Dr. Ir.

Dedy Kristanto, MT
Petroleum Engineering Department
UPN “Veteran” Yogyakarta

MISCIBLE GAS FLOODING

Miscible (Solvents) Floods

Type of Miscible (Solvents) Floods:

- Hydrocarbon gases (CH4, C2H6)

- Nitrogen (N2)
- Natural gas mixtures
- Light hydrocarbon liquids
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)

DK - 2 -
Miscible (Solvents) Floods
 Nitrogen becomes an efficient miscible displacement
only for light oils, temperatures greater than 240 0F (115
0C) and pressures greater than 5,000 psig, where its

density is high enough to extract light-hydrocarbons

from the oil.
 Flue-gas works well at lower pressure and temperature,
since it contains around 13% carbon dioxide.
 For carbon dioxide, the minimum pressure is 1,070 psig
at 88 0F (31 0C), i.e., when CO2 becomes supercritical
and its gas and liquid are no longer separate phases.
 All of these gases become miscible only when their
density is high, generally greater than 0.5 gr/cc. Thus,
they work best at high pressure.

DK - 3 -
Comparison of Solvents

Selecting an appropriate solvent for a given

reservoir is generally based on:

- Availability and relative cost

- Physical properties and phase behavior data
- Miscibility conditions
- Reservoir characteristics

DK - 4 -
Comparison of Solvents

At 93C and 3000 psia

Solvent Density, kg/m3 FVF, RCF/SCF Viscosity, Cp

CO2 525 0.0035 0.042
Air 186 0.0064 0.027
Nitrogen 178 0.0064 0.025
Methane 117 0.0056 0.018
Natural gas 173 0.0051 0.02

 CO2 has favorable properties and lower MMP

 LNG, LPG and condensate liquids are excellent solvents but
are more expensive

DK - 5 -
Comparison of Solvents
Light component

CO2

CH4

N2
Heavy Intermediate
component component
DK - 6 -
Physical Properties of CO2

 Molecular Weight 44
 Critical Pressure 1071 Psia
 Critical Temperature 87.8 Deg F
 Soluble in Oil
 Soluble in Water
 Miscible with oil at lower minimum miscibility
pressure (MMP)

DK - 7 -
Comparison of Solvents

Among various gases, Carbon dioxide is

preferred, due to:

- Higher viscosity
- Low formation volume factor
- High density
- Low miscibility pressures with reservoir oils
- Easy to handling
- Relatively low cost
DK - 8 -
Gas Injection Options
Reinjection of Reservoir Gas:
 The first option to consider in a low permeability
reservoir is reinjection of reservoir gas. This can
only occur in a relatively unproduced, newer
reservoir that originally was nearly saturated with
gas. The gas will have already been produced from
older reservoirs.
 If this option is possible, the reservoir pressure is
controlled so as to optimize gas production, gas
recycle, and oil production.

DK - 9 -
Gas Injection Options
Nitrogen or Air Injection:
 If reservoir gas is not available, injecting either
nitrogen or air to increase oil recovery is common.
 Nitrogen, extracted from air using membranes or
pressure swing adsorption, is relatively inert because
it contains less than 4 percent oxygen.
 It is best used in shallower reservoirs to enhance
production by increasing reservoir pressure.
 Produced nitrogen can be recompressed and recycled
so that very little new gas is needed and the
production can continue for several decades.

DK - 10 -
Gas Injection Options
Nitrogen or Air Injection:
 Air is used in deeper reservoirs, temperature (> 150
ºF) where the air spontaneously reacts with the oil to
form flue gas. The CO2 in the flue gas dissolves in
the oil. In addition, water and light oil evaporate
from the combustion zone.
 This means that three mechanisms (pressure
maintenance, swelling and waterflooding by
condensed steam) combine to increase oil
recovery.

DK - 11 -
Gas Injection Options
CO2 Sequestration:
 When a CO2 pipeline is not nearby but CO2 is
available from plants in a nearly pure form and is
not being sold for another purpose, it can be
injected into light-oil reservoirs where the CO2 and
oil could become miscible.
 In the few instances where these conditions exist,
carbon dioxide is the best choice for recovering oil
for decades from a low-permeability, deeper
reservoir where gas will not override the reservoir
fluids.

