at the MMP.
Tbe restittant relationship between F and density required at tie
MMP is
,q,tMp=-0.524F+
l.189
II
1.2
~.,
&
0
D
0
W
v
&
9
1.0 -
E
6
~,8
E
.
~
~,6 _
FARNSWORTH
WILMINGTON FORD ZONE
NORTH DUNDAS
MEAD-%TRAWN
MEAD-STRAWN 1,5-,,2 <UT]
MEAD- STkAWN lC$,Cm CUT)
WEST POISON SPIDER
DOMINGUEZ
,0
:
E
F
.
0.4
N.
8
~,z
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (5a)
II
0.4
. . . . . . . . . ..(5b)
0.8
!.2
(.6
F = 2
wiki
2.,0
2.4
2.8
TABLE 2EXPERIMENTAL
CONDITIONS FOR PHASECOMPOSITION MEASUREMENTS
FOR MIXTURES OF
CO, WITH MALJAMAR CRUDE OIL
&__
90
160
160
160
Pressure
(psia)
1,200
1.600
2;000
3,000
(!%)
0.66
0.29
0.43
0.66
.,
3
Fig. 4Pseudoternaty
phase diagram for mixtures of CO *
and Matiamar separator oil at 160F and 2,ooO psia (compo.
sitions in mole fractions).
Fig. 5Pkeudoternary
phase diagram for mixtures of CO,
wtd Matjamar separator oil at 160F and 3,000 psia (compositions in mole fractlons).
482
3+
CO.mslnn.
,,-<
Fig. 3Pseudoternary
phase diagram for mixtures of CO,
and Maljamar separator oil.at 160F and 1,600 pSia (COtIIpO.
sitions in mole fractions).
!00
.100
k,
1 .[
,1
Ij
Ibg ki = (-9.819
x 10-21 Ci + 0.852%-
,:
10 :
10
. .
;
2
\
~
$
A
\
u
,%
>Q
:
g
2. .
,,
,,
G-
. ..
0,1
0,1
0,01
048,2,62024
0.01
048!2162024
2832?,6
283236
CARBON
CARBON NUMBER
39. 6NOrmaFned hydrocarbon equfbbrium values for COJ
!Jaljamar-crude-oil mixtures at 1,200 psia and 90QF.
i9. 7Normalized
Jafjamar-crude-oil
100 ,
NUMBER
hydro-rbon
equilibrium values for
mixtures at 1,600 psia and 160 F.
CO, I
I
g
log k: = [-7.995
0
y
x 10-21CI + 1.037 _
.:
0
$
>,
g >
.3
%
,,
2-.
0. [
Correlation Accuracy
Pure C02. Samples or analyses of oils for which measured
MMPs were available were obtained for 21 oils. 29 ID addition,
MMPs and composition data reported by Yellig md Metcalfe 10
for four oils at several temperatures were used. Table 3 summarizes the results for 25 o,ik, some containing dissolved gas and others
without. Tiie companies that supplied the MMP data for the mcombimd reservoir thids also provided a debited breakdown of the
Iigbt components through C6 and indicated the total amount of
C7+, In some cases, the information given included a hailed
analysis of the C7+ fraction, and in others we amdyzed the. C7+
fraction by sipndated distillation. 20 For tbc calculation in Table
SPE
0,01
04012,162024
28
32
,36
CARBONNUMBER
i9. sNO~afized
tia~amar-crude-oil
hydro-rbon
equilibrium values for co J
mixlwes at 2,OOO psia and 1600F.
