You are on page 1of 9

PAPER 2009-169

Effect of Connate-Water Saturation, Oil Viscosity, and Matrix Permeability on Rate of Gravity Drainage during Immiscible and Miscible Displacement Tests in MatrixFracture Experimental Model
University of Regina This paper is accepted for the Proceedings of the Canadian International Petroleum Conference (CIPC) 2009, Calgary, Alberta,Canada,1618June2009.ThispaperwillbeconsideredforpublicationinPetroleumSocietyjournals.Publication rightsarereserved.Thisisapreprintandsubjecttocorrection.

Miscible injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) has seen a significant increase in interest for the purpose of enhanced oil recovery in conventional oil reservoirs. However, naturally fractured reservoirs, which are among the largest oil reserves in the world, are considered poor candidates for this process due to presumed low performance efficiency. This paper presents the results of an experimental study on the effect of connate water saturation, matrix permeability, and oil viscosity on the performance of gravity drainage from matrix (into fracture) when it is surrounded by a CO2-filled fracture. Experiments were performed in an experimental model under different operating pressures to cover both immiscible and miscible conditions. Experiments were conducted using synthetic oil (nC10) and light crude oil in two Berea cores having large differences in permeability. In addition, the effect of connate water saturation was studied by performing experiments in an initially brine saturated Berea core and comparing the results with those obtained when the core was 100% saturated with oil. The experimental results showed that matrix permeability had a significant effect on the rate of gravity drainage when CO2 was injected under immiscible conditions. When experiments were performed at immiscible conditions, production rate by gravity drainage was nearly 5 times greater in the Berea core with 1000 md permeability compared to the core with permeability of 100 md. The ratio of production rate was not similar to the permeability ratio, indicating the important role of capillary pressure in the gravity drainage mechanism. However, ultimate oil recovery was less

sensitive to the matrix permeability at pressures near or above minimum miscibility pressure. The observations were more interesting when experiments were performed in the presence of connate water saturation. The ultimate oil recovery from a core saturated with oil in the presence of connate water saturation was less at immiscible conditions. However, at near miscible and miscible conditions, the presence of connate water was beneficial to the gravity drainage mechanism in that it lead to higher ultimate oil recovery. This study also shows that miscible CO2 injection in fractured reservoirs is a viable option for both oil recovery and storage purposes. However, under immiscible conditions, when CO2 is injected at pressures below the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) and above the supercritical condition, it is not beneficial for improving oil recovery via gravity drainage. This was clearly seen when gravity drainage experiments using crude oil were performed and MMP was not achieved at the maximum possible operating pressures. The results obtained from this study address the knowledge gap in the best practices for utilizing CO2 for improving oil recovery from fractured reservoir environments and demonstrate the effects of key parameters on the gravity drainage mechanism.

Primary production of light crude oils by natural energy of the reservoirs may produce up to one third of the recoverable oil. Secondary oil recovery processes including gas and waterflooding methods may increase the oil recovery to two thirds of initial recoverable oil-in-place in non-fractured reservoirs if applied adequately. However, the potential of secondary oil recovery processes is usually less in fractured reservoirs, leaving those reservoirs as poor candidates for such recovery techniques and secondary oil recovery uneconomic (Peng et al., 1988). This is mainly due to the large permeability contrast between the matrix and the fracture in fractured reservoirs. Injection fluids such as gas or water easily move towards the production well and result in the bypassing of the matrix oil and poor sweep efficiency. Therefore, in most fractured reservoirs, an early gas or water breakthrough becomes problematic during secondary oil recovery stage (Felsenthal and Ferrell, 1967). Improving oil recovery using hydrocarbon gases from fractured reservoirs where gravity drainage is the dominant production mechanism is always a challenging task. Miscible displacement processes have been developed as successful means for enhanced oil recovery purposes in many reservoirs. There are numerous theoretical and experimental works in which researchers investigated the performance of different hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon injection gases on oil recovery during enhanced oil recovery stages from nonfractured reservoirs (Rathmell et al., 1971; A-Wahabi et al., 2005; Pozzi and Blackwell, 1962; Hoier et al., 2004). Also, in practice, the potential of hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon gases as an alternative for secondary and tertiary oil recovery processes from non-fractured reservoirs have been investigated for many years (Stalkup, 1978). However, those types of studies