DK - 12 -
Gas Injection versus Waterflood
 The first decision that must be reached is whether to
inject a gas or to either start or continue a waterflood.
 The facts are that waterfloods (without surfactants)
leave more oil in the reservoir than gas floods, but
waterfloods can also recover oil faster than gas if the
permeability of the reservoir is high.
 Usually, if the permeability of the reservoir is above 50
md, a waterflood will work well, whereas if the
permeability is below 25 md, gas will recover oil faster
than water because more gas can be injected.
 In addition, if a waterflood has not been successful
because of poor sweep, a gas flood should be
profitable.
DK - 13 -
Condition for Miscibility
 In miscible displacement, the design entails
determining the gas composition which could
develop miscibility at a given pressure is known
as enrichment requirement
 Miscibility condition is expressed as minimum
content of intermediate components in the solvent
 If the solvent composition is fixed, the miscibility
condition is expressed as the lowest pressure at
which the solvent could develop miscibility with
the reservoir oil. This is known as the Minimum
Miscibility Pressure (MMP)

DK - 14 -
CO2 Miscible Flood

 Minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) is a key

parameter for the design and operations of
successful CO2 miscible flood project to enhance
oil recovery
 Operating CO2 flood project below the minimum
miscibility pressure results in immiscible
displacement and consequently low oil recovery
 Operating CO2 flood project above the minimum
miscibility pressure (miscible displacement)
increases additional oil recovery

DK - 15 -
Ternary Equilibrium Diagrams

DK - 16 -
Why CO2 Flooding?
Some of the advantages of CO2 over Hydrocarbon Solvent are:
 Cheaper solvent than liquid hydrocarbon, and safer to handle and
pressurize than hydrocarbon gases
 2-3 times more viscous
 3-4 times more dense (dissolving power)
 Miscible at lower pressures
 Miscible with more oils
 Immiscible swelling of oil benefit
 Immiscible oil viscosity reduction
 Powerful vaporizer of hydrocarbons
 Recovers oil beyond low tension effects because of extraction of
intermediate hydrocarbon from the non-mobile oil
 Can lower minimum miscibility pressure as the flood progresses
 Easier miscibility than N2, flue gas, C1
DK - 17 -
Mechanisms of CO2 Flooding

 Swelling crude oils (CO2 is very soluble in high-

gravity oils)
 Lowering oil viscosity
 Lowering the interfacial tension between the oil
and CO2 phases in the near-miscible regions
 Generating miscibility between the oil and CO2
phases when pressure is above minimum
miscibility pressure (MMP)
 Extraction of hydrocarbon components

DK - 18 -
Requirements for Carbon Dioxide
Miscible Flooding

 Minimum miscibility pressure must be determined

for the crude oils at that field
 Must be possible to re-pressure reservoir to reach
MMP during the displacement process
 Carbon dioxide must be available at a price that
will make the process economic

DK - 19 -
Sources of CO2
 Natural CO2 deposits
 By-product from amonia plants, other chemical plants, and
oil field acid gas separation facilities
 By-product from coal gasification and SNG (synthetic
natural gas) plants
 Flue gas from cement plants

CO2 Sequestration:
 When a CO2 pipeline is not nearby but CO2 is available from
plants in a nearly pure form, it can be injected into light-oil
reservoirs where the CO2 and oil could become miscible.
 In the few instances where these conditions exist, carbon
dioxide is the best choice for recovering oil for decades
from a low-permeability, deeper reservoir where gas will not
override the reservoir fluids.
DK - 20 -
Sources of CO2

DK - 21 -
CO2 Sources Facilities

Photograph of Reprocessing Plant for CO2 Stripping showing the

complete expanse of the Facility. The columns in the middle are part
of the long-closed potassium plant that was originally used. DK - 22 -
CO2 Sources Facilities

Photograph of Reprocessing Plant for CO2 Stripping, where amine

and membrane facilities are located on the right of the image
DK - 23 -
Cost and Feasibility of CO2

 The nature of CO2 sources.

 Its location relative to oil field.
 The method used to transport the CO2
to the oil field.