483
TABLE 3COMPARISON
Reported
T.
oil
BPP
(psia)
rF)
Waljarnar
Stock-tank oil
Stock-tank oil
Arco D 29
95
126
127
Kubikim
Amarume3Q
Ganado37
Cwtoco Ag
Gulf D=
Arco C=
165
Amoco Am
130,
142
Stock-tank oil
Stock-tank oil
Stock-tank oil
Not given
Not given
63
92
115
Arco B 29
Mobil A29
410
1,660
2,954
Not given
147
160
Amoco S,29
Gulf C29
CSOG A29
320
Measured
MMP
(psia)
Parameter
~WJKI
af:~p
0.705
1.186
0.567,
1,110
0.835
i .689
1.121
0.420
0.601
1.494
1.149
0.420
1,160
1,670
1,570
0.620
0.642
0.025
1,910
BPP
0.095
0.304
2,900
2,150
2,250
2;650
1.695
1.211
0.567
0.420
0.554
0.575
0.904
1.060
2.134
0.633
0.420
0.407
0.287
0.613
0.549
1.602
1.194
0.420
0.563
1,790
2,240
0.083
0.434
0.816
0.759
0.710
0.770
1.370
1.111
1.183
0,471
0.607,
0,569
2,120
3,190
3,170
1.379
0,466
2,590
0.147
0.601
, 1,155
0.5s4
3,440
3,150
2,500
0.227
0.235
0.721
0.696
1,307
1.474
0.504
0.420
3,210
2,690
Not given
Shell A29
Conoco B-
200
220
Mobil B=
220
240
1,269
Not iven
Not given
3,000
2,800
0.220
0.285
1,010
1,140
1,710
1,610
Not ciiven
4.300
245
Not given
3;500
0.320
0.339
0.630
0:749
1.134
1.563
0.595
0,420
4,320
3,000
253
2,225
3,650 ~
0.315
0.770
1.470
0.420
3,110
to192
Not given
T4.
C,+
0.23
N2+C0,
MMP
(psia)
0.100
194
95
C5-through-Cm/Cs+
0.913
0.814
0.711
Gulf B2g
Metcalfe A
(mO[e?&ction)
4,100
890
1,100
3,450
3,050
MMP
Calculated
1,500
Not giyen
Not given
Arco A2g
Yellig and
AND PREDICTED
Weighted C2.
1,100
1,090
2,100
183
194
COnOcO C29
Gulf Am
OF MEASURED
T4
-0.963
>1.696
0.420
-0.963
> i .896
0.420
T4
0.420
T4
Yelfig and
Not given
T4-
,Metcalfe C B 95 to 150
Not given
T4
Yellig and
Metcalfe D 10 95 to 150
Not given
T4.
0.9.63
0,23
C, +N2.+C02
-0,963
1,69B
>1.69S
0.420
T4
PRESSURE[MPa]
0.8
10
15
I
20
I
Y
0.7
0.6
z
~
0.5
c
?3 0,4
i
.
0 .0,3
.
0.2
0.1
-0
t 500
PRESSURE
2500
(PsI,]
fig. glniect=f
fluid density at MhfPs measured by Metmlfe. 27 Errc.r bars indicate density at the MMp * 100 Psia.
464
TABLE 4COMPARISON
~emu~d
T
&l
OF MMP CORRELATIONS
MMP
(psia)
Pressure
(psia)
% Deviation
Pressure
(psia)
% Deviation
ProPosed
,A1ston et al.z
COrrelatirx
MMP
(psi.)
EVP
% De.laiion
Pressure
(P+
Correlation
% Deviation
PmssJre
(p+
% Deviation
Group 1
Mal@nar5
90
1,100
1,050
i.s
1,130
2,7
1,110
0.9
1,100
0.0
1,110
0,9
Arco D z
95
1,090
{,130
3.7
1,170
7,3
1,290
17.4
1,160
6.4
1,160
6.4
2,360
12.4
1,650
-21,4
1,870
-11:0
1,560
4.0
1,660
6.6
2,420
10,7
41.0
1,570
2,650.
4.7
-35.4
Kubik 30
126
2,100
1;540.