and practical works are quite limited when it comes to fractured reservoirs and the application of miscible and immiscible CO2 injection in particular. Carbon dioxide has been used as early as 1952 (Stalkup, 1978) to increase oil recovery. Although it is not directly miscible with many reservoir oils at reservoir conditions, it has a lower minimum miscibility pressure than natural gas in many cases. The term multi-contact miscibility (MCM) or dynamic miscibility is more commonly used for multi-component systems wherein miscibility between the solvent and some of the lighter solute components starts earlier than the others at certain pressure and temperature. Multi-contact miscible displacement processes are classified as vapourizing-gas and condensing-gas drives. In a vapourizing gas drive, a lean gas, such as methane or flue gas, is injected, and as it moves in the reservoir, it vapourizes the lighter components of reservoir oil (i.e. liquid petroleum gas (LPG) components). Both vaporizinggas and condensing-gas derive mechanisms have been observed during earlier studies (Rathmel et. al., 1971). However, CO2 is a much more powerful vaporizer of hydrocarbons than natural gases (Holm and Josendal, 1974). If CO2 is used as the solvent in a miscible displacement process, highly compressed CO2 has the potential to extract heavier hydrocarbons from the reservoir oil since it leads to miscibility achievement at a lower pressure than lean gas (Holm, 1986). Injecting CO2 at miscible condition can improve the rate of gravity drainage in fractured reservoirs, substantially (Asghari and Torabi, 2007). However, if CO2 injected at a pressure much higher than minimum miscibility pressure, it may reduce the rate of gravity drainage and recovery factor (Torabi and Asghari, 2007). As the results of studies in the last decade, the use of CO2 as an efficient solvent for the purpose of increasing oil recovery has brought more interest in both petroleum and CO2 capture industries. It has been discovered that use of CO2 for EOR purpose results in a decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. This is mainly because significant volume of carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas, that is stored in the reservoir rather than being released into the atmosphere.

Laboratory Study Materials

Two Berea cores of the same size with different permeabilities were used in this experiment. The permeabilities of these cores were measured using a PDK-400 laser permeameter at 10 different points. The average permeabilities of these cores were determined as 100 md and 1000 md. Table 1 presents dimensions and other characteristics of the cores used during this study. A stainless steel high-pressure core holder was made to keep the core in place. There is abut 0.5cm space between inner diameter of the core holder and the core. This spacing represents fractures surrounding the matrix. This space is slightly more at above and bottom of the core allowing installation of two Teflon made holders which helps to keep the core vertically in the centre. Both holders were made in such away to allow fluid flow between internal wall of the core holder and external surface of the core as well as at the top and bottom. Also, inside the core-holder caps were conical shape to allow all fluids drain during production. Pure normal decane and 99.99% pure carbon dioxide were used as oil and injected solvent, respectively. The viscosity and density of nC10 were 0.92-0.99 cP, and 0.73 gr/cc at room conditions, respectively. Experiments were conducted at constant temperature of 35 oC. Prior to the experiments, the first

contact miscibility pressure (FCM) and multi-contact miscibility pressure (MMP) of CO2-nC10 system were determined using CMG-WINPROP software. According to the simulation results, first-contact miscibility pressure of these two fluids at 35oC is 1062.5 psi. In addition, changes in viscosity and density of nC10 as a function of amount of CO2 dissolved in the oil was investigated under miscible condition.

Experimental Setup
Figure 1 shows the schematics of the experimental set-up used in this study. The set-up consists of 2 high-pressure ISCO syringe pumps, one CO2 cylinder, one highly sensitive dual reading digital pressure gauge (20744 kPa, 3000 psi), one digital temperature controller, high pressure gauge glass (20744kPa, 3000 psi), a back pressure valve (20744kPa, 3000 psi), a production separator, and a high-pressure stainless steel core holder desifned and made specifically for this study. A separate vacuum set-up was used to vacuum and saturate the core prior to each experiment. Since the maximum pressure of the CO2 cylinders is 900 psi (6223 kPa), two syringe pumps with capacities of 500 cc each were used to pressurize the system and keep the system at a constant pressure. The high pressure gauge glass was connected to the bottom of the core holder and was used to allow for the collection of the oil and solvent production under pressure. The core holder was placed on a stand in an air-bath. A large production separator was provided to avoid fluid loss during pressure reduction from the top of the cell and to calculate the residual oil saturation at the end of the experiments. For the same reason, the collection cylinder is also connected to this separator. To maintain a constant temperature for the air-bath, two fans were installed at two corners (top left and bottom right) for smooth air displacement.