DK - 24 -
CO2 EOR Technologies

 CO2 Flood Types

- Miscible
• Develops miscibility
• Swells oil
• Reduces viscosity
- Immiscible
• Two phase
• Some swelling and viscosity effects

DK - 25 -
CO2 EOR Technologies
 Injection Methods
- Continuous injection
- Water Alternating Gas (WAG)
• Pressures reservoir to miscible level
• Prevents early CO2 breakthrough
• Gravity override
• Can add foam or other mobility control agents
- Huff and Puff (inject, soak, and produce back from
1 well)
• May sequester some CO2, but most comes back
• Soaking may accelerate full field flood response

DK - 26 -
Immiscible CO2 Flooding Process

In this process, CO2 typically

injected at slows rates at
the crest of reservoir
aiming at filling the pore
volume of the reservoir
rock.
The injected gas creates an
artificial gas cap, pushing
oil simultaneously
downwards and towards
the rim of the reservoir
where the producing wells
are located.
Injected CO2 causes oil to
swell, decreases oil density
and improves oil mobility.
DK - 27 -
Comparison Oil Production between
Immiscible and Miscible CO2 Flooding

DK - 28 -
CO2 Flooding Process Diagram

Continuous Carbon Dioxide Flooding

CO2

DK - 29 -
CO2 Flooding Process Diagram

DK - 30 -
Miscible CO2 Slug

DK - 31 -
Optimum of CO2 Slug Size

100
90
80
Oil Recovery (%)

70
60
50
40
30
20
Slug Size = 32% PV
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CO2 Slug Size (% PV)

DK - 32 -
Case: Weyburn Fields

DK - 33 -
Case: Weyburn Fields

DK - 34 -
Case: Weyburn Fields

DK - 35 -
Case: Weyburn Fields

DK - 36 -
NE Purdy Springer Unit Garvin County, OK
NE Purdy Springer Unit Production
100000
Production and Injection (BPD, MCFD)

10000

Summary of Gross Unit Production

1000
OOIP = 265 MMBO

Cumulative Production = 102 MMBO (38%)

Primary = 38 MMBO (14%)
Secondary = 52 MMBO (20%)
Tertiary = 12 MMBO (4%)

100
Jan-65
Jan-66
Jan-67
Jan-68
Jan-69
Jan-70
Jan-71
Jan-72
Jan-73
Jan-74
Jan-75
Jan-76
Jan-77
Jan-78
Jan-79
Jan-80
Jan-81
Jan-82
Jan-83
Jan-84
Jan-85
Jan-86
Jan-87
Jan-88
Jan-89
Jan-90
Jan-91
Jan-92
Jan-93
Jan-94
Jan-95
Jan-96
Jan-97
Jan-98
Jan-99
Jan-00
Jan-01
Jan-02
Jan-03
Jan-04
Historic Oil Historic CO2 Inj Historic Water Historic Water Injected
DK - 37 -
Wasson Field, US

DK - 38 -
Water-Alternating-Gas Processes

 Known as WAG miscible floods

 Volumetric sweep efficiency with solvents is usually low
due to unfavorable mobility ratio
 Water is injected (alternating with solvent) to improve the
displacement mobility ratio
 Typical water-gas ratio is about 1:1
 Water may shield the solvent from contacting the
reservoir oil

DK - 39 -
Water Shielding Effect in
Water-Alternating-Gas Processes

 Shielding reduces contact between solvent and oil, hence

resulting in lower displacement efficiency
 Shielding effect is lower in oil-wet reservoirs and for low rate

100

Oil-wet
Displacement
Efficiency, %
Water-wet
Low rate
Water-wet

0
0 100
% Water in WAG DK - 40 -
WAG Injection Procedure

DK - 41 -
Slug CO2 and WAG Injection
Surface Facilities

A typical injection well is shown in the photograph above

where the wellhead is on the left of the image and the two
pipes on the right are for the water and the CO2 supply lines. DK - 42 -
Slug CO2 and WAG Injection
Surface Facilities

A group of producer wellheads are linked together to a larger field pre-

processing unit as shown in the photograph. Here the collecting manifold
from the producer wells is observed to the left in the image, while the
three pressure tanks coarsely separate the water, oil, and gas with CO2,
before pumping to a centralized processing plant. DK - 43 -
CO2 Screening Methodology

 Empirical reservoir characteristics.

 Geological models.
 Preliminary reservoir simulation studies.
 PVT tests, core analysis and core floods.
 Advanced reservoir simulation studies (ECLIPSE, GEM,
CMG, VIP)
 Preliminary economic analysis.
 Field pilot.
 Large scale simulation and project economics.
 Full scale development.
DK - 44 -
Favorable Reservoir Characteristics
for Empirical Screening

 Reservoirs with good waterflood response are best

candidate for CO2. 20% OOIP< Recovery Factor <50%
OOIP.
 Depth >2500 ft to reach MMP.
 Oil Gravity >25 Degrees API.
 Oil Viscosity <10 cp.
 Porosity >12%.
 Permeability >10 md.

DK - 45 -
Unfavorable Reservoir Characteristics
for Empirical Screening

 High concentrations of vertical fractures.