Amacume
127
1,500
1,540
Ganado
Standard
deviatiom %
165
4,100
2,060
-26.7
2.7
-49.8
Average
abs..!u!e
deviation, %
1,690
.19.5
1,680
2,050
12.0
50,0
3,830
25,4
24.8
,10.2
17,5
18.3
8.3
21.4
17,0
15.6,
11,7
GrouP 2?9
Cono,co A
63
890
990
Gulf D
92
1,100
1,100
115
1,910
i ,430
Ako C
10.0
0.0
-25,1
1,010
7,170
i 3.5
6.4
1,400
27.3
1,0?0
1,120
2;160
13.1
2,410
26.2
1,460
13.5
1.3
-23.6
1,010
13,5
1,143
3.6
1,710
-10.5
Amoco A
130
1,660
1,620
1,650
1,320
1,720
1,610
Arco B
142
2,900
!,780
2,030
1,570
1,%0
1,790
Mali A
Amoco B
447
180
2,150,
2,250
2,150
3,550
2,250
62,3
3,?80
47.0
2,040
0,0
2,350
4.4
2,310
4,930
42.9
2,650
3,210
5.2
1,980
0.0
-12.0
Gulf C
183
3,450
2,280
-33.9
2,910
c30GA
194
3,050
2,400
-21.3
3,520
Gulf B
184
3,000
2,400
-20.0
3,070
2,3
3,900
30.1
3,I30
.3,130
Shell A
200
2,600
2,450
-12.5
4,560
62,9
3,s30
36.8
3,300
3,150
2,700
-14.3
3,880
28.3
3,976
Mobil B
220
220
2,700
COnOcOC
240
2,500
4,300
2,920
8.0
-32.i
4,150
5,370
66.0
24.9
3,260
30.4
3,670
4,510
Gulf A
245
3,500
2,960
-15,4
4,220
20.6
2,950
18.3
Arco A
253
3,65o
3,050
-16.4
4,200
15.1
2,950
C.....,
-15,7
15,4
-49.2
5.1
2,240
4.2
2.7
2,120
5.6
-17.4
3,190
3,170
2,590
3.9
-13.7
17.9
S.&o
22.9
22.9
3,210
1.9
54.8
4.6
2,690
4,320
7.6
4,660
33.7
3,000
-14:3
4,960
35.9
3,110
14.8
2.6
4,3
7.5
.0.2
Standarc!
deviation, %
18.6
32.9
29.3
23.0
10.6
Average
absolute
deviation, %
15.8
24.7
26,2
17.2
3.9
GiouP 310
Yelbg and
Metcdfe A
95
,13
150
182
Ye!lig and
Metcalle B
Yelllg and
Met@fe C
%llig and
Met&alfe D
95
.,,6
1,150
7,375
7,375
2,350
1,140
7,400
1,650
2,370
1,?50
1,300
i,150
0.9
1.3
7.3
0.9
1,410
,,770
2,270
1,?40
~ 0.9
1,460
12,3
0,0
2.5
5.8
6.0
1,?50
0,0
1,400
7.7
150
1,850
1,850
0.0
1,770
-4,3-
192
2;150
2,370
10,2
2,200
95
1,100
1,140
3.6
118
7,460
150
1,450
1,975
0,7
6,3
1,150
1,410
1,760
2,3
4.5
95
1,150
0.9
1,150
1,ffiO
1,140
1,160
0.9
1,160
0.9
I,si,o
2,100
3,,380
9,3
72,0
SI. I
1,Uo
1,870
2,3s0
4.7
0.3
0,4
1,510
2,100
73.5
1,670
1.1
42.3
2,360
9,s
20.0
3,080
1,160
5.5
I,lm
.20.0
13.4
1,510
2,100
4.1
1,440
6.3
~ ,870
1,160
0.9
1,i60
1,160
0.9
1,160
0.9
16.2
1,440
10.8
2.8
1,S80
1,740
9.9
2,240
0.0
7,510
16,2
1,#o
i 0.8
2,100
23.5
1,870
10.0
1,300
1,460
i 2,3
1,400
7.7
150
4,700
i ,850
8.6
1,770
4,1
5.5
0.7
5.3
0.9
6.2
5.1
17.8
6.1
4.4
4.1
13.2
4.4
116
Standard
de:.!:., %
Average
absolute
deviation, %
for heavier oils. This deviation explains why, at higher temperatures, the EVP gener#Iy predicts C02 densities that are too high
for the light oils found in tic third group.