possible to read the produced volume through the scaled glass gauge. Also, at higher pressures, CO2 became liquid and it was not possible to see the interface between the oil and CO2. Therefore, in order to measure the production accurately, after each stage, the valve provided between the glass gauge and core holder was closed temporarily. Then, pressure was released from the glass gauge (collection cylinder) through a pressure regulator and production from the glass gauge and separator were collected and weighed. After that, air was displaced by CO2 from the glass gauge, and its pressure was increased to core holder pressure and connection was resumed. This was continued until no production was observed for 72 hours (3 days). Then, the test was stopped and the core was removed, weighed, and cleaned using nC7 and allowed to dry until it reached its initial weight. The above procedures were repeated for 5 more pressures in 1729 kPa pressure steps up to the maximum pressure of 10372 kPa at a constant temperature of 35oC. To investigate the effect of parameters such as matrix permeability, connate water saturation, and oil viscosity. For this fact, six runs of experiments were performed in presence of connate water saturation. Also, to examine the effect of matrix permeability on performance of gravity drainage in presence of CO2 filled fractures, the same numbers of experiments were performed in a core with higher permeability. Furthermore, effect of oil viscosity was tested by saturating the original core with a diluted light crude oil.

Results and Discussion

Results show that the injection of CO2 at pressures below MMP can improve the oil recovery from a matrix by a maximum of 18% at 5186 kPa under a pure gravity drainage mechanism (Figure 2). At immiscible conditions, small gravity force, capillary pressure, and oil and gas relative permeabilities are responsible for a low recovery factor. Figure 2 shows that injection at near miscible conditions (i.e. 6914 kPa) can improve the oil recovery up to 68%. However, more production stages are necessary to reach the maximum production under this condition. While at miscible conditions ultimate recovery is about 75%, pressure increase has no significant impact on the process. It must be pointed out that when production was extended to 14 days, the recovery factor increased to more than 80%. However, since at immiscible conditions no production was observed after 10 days, the results after 10 days were compared for all conditions. In the other hand, the comparison is time based. Effect of connate water saturation The presence of connate water saturation in the core may lead to a larger contact area between the oil and the carbon dioxide during CO2 injection. This is mainly because CO2 will dissolve in the water and move into the oil phase through the contact areas between the oil and the water. In addition, the presence of carbon dioxide in the water phase (carbonated water) can result in an acidic environment and dissolve the reservoir rock. Based on the composition of the reservoir rock or core sample, this phenomenon may improve its permeability, particularly in a long-term injection scheme. However, since water and oil are not miscible fluids, it is expected that there will be additional capillary pressure between these two fluids, reducing the potential of the displacing mechanism compared to the case in which the core is 100% saturated with an oil phase. For a more realistic case, the effect of connate water saturation was investigated on the performance of gravity

Experimental Procedure
Prior to each test, the core was dried, vacuumed for 3 days, and saturated with nC10 for 24 hrs to reach its maximum saturation. Then, the core was removed, weighed, and returned to the core holder immediately. The weight of the saturated core was compared with the weight of the dry core, and the oil-inplace was calculated using nC10 density. Since gravity drainage experiments were conducted at six different pressures (starting with atmospheric pressure and increase in 129 kPa steps), the initial saturation of the core was repeated 6 times during the tests, and the results were almost the same with minor differences. Core saturation was conducted at 35oC, and this airbath temperature was kept constant in all stages of the experiment. At the beginning of each stage of the experiments, air was displaced from the system by injecting CO2 into the fracture surrounding the core at a very low flow rate. This was done to avoid force displacement of fluid from the core. Then, the core was allowed to produce into the glass gauge at atmospheric pressure. It was observed that there was no production under that condition. The first experiment was conducted by increasing CO2 pressure in the fracture to 1729 kPa. In order to reduce the Joule Thompson effect and avoid a sudden reduction in gas temperature during injection, a heating wrap was installed around the injection line (Fig. 1). Throughout the experiment, the pressure of the system was kept constant by setting the syringe pumps at constant pressure mode at the desired pressure (i.e. 1729 kPa) and connecting the pump to the core holder. During these experiments, it was observed that oil production is relatively low at low pressure, and it is not