 Very high, or very low, permeability.
(Vertical segregation or fracture channeling)
 Thick reservoirs with no layered horizontal
permeability barriers.
 Reservoirs with poor connectivity.
 Well spacing >80 acres.
 Poor material balance during water flood. (High
water loss out of zone, water influx or high water cut
during primary production)
DK - 46 -
Quick Rules of Thumb

 Recovery factor using miscible CO2 is 8% -11%

OOIP. Immiscible CO2 50% of miscible.
 MMP equals initial bubble point pressure.
 CO2 requirement is 7-8 Mcf/bo plus 3-5 Mcf/bo
recycle.
 Water injection required to fill gas voidage and
increase reservoir pressure to original BHP.
 WAG is alternative but 10 Mcf/bo still required.
 Top down CO2 injection alternative is effective
but requires more capital investment for higher
CO2 volume.
DK - 47 -
Factors Important for a Profitable
CO2 Miscible Flooding
 To be an effective solvent, CO2 must flow through the
reservoir above its minimum miscibility pressure (MMP).
This means that the reservoir generally should be
greater than 2,500 ft deep.
 CO2 is most effective with light crude's, those with oil
gravities greater than 25° API.
 Stratification, fracturing and adjacent loss zones
(adjacent gas caps) can cause loss of CO2 and reduced
oil recovery.
 The field should be in an area with an existing
infrastructure of CO2 source fields and has distribution
pipelines to supply and transportation. New pipelines
can be constructed wherever economically feasible.
DK - 48 -
Factors Important for a Profitable
CO2 Miscible Flooding
 Because CO2 flows through the reservoir more easily
than oil, it also does best in reservoirs with low
heterogeneity. If some layers of the reservoir are far
more porous than others, CO2 will flow there
preferentially, rather than maintaining a uniform front
and high displacement and/or sweep efficiency.

DK - 49 -
Reservoir Characteristics of 29
Successful Carbonate CO2 Floods

Average North Dakota Madison

 Porosity 11% (7%-13.5%) 10.9%
 Permeability 9 Md (1.5-62) 10.2 Md
 Depth 5,281 feet (4500-8000) 7,500 feet
 API 33 degrees (28-41) 38.7 degrees
 BHT 108 degrees F (86-134) 201 degrees F
 Viscosity 1.52 cp (0.5 –2.6) 1.54 cp

So at start of CO2 flood = 55% (35%-89%)

DK - 50 -
Reservoir Parameters of
Carbonate CO2 Floods

Well Spacing for 38 Successful CO2 Floods:

1 Field at 130 acres
2 Fields at 75 acres
2 Fields at 50 acres
32 Fields < 40 acres
38 Well average was 27.6 acres

DK - 51 -
CO2 Potential Oil Reserve
Classification

Probable, Possible, Unfavorable

 Probable (>2MMbo and <2MMbo): Highest
probability of success based upon empirical
analysis and comparison to other successful
projects.
 Possible (>2MMbo and <2MMbo): Feasible but
have less favorable reservoir characteristics. May
have lower oil recovery.
 Unfavorable: Significant reservoir problems.
 Projects with greater than 2 MMbo recoverable
best candidates.
DK - 52 -
Probable Top Ten North Dakota Units
for CO2 Flooding

 Beaver Lodge - Madison 17.6 MMbo

 Tioga - Madison 17.2 MMbo
 Big Stick - Madison 13.3 MMbo
 Fryburg - Heath (Tyler) 12.4 MMbo
 Beaver Lodge - Devonian 11.1 MMbo
 Newberg - Spearfish & Charles 7.7 MMbo
 Wiley - Glenburn 7.6 MMbo
 Blue Buttes - Madison 7.4 MMbo
 North Tioga - Madison 7.2 MMbo
 Charleson North - Madison 6.4 MMbo
DK - 53 -
Can CO2 floods be Used by Smaller
Operators?

Experience has helped to make CO2 floods practical for

independent operators. Changes include:
 Less expensive equipment. Experience shows that
the same equipment used for waterflooding can
generally be used for CO2 flooding.
 Lower CO2 costs and cheaper transportation. The cost
for delivered CO2 costs has dropped approximately
40% since the 1980s.
 Better screening and select the best CO2 flood
candidates to reduce risks .
 Better flood design to prevent early breakthrough and
other reservoir problems.
 Creative financing options to reduce the risk, speed
payout and improve the return on investment.
DK - 54 -