The EVP correlation works well at low ttmperamres because it
provides a good estiqate of the pressure required m produce a liquid C02-rich phase. For most oils, hat liquid phase will be dense
enough to extiact hydrocarbons, because typical densities of
C02-rich Iiqtid phases exceed the C02 density required for all but
the heaviest of oils. T& correlation proposed here can also be used
at ternpemmres, below the critical temperamre of COi (88 F
[31,aC]). In such cases (e.g., Conoco A at 83F [28C]), the C02
density at the MMP is evaluated from Eq. 5 x before. If the densig
of liquid C02 at the vapor pressure exceeds the C02 densi~ obtzined from l?q. 5, then the vapor pressure, is taken as the MMP.
Thus this correlation reduces at low temperature to rhe.EVP corn485
ME,
s,mMMP
[W.)
,
,,
,,
TEMPERATURE
,0
z.
,,
40
60
80
OC
,00
,20
,40
i
4CU0
-
35
,/
,.,,, ,.
z
.-
30
,. ..,,, ,
,000
$
,
8
z
25
~
5
,,,,,, m
a.
.
,0;
..,,,,,,
. ,.
E
-
20
,5
to
&
:
moo -,
- ,,
.
,,..
,m.
3m.
MM.(,,!0)
..00
Wmwm,
I~
4.0,
100
)50
200
250
TEMPERATURE.
Fig. lo~omparison
of calculated
Dashed lines indicate *10%.
and measured
MMPs.
lation, as do those of Yellig and Metcalfe 10 and Helm and Josendal. 7 At bigher teniperamres, the EVP, ybich lies in the middle
range of values predicted by the other correlations, is still usefuI
as a rou@ estimate. It should be used, however, only if composition
data are not available.
As Table 4 indicates, only four of tie 35 MMPs reported showed
deviations greater thin 11% and only two greater than 15%. Five
of those six oils were recombined resemoir fluids and, of those,
four were at temperantres grtiter than 190F [88C]. Thus it appears that correlation predictions are somewhat more uncertain for
high-temperature systems containing significtit amounts of dissolved gas. Whether that uncertainly is because the correlation does
not account for the presence of C, is not known. More research
is needed to detineate the role of C,, particularly in hightemperature displacements. In any case, MMPs for most of the
oils were &timatcd to within 200 psia [1379 !&a]. Given the precision with which MMPs are determined, this agreement is probably all that can be expected. Slim-tube displacements kre often
performed with pressure increments of several hundred psia. For
instance, the MMP reported for Shell A was based on slim-tube
emplacement.s conducted at 2,000, 2,500, 3,000, and 3,400 psig
[13.8, 17.2, 20.7, and 23.4 MPa]. Thus, some of the relatively
large deviation for that oil may have been a result of un$eriakity
in the measur~ MMP. In addition, there are frequently differences
between laboratories in experimental technique and interpretation
of slim-tube displacements. 9 Dtierencesin the criteria. for determining the MMP have the largest impact at high temperatures,
where the increase in recovery with pressure is lower (primarily,
we argue, because the density of.C02 inc~eases more slowly with
increasing pressure), and for heavy oils, which often show a g?adual
Fig. 11MMPs
values of F.
as a function
.F
of temperature
for various
,.
increase in recoveiy over wide pressure ranges. 30 Thus there is
undoubtedly some uncertainty in the value reported for ,fhemeasured MfvfP. The values reported here were those given by the companies who provided samples or analyses.
As Table 4 also indicates, the proposed correlation is Subs@tiatIy better than the others for the recombined oils in Group 2.