drainage CO2 injection. Results were compared with the results of those tests conducted in core#1 when it was 100% saturated with nC10. This comparison is shown through Figures 3 to 5. As it is shown, at immiscible and near miscible conditions, the presence of connate water reduced the recovery factor of the gravity drainage process. It is believed that, at immiscible conditions, the presence of water in the core results in additional capillary pressure term which is relatively high compare to the gravity force exist in one foot oil saturated core (Fig. 3). However, at near miscible condition (i.e., 6914 kPa), presence of connate water saturation improved the gravity drainage performance (Fig. 4). Since the core was water-wet, larger portion of the oil was produced when connate water exists. At miscible condition, there was no significant impact observed from existence of connate water saturation. This is mainly because, miscible displacement was more dominant comparing to the existing capillary pressure between the water and oil phase (Fig. 5). In the other word, capillary pressure has minor effect on the displacement mechanism at miscible condition. Effect of oil viscosity To investigate the effect of oil composition and viscosity on the performance of the gravity drainage mechanism, a 100 md Berea core was saturated with Instow field crude oil in presence of connate water saturation. Next, CO2 was injected in to the fracture surrounding the core at 35C and 4 different operating pressures: 3457 kPa, 6914 kPa, 10372 kPa and 13829 kPa. Using Rising Bubble Apparatus (RBA) multi contact miscibility between CO2 and crude oil was achieved at about 8000 kPa and 35C. Experiments were conducted until no production was observed for 24 hours and production was carefully collected on a daily basis. Figure 6 shows the recovery factor of gravity drainage for only 10 days. It indicates that about 37% of the initial oil in place was produced when the core was saturated with crude oil in the presence of connate water. During experiments, no significant differences were observed between the recovery factors of the process for up to 5 days when nC10 and crude oil were used. However, after 5 days, crude oil production was negligible while nC10 continuously produced for 9 more days. Crude oil was a multi component fluid and more than 30% of its composition was C30+. It is believed that light and to some extend medium components were produced through the condensing mechanism and gravity drainage process in 5 days. However, after 5 days, the rest of the components are heavy and the diffusion process drastically decreased. The presence of capillary pressure, higher viscosity of oil, low diffusion, and possible reduction in permeability due to asphaltene precipitation may be responsible for negligible production after 5 days. In contrast, nC10 is a single component and when it is used, two mechanisms controlling its production are: 1) the diffusion of CO2 in nC10 increases as the amount of CO2 increases in the remaining nC10 in the core (the viscosity of the remaining oil reduces, leading to a higher diffusion rate), and 2) the contact area between CO2 and nC10 reduces as production proceeds. These two mechanisms control the recovery performance of gravity drainage leading to a much larger recovery factor when nC10 was used. When pressure was increased to 10372 kPa, very little production was observed (less than 3%) from a core saturated with crude oil surrounded by CO2. A comprehensive analysis was made and it indicated that: a) at 10372 kPa, the viscosity of the dead oil in the core is larger, leading to a lower CO2 diffusion rate, b) CO2 is supercritical at 10372 kPa and its density is relatively large (0.73 g/cm3) and this can reduce the gravity drainage performance drastically, and c) capillary pressures between oil/water is dominant compared to gravity force. Therefore only a small amount of oil can be produced by