The improvement is the result of including C2-through-C4
hydrocarbons in the correlation. For ex~ple, F values were recdctdated with norndzed C3+ and C5+ compositions, arid all the
MMPs were recalculated. The resultant average absolute and stare
dard deviations are reported in Table 5. The values change only
for Group 2, because the oils in Group 1 did not contain any
C2-thr0.3hLC4 hydroc=bons and beciuse the oils in Group 3 were
light enough tiwt F exceeded 1:467 for all the oiI compositions and
hence Pwp was independent of composition for those oils. For
the recombined oils, however, the accuracy of MMP predictions
declined sharply when C@fm5ugh-C4 hydrocarbons were ignored.
Hence, we rogue that the pm.sence of C2-Ouough-C4 hydrocarbons
in an oil aids the development of miscibility, though it is also clear
that the abscce of Cz.throu h-C4 hydrocarbons dms nOtPmhibh
development of miscibility.Y5-1
The semitivi~ of the correlation to changes in the normalized
partition coefficients, K;, was also investigated. Values of F were
recalculated with ffie data of Fig. 8, where the C02 density is 0.43
g/cm3, and all MMPs were recalculated. The resultant deviations
for the dead oils improved slightly (because the error for the Ganado
predict@. dropped from 35 to 22%), but the predictions for the
recombined oils in Group 2 were much less accurate. Thus, the
patition coefficient data at high COZ density produced the most
accurate correlation.
TABLE 5EFFECT
OF CHANGES IN THE WEIGHTED-COMPOSITION
PARAMETER ON CORRELATION ACCURACY
Group 1
WeightedComposition
Parameter
Average
Absolute
Deviation
C2+
lt.7
11.7
11.7
c 3.+
C5+
C2+ with K,
6.4
Group 2
Group 3
Standard
Deviation
Average
Absolute
Deviation
Standard
Deviation
17.0
17.0
17.0
10.4
8.9
11.1
20,5
14.6
10.8
13.2
27.7
16.6
Average
Absolute.
Deviation
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
Standard
Deviation
6.1
6.1
6.1
6.1
from
pco,
486
= 0,43
m,
.,34
$,-0,,
Fig. 13 Pseudoternary
phase diagram for mixtures of CO,
and Gatado stock-tank oil at 160F and 3,000 psia (compositions in mole fractions).
One of the stock-tank oik, Ganado, showed substantial deviation. AUthe correlations, except that of Alston et al., 12did a poor
iob of Drcdictin2tic MMP for that oil. Holm and Josenda131
agued tiat the ~eg high MMP for Ganado was the result of an
unusual carbon-number dkibution. For example, Fig. 12 compares carbon-number distributions for Farnsworth, an oil used in
comtructing the cmrekdio, and Gmado. The Farnsworth sample
was relatively heavy. Our amdysis showed dmt it contained about
19 wt% C@hrough-C 12and 37 W% C37+. The Gamdo sample
contied about the same amount of C#hrough-C 12(15 w%), but
it showed essentially no hydrocarbons heavier than C36. In contrast, alf the oils used to construct the correlation contained a substantial C37+ fraction, Vpically 20 ,WY. or more. Thus, the
Gamdo oil is unusual, not oPJy because it is relatively lean in the
C@.brough-C,2 range, but also because it does not contain any
C37+ fraction as would be expected for an oil containing little
C#hrough-C12, 32
The absence of C@hrough-C12 hydrocarbons is apparently important in determining the MMP. Hobn and Josenda151 performed
a series of slim-hrbc experiments in which they added naphthenic,
pm@tlnic, and aromatic cuts to Ganado. They found that adding
enough C@hrou&-C,2 to raise the fraction of that cut to a more
typical value brought the MMP in line with their correlation. Furthermore, it did not matter what type of C#mX@-C 12hydrocarbons was added. That result supports the contention that the
distribution of molecular sizes is more important than the distribution of molecular types.
Because the correlation offered here is an attempt to account for
the effects of the distribution of molecular sizes, it is important to
undersmnd why the correlation faifed for Ganado. One additiomf
phasecomposition experiment was performed to examine component partitioning for the Ganado oil. 32 The experiment was performed at a C02 densi~ of 0,66 glcm3. Tbe resultant pseudoternary phase diagram (Fig. 13) shows clearly the absence of
C@hmugh-C,2 hydrocarbons, because all the tie-lines obtained
fie near the C02/C,3 + side of the diagram. Normalized pmtition
coefficients for the Ganado oil are shown in Fig. 14. The values
obtained differed only slightly from those shown in Fig. 1. Re.calcufation of the Ganado MMP with the K; values given by the line
SPE Reservoir Engjneerhg, November 1987
TABLE 6COMPARISON
100
90
90
812
80
75
75
50
50
67.5
67.5
45
45
60
60
40
40
10
10
20
20
90
105
135
t 05
135
i 05
135
i 05
i 35
105
135
105
135
105
135
25
25
50
50
22.5
22.5
45
45
20
20
40
40
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
20
Alston et al. 12
MMP
Measured
MMP
(psia)
(1%)(A%)
(rwo]b
100
100
OF MEASURED
(Characteristic
psia
1.110
1,000
1,200
1,700
1,600
2,220
2,150
2,700
1,070
1,480
940
1,290
1,490
1,800
1,290
1,490
2,050
2:500
1,760
1,800
1;300
1,700
1,590
2,070
2,1s0
2,850
1,120
1,460
980
1,290
1,330
1,740
1,140
1,490
1,740
2,270
1,430
1,870
% Deviation
11.0
8.3
0
0.6
- 6.8
1.4
5.6
4.7
- 1.4
4.3
0.0
-10.7
- 3,3
-13.2
0.0
-17.8
- 9.2
- 1S.6
3.9
absolute
detiatiort,
oh
Proposed
Correlation
MMP
Sebastian et a/,s
MMP
psia
1,520
2,160
1,940
2,750
1,080
1,530
960
1,360
1,390
1,940
1,250
1,800
1,780
2,530
1:630
2,300
8.5
6.4
Standard deviation, h
Average
OIL A
% Deviation
5.0
2,7
9,s
1.6
0,9
3,4
2.1
5.4
- 7.2
7.8
-3.1
20.s
-13.0
1.2
- 7.4
27.8
10.4
7.5
psia
1,090.
1;330.
1,760
1,680.
2,160
2,100
2,640
1,110
1,390
940,
1,220
1:320
1,880
1,31O*
1,450
1,800
2,380,
1.440
2:070,
oh
Deviation
9.0
10.8
3.5
5.0
- 2.7
- 2.3
- 2.2
3.7
- 6.1
0.0
5.4
-12.6
4.4
1.6
2.7
-12,2
4.8
-18.2
15,0
S.1
6.4
!00
;0
k
,
log
ki =
(-4515
, 10-2) Ci
+ 0.7949
0
g
3
L
.3
,,
.x
0,!
0,01
ill!!.!
0.?
l!l!l!l!l!l!
81216202*
CARBON
2832
NUMBER
=9. 14 Nomalized
hydrocarbon
equilibrium values
:021Ganado stock-tank mixtures at 3,000 psia and 160
TABLE 7-COWARISON
co,
:mol%) (m%)
100
100
90
90
80
(m%%)
10
10
~o
(m%%)
&
20
20
Af4fJ ESTWATED
MMPS FOR METCALFEi
d~=O.46
g/cm)27
Measured
MMP
(psia)
--
80
20
90-10120
90
io
80
80
9010
9010
,80
-
OF M5AStNtED
(Characteristic
20
psla
120
150
120
150
1,600
1,940
i ,450
1.880
120
1;410
150,
1,S70
1,350
150
1,640
i 20
1,150
1,490
150
120
1.150
150
1;310
150 ~~1>160
1;910
2,420
1,720
2,180
,1,490
1,680
1.430
,1;810
1,520
Standard deviation, %
4verage absolute deviation, %
. MMP cdc.!aled for pure C% with ttw cvrmwan.{
,. Measuredvalue for tiMP 10,PureC& used.