either diffusion of the light oil components in the CO2 phase or small gravity force. However, when nC10 was used, the absence of capillary pressure and the first contact miscibility of nC10 with CO2 were responsible for higher production. This situation was more pronounced when pressure increased to 13829 kPa. When CO2 diffuses into the oil, oil may swell out of the core, however, the presence of such a dense fluid in fractures may significantly reduce the swelling of the oil. Therefore, a further increase in pressure reduces the diffusion rate and gravity drainage potential. At this pressure, almost no production was observed for 4 days. For the purpose of further investigation, the experiment at 13829 kPa was continued for 2 weeks and later for 1 month. In the first 2 weeks, about 1.68% and then, over the rest of the month, an additional 1.17% recovery factor was observed, leading to a total recovery of 2.85% in one month. Therefore, it was concluded that gravity drainage is sensitive to the density of the injectant and may reduce at higher pressures. However, in practice, the presence of a supercritical gas with a higher density can reduce the gravity override and increase the sweep efficiency of a displacement mechanism. Therefore, displacement tests must be conducted in a large fractured model to confirm such behavior. Effect of matrix permeability and oil in place A highly permeable Berea core (Core#2) (i.e. 1000 md) used was used to examine the effect of matrix permeability on the performance of continuous CO2 injection in matrix-fracture media and investigate its effect on gravity drainage. The same series of experiments were conducted. An attempt has been made to keep the experimental conditions consistent with the first series conducted in the low permeability core. Because of this fact, some experiments were repeated to ensure the results are accurate. Figure 7 shows the ultimate recovery factor as a function of operating pressure for low and high permeability Berea cores. As it is shown, the effect of matrix permeability is more pronounced at near miscible conditions compared to immiscible and first contact miscible conditions. While at a lower pressure, capillary pressure is a dominant factor in both cores; at pressures near miscible conditions, permeability is a key factor. However, at miscible conditions, the permeability of both cores is high enough to allow higher production in the absence of capillary pressure. This is mainly because viscosity of nC10 is very low and in absence of capillary pressure gravity rate is relatively high within the range of core permeabilities used in this study. It should be mentioned that for the gravity drainage experiments, the recovery factor is defined as the ratio of oil drained from the matrix (core) under pure gravity drainage in the presence of CO2 to the initial-oil-in-place. Indeed, the drained oil from the matrix into the fracture was considered to be recoverable and used in recovery factor calculation. Similar to the low permeability core, the high permeability core has the potential for higher recovery when it is surrounded by miscible CO2 (i.e. at pressures above MMP). While at immiscible conditions, the maximum recovery factor was less than 20%, at miscible condition, it is increased to about 80% in the highly permeable core. As it is shown the recovery factor by gravity drainage at 1729 kPa was increased from about 4% to near 8% when matrix permeability increased from 100md to 1000md. This difference is about 5 times when pressure increased to 5186 kPa, indicating the dominancy of matrix permeability over capillary force. However, at miscible conditions (i.e. pressure equal to or above 6914 kPa) the recovery factor is not a strong function of core permeability within the range of the matrix permeabilities of this study.

The main idea of this study was to investigate the effect of key parameters such as connate water saturation, oil viscosity, and matrix permeability on gravity drainage from rock matrix in presence of CO2-filled fractures. Therefore, first a comparison between the results of the gravity drainage experiments under different operating conditions was made. Results show that bout 20% of the oil was drained by gravity drainage when CO2 injected at immiscible condition. Presence of capillary pressure, low diffusion rate, and low gravity head are the main reasons. However, at pressures above MMP, gravity drainage produced more than 78% of the initial oil indicating that capillary pressure is playing an important rule in such a mechanism. This shows the great potential of miscible CO2 injection as a means of EOR technique in fractured reservoirs. Results of this experimental study indicated that, presence of connate water saturation reduces the gravity drainage rate at immiscible condition due to additional capillary pressure between oil and water. However, at miscible condition displacement efficiency of miscible process is much larger compare to the oil/water capillary pressure leading to minor effect on rate of gravity drainage. Also, it was observed that, oil composition and viscosity are important parameters controlling efficiency of gravity drainage. If CO2 injected at a very high injection pressure (but below miscibility) presence of a dense supercritical CO2 may reduce the rate of gravity drainage substantially. The effect of matrix permeability has been studied by conducting the same series of experiments in a high permeability core (i.e. 1000 md). Results show that at immiscible conditions, higher oil recovery is achieved in a highly permeable core due to both higher permeability and lower value of capillary pressure. However, at miscible conditions, due to the absence of capillary pressure the influence of core permeability on the recovery factor is much lower compare to immiscible condition. This is valid within the range of permeabilities used in this study.