35.5
2%4
27,4
36.3
29,6
26..2
24.0
23.2
28.8
0/9 Oeviation
1,510
1.830
1;420
1,73JI
1,260
1,560
1,110
1,350
1.070
1;290
1,090
33.0
22,6
4.1
- 3.2
1.4
- 7.5
- 4.4
- 25
- 3.5
-10.4
- 7.0
- 1.5
-7.6
OIL E
Proposed
Correlation
MMP
Sebastian et d,3
MMP
psia
.
% Deviation
1,600
1.940
1:560
1,920
1,380
1,680
1,220
1,470
1.250
10.3
2.7
12.1
2.7
3.0
5.6
6.1
1.3
8.7
1;510
1,220
15.3
3.4
psia
% Deviation
3 l,950t
1,550$
2.040$
4.4
0;5
&9
7,9
14,2
16.0.
7,4
5.0
--13.0
4.0
1:610+
2,170$
l,250t
1,660*
1,00@
l,420t
1,130$
l,470t
1,180s
1,8
12.3
0.0
7.8
.6.5
5.6
:4.8
8,8
7.2
AJ$t@n
e! aw
40
50
60
70
TEMPERATURE
80
90
[-C]
lg. 16EsNmated
MMP% for displacement
tasln oil by C02 cemtamlnated with Cl.
100
,,
of a Petmian
TABLE 8CALCULATED
DENSITY OF METHANE AT
MEASURED MMPS FOR VAPORIZING GAS DRIVES37
T
32
oil
27
(+)
2
3
4
5
6
7
264
242
176
242
142
142
250
212
a
9
MMP
(psi.)
3,310
4,740
5,430
3,234
4,580
4,030
4.440
4;730
,4,640
PMMP
(g/cm)
0.?46
0,150
0,174
0.130
0,152
0.171
0,183
0.154
0,163
, 22
,
i,
,
:
17
Acknowledgments
12
40.
50
60
70
80
90
100
TEMPERATURE
1000
References
PC]
of a Permian
less accucate.
Nomenclature
a = constant in Eq. 4, -0.(? 4175
b = constant in Eq. 4, 0.07611
C; = carbon number
F = weighted-composition parameter
Ki = normalized pactition coefflcierd for Carbon
Number i
T = temperature,
F ~C]
490
This work was supponed by the U.S. DOE, the New Mexico Research and Development fnst., and a ccpsortinrn of companies and
foundations including the Abu Dhabi;.NatL Resecvoir Research
Foundation, Amoco, Arco, Cities Secvice, Concco, Elf Aquitaine,
Gulf, Japan Natl. 011Co., Marathon, Mobil, Petro-Canada, ShelJ,
Sobio, Sun, and Tenneco. We are particularly indebted to Amoco,
Arco, Cities Service,Conoco, Gulf, Mobil, Shell, and Union 011
for providing oil samples and analyses. We are grateful to L.W.
Helm and Unocal for providing deeded analyses of two oils.
20. Om, F.M. Jr. and Takr, J.J.: ,$Displacement of Oil by Carton
Dioxide, final report, Contract No. DOE/ET/12082-9, U.S. DOE,
Bartkville (May 1981).
21. Michels.A.@otzen, A., and *huunnan, W.: The VimmiLYofCarton
DioxideSetW&n OTCan&75C at Pressures up to 2030 Atmospheres,
PhJ.StC. (1957) 23, 95102.
Dbxide.,, 2kemdwu~ic
.Funcdons
22. Newitf. D.M. et .1.: cab
of Gases, F. Din (cd.), B.tterworkL ~ndon (1956) 1, 102-34.
23. Orr, F.M. Jr. and Silva, M.K.: F@ibrium Phase Composition of
CO,lHydrwarbod Mixmms-Part 1: Mezsuremet by a comiuous
Multiple-Cotact Experiment,. SPEJ (A@f 1983) 272-80.