the Society of Petroleum Engineers of AIME held in New Orleans, La., 3-6 October, 1971. 4. Al-Wahaibi Y.M.; Muggeridge A.H. and Grattoni C.A., Experimental and Numerical Studies of Gas/Oil Multicontact Miscible Displacements in Homogeneous Porous Media; paper SPE 92887 presented at the 2005 SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium held in Huston, Texas U.S.A., 31 January, 2005-2 February 2005. 5. Pozzi A.L. and Blackwell R.J., Design of Laboratory Models for Study of Miscible Displacement; paper SPE 445 presented at 37th Annual Fall Meeting of SPE, Oct. 7-10, 1962 in Los Angeles, Calif. 6. Hoier, L.; Cheng, N.; and Whitson, C.H., Miscible Gas Injection in Undersaturated Gas-Oil Systems, paper SPE 90379 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 26-29 September 2004. 7. Stalkup, F.I., Carbon Dioxide Miscible Flooding: Past, Present, And Outlook for Future; paper SPE 7042, 1978. 8. Holm, L. W. and Josendal, V. A., Mechanisms of Oil Displacement by Carbon Dioxide, JPT, Vol. 26, No. 12, pp. 1427-1438, December 1974 9. Holm, L. W., Miscibility and Miscible Displacement; paper SPE 15794, 1986. 10. Asghari, K. and Torabi, F., Experimental Study of Extent and Rate of Gravity Drainage of Oil from Matrix into Fractures in Presence of Miscible and Immiscible CO2, paper CIPC-2007120 presented at CIPC conference held in Calgary, AB, 12-14 June 2007 11. Torabi, F. and Asghari, K, Performance of CO2 Huff-and-Puff Process in Fractured Media (Experimental Results), paper CIPC-2007-119 presented at CIPC conference held in Calgary, AB, 12-14 June 2007

The authors acknowledge the financial support provided for this research by the Petroleum Technology Research Centre, Regina, and the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research at the University of Regina.

1. Peng, C.P. and Yanosik, J.L., Pressure Pulsing Waterflooding in Dual Porosity Naturally Fractured Reservoirs; paper SPE 17587 presented at the SPE International Meeting on Petroleum Engineering held in Tianjin, China, November 1-4, 1988. Felsenthal, M., Ferrell, H., Pressure Pulsing- An Improved Method of Waterflooding Fractured Reservoirs; paper SPE 1788 presented at the SPE Permian Basin Oil recovery Conference held in Midland, Texas, 8- 9 May 1967. Rathmel, J.J.; Stalkup, F.I. and Hassinger, R.C., A laboratory Investigation of Miscible Displacement by Carbon Dioxide, paper SPE 3483 presented at the 46th Annual Fall Meeting of



Table-1: Specifications of core and core-holder Berea Core Core#1 Core#2 Core holder Permeability (md) 100 1000 --------------Porosity (%) 17.67 23.2 ----------Height (cm) 30.48 30.48 35.6 Diameter (cm) 5.08 5.08 6.06 Pore volume (cc) 109 109 1048

Digital pressure gauge

nC10 Fan and heater


Vacuum pump

Core Oil/gas Separator

Syringe pumps

Temperature controller

Pressure regulator

Core holder

Heating Wrap

Air bath


High pressure gauge glass Needle valve Fan

Figure 1 Schematic of Gravity Drainage experimental setup

100 90 80
Recovery Factor, %

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1729 3458 5187

Pressure (kPa)
Figure 2 Recovery factors for oil production under gravity drainage from a 100 md core surrounded by CO2 as a function of operating pressure




P=1729 kPa (100% nC10) P=3457 kPa (100% nC10)


P=1729 kPa (In presence of connate water) P=3457 kPa (In presence of connate water)

Recovery Factor, %

0 0 1 2 3 4 5


Figure 3 Effect of connate water saturation on the recovery factor of gravity drainage in a 100 md core surrounded by CO2 at immiscible conditions

P=5186 kPa (100% nC10)

90 80
Recovery Factor, %

P=6914 kPa (100% nC10) P=5186 kPa (In presence of connate water) P=6914 kPa (In presence of connate water)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0



Figure 4 Effect of connate water saturation on the recovery factor of gravity drainage in a 100 md core surrounded by CO2 at near miscible conditions

100 90 80 Recovery Factor, % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time(Days)

Figure 5 Effect of connate water saturation on the recovery factor of gravity drainage in a 100 md core surrounded by CO2 at miscible condition

P=8643 kPa (100% nC10) P=10372 kPa (100% nC10) P=8643 kPa (In presence of connate water) P=10372 kPa (In presence of connate water) 6 7 8 9 10

100 90 80
Recovery Factor, %

nC10+Connate water Crude+Connate water

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1729 3458 5187 6916

Pressure (kPa)





Figure 6 Effect of oil viscosity/composition on the performance of gravity drainage in a 100 md core surrounded by CO2 at high pressure conditions

100 90 80
Recovery Factor, %

Low Permeability (100md) High permeability (1000md)

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1729 3458 5187

Pressure (kPa)




Figure 7 Recovery factors for oil production under gravity drainage from 100 and 1000 md cores surrounded by CO2 as a function of operating pressure