24. Silva, M.K. 4 d.: Phase Compasitiom and Densities of MixNms
of CO, with MaJjamar Separator Oil at PLVFand 1200 psia,,. Repml
81-53, Peuoleum Recovery Resfarcb Cemer, New Mexico Inst. of Mining and Texhology, Sccorro, NM (Nov. 1981).
25. SiJva, M.K., Huiter, C.E,, and Lien, C. L.: -Phase Compositions and
Densitie$ of Mixtures of CO, with MaJjamar Separator Oil at MO-F
and 1603 psi.,,, Repmf 8S- 11, Petroleum RecoveIYResearch Center,
New Mexico Jnst. of Mining and TCCIIIIO1ORY.
SCCOrro,NM (Aprif
,0,.,
..w,.
26. Silva, M.K., MMter, C. E., and f.im, C.L.: Phase Compxitions and
Densities of Mixfures of CO, with Maljamar Separator Ofl at 160F
and 2LN30
psia,,, Reporf 85-8, Pe@Jlem Recovery Research Center,
New Mexico Inst. of Mid?g and Tezh@y, ,%orm, NM (March
1985).
27. Metcaffe, R.S.: Effwfs of Impurities on Minimum Mkcibifhy PresSUKSand Minimum Enrichment k,ek for CO, and Jfich-Oas DqJacements;, SPEI (April 1982) 219-25.
28, Walas, S.M.: Phase @Jli6ninn 61Chemical Enginwtikg, Buttenvwfh,
Boston (1985).
SPE Reserdr
En@neer@,
November
1987
29. Silva, M.K. and Hinter, C.E.: .Cmde Oil Amlysis for MMP co~.
lath.,,, ReparI 85-24, Petroleum Recovery Research Center, New
Mexim 2mt. of Mining and Tdumlogy, Soamm, NM (May 1985).
30. Mmii, S. et af.: Effect of Oil Composition on CO,-Flced Displa&
mem Performance, paw presented* the 1985FmropeanSympxirn
on Enhanced Oil Recovety, Rome, April 16-19.
31. Helm, L.W. andlosendal. V. A.: -Effect of Volatility and Molecular
Structure of Reservoir 03 on Oif Recovery Efficiency Using Carbon
Dioxide,, paper presenled al the 19S4Annual AJChE Mettig, .4na.
heirn. Mav 22.
32. Siiva, M.K., Hwter, C. E., and Lien, C.L.: tPb.aseCnmposition5md
Densities of Mixtures of CO, wifh Ganado Sbxk Tank Oil at 160F
and 3000 psia,, Report 85-12, Petmle.m Recovery ResearchCenter,
New Mexico Jmt. of Mining and Tecbnolom, Sccmro, NM (April
!0,.,
..-,.
33. Bierlin, J.A. and Kay, W.B.: PW-Equilibrium FWperdesof System
carbon Dioxide.Hydrogen Sulfide, Jnd. & E.g. Ch.m. (1953) 45,
618-23.
34. Reamer, H.J-I.efal.: Pbme E@iiria in HydrocarbonSysfmnx Volu.
metric Behaviorof Eibane-CartmnDioxideSystem,Ind & .Ens Clrem
(1945) 37, 688-91.
35. Pceomann, F.H. and Katz, D.L.: Pha.w Behavior of Binary Carh.m
Dioxide-Ptim
Sysfems, Ind. & Eng. Cfwm. (1945) 37, 847-53.
36. Fim.mabadi. A. et al.: EOS Predicdons of Commessibtifv and Phase
E&vim inSysfeIIE
ConkiiningWater,HYAQS
and ~0,, paw
SPE 15674 presemed at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
37. SfalbJp, F.L Jr.: Miscible Di@cemenr, Monogaph Series, SPE,
RiChWi.$0,TK (1983) 8, 128.
F
(F32)/l.8
psi x 6.894757
E+OO = kpa
SPERE
redwd
for review
S@
27, i9i5.
Papa
acceptedforpubtica.
491