PETROLEUMSOCIElY OF CIM and CANMET PAPER NO 12

THIS IS A PREPRINT. SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

PHASE BEHAVIOUR AND SCALED MODEL STUDIES OF

PROTOTYPE SASKATCHEWAN HEAVY OILS WITH CARBON
DIOXIDE

S.B. Dyer
5.5. Huang
Saskatchewan Re~earch Council
S.M. Farouq All

..
University of Alberta
A
CAN MET/Energy
K,N. Jhu
Research laboratories 8
PUBLICATION RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS PAPER IS TO BE PRESENTED AT THE FOURTH PETROLEUM CONFERENCE OFTHESOUTH SASKATCHEWAN SECTION,
THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY OF CIM, HELD WITH CANMET IN REGINA OCTOBER 7-9, 1991. DISCUSSION OF THIS PAPER IS
INVITED. SUCH DISCUSSION MAY BE PRESENTED AT THE TECHNICAL MEETING AND WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR
PUBUCATION IN CIM JOURNALS IF FILED IN WRITING WITH THE TECHNICAL PROGRAM CHAIRMAN PRIOR TO THE
CONCLUSION OF THE MEETING.

ABSTRACT addition of 73.1 slrllm' of carbon dioxide al 7 MPa, an

, eighteen/oldreduction. Thesamereductionin viscositywould
Non-thermal enh.IJncedoil rec~ve~ (EOR) tec~ques require heating the sample to approximately 800C. The above
show a great potential for recovenng oils from the thin and oil under similar conditions increased in densityfrom 963.0
shaly heavy oil reserv~irs ?f .Saskalchew~. . Am.o~g ~he kgim' to 974.3 kgfrrl and sw~lled approximately 15%.
non-thermal processes,lmlrUSclble carbon dioxzde 1njectlon
holds the most promise of accessing thesereservoirs. This Two scaled model experiments (secondary displacements)
technique, however, is much less developed than thermal were conducted using a 10-cycle water-alternating-gas (WAG)
methods. The process, if proven applicable to process with a WAG ratio of4:1. In each run. the total mass
Saskalchewanreservoirs between three and seven metres of carbon dioxide injected was 1.41 g-mol (0.53 PV at 25
18 thick, will accessapproximately 90 percent of the total oil- MPa. 0.30 PVat 4.1 MPa). The scaled model disPlaceme
in-place, indicaled the irruniscible carbon dioxide WAG process to 8
""
he . di ided . . TheIi de I partially sensitive to the operating pressure in the range of
.& , paper lS v lnto two sectlons. lrst as. . .
. h L- ha ,. ,r K .nde I L- 'I study. More Important lS the relatlve volume of carbon
Wlt t'lr C ractenzatlOn OJ aIrs ey area 'lCavy 01 , di. ,de . I ndi .
T he har t lude
' l ..r
. . k nk .{ oxz ,at experunenta co tlOns, w c ctates overa
hi h di II

~ , c ac enzatJon 1nc s ana yslS OJ: stoc ta Ol

. h nd ' ho -.1.1:. mb . d . fluid nd performance,
Wlt a Wlt ut ~tlves, reco 1M reservolr ,a
reservoir fluid plus carbon dioxide. The second section INTRODUCTiON
describes a scaled physical model, and two displacement Carbo di .d floodi to be th nl th
.
~n1

nd d . Ll dmi L- .{ n OXl e ng appears eo y non- e!!I..u

experlments co ucte u.I1ng a oy nster area 'lCavy Ol . recovery process that h0ids promJse. 0f all owmg . accessto the
The laboratory phase behaviour data were generated to typically-thin reservoirsin which most of Saskat!:hewan's
show the effect of pressure and temperature on carbon heavy oil is found. Thennal methods are often inefficient and
dioxide solubility, oil density and viscosity, compressibility, uneconomical due to excessive vertical heat losses. because of
and swelling factors. The viscosity of the reservoir fluid at thin pay zones, and steam scavenging by bottom water zones.
255°C was reduced from 819 mPa.s to 45 mPa.s with the
 Carbon dioxide may behave as a miscible or immiscible
fluid when contacted with oil at reservoir conditions.
Holm! defines miscibility as follows: "For petroleum
reservoirs, miscibility is defined as tl1at physical condition
between two or more fluids that will pennit them to mix in
"" ..
all proporuons WIthout the eXIstence of an mterface. If two,
or more, fluid phases fonn after some amount of one fluid
is added to others; the fluids are considered immiscible and
an interfacial tension exists between the phases,"
Moderately viscous heavy oils (10-15°API) lack the
necessary extractable hydrocarbons (Cs-C~ for miscible
conditions to be economically attained. In some cases,
moderately light oils (25-35°API) are being displaced
immiscibly because the pressures required to achieve
miscible conditions would severely fracture the fonnation.
The dominant recovery mechanisms associated with the
immiscible carbon dioxide displacement of moderately
heavy oils are oil viscosity reduction. oil swelling, and
blowdown. Oil viscosity reduction leads to improved
~obility and sweep efficiencies" Oil swelling reduces the
amount of residual oil left in the reservoir. Blowdown is
additional recovery similar to solution gas drive.
was less than 3.4 kPa (0.5 psia) ~r day. In most cases. this
equilibrium process took about two weeks. The PVT appamtus
and procedures used for both studies were described. in detail.
previously.4
B u 11a I0 CO u Iee 5t oc k T an k all Ch ara ct er Iza tl 0 n
The density of the Buffalo Coulee stock tank oil at 15.25,
25.5, 40, and 60°C was measured using the Anton Paar DMA
45 and DMA 512 densitometers. The viscosity was measured
by a Brookfield HBTDCP 1.565 degree cone and plate Model
CP-42 viscometer at 25, 40. and 60°C. The pressw-e
de~ndence of the density and viscosity of the cleaned Buffalo
Coulee oil were determined at 25.5°C (reservoir ternperawre)
in the high-pressure Anton Paar densitomer and in the on-line
PYT capillary mbe viscometer, respectively.
At 25.5°C and atmospheric pressw-e, the density and
viscosity of the oil were 967.2 kgim3 and 1935 mPa.s,
respectively. The compositional analysis of the Buffalo Coulee
oil shows the asphaltene content to be 13.5 percent by weight
The molecular weight of the oil was determined to be 424 g/g-
mol. The data are listed in Table 2 and shown in Figures 1a 8
and lb.

PHASE BEHAVIOUR STUDIES The simulated distillation data on the Buffalo Coulee crude
.. . oil are listed in Table 3. The amount of 525 C+ residue
Phase be~vIOW' smdies ,,:,ereconducted on a Kindersley fraction in the crude oil is 50.9 percent b weighl
area heavy oil. Wellhead oil samples were collected from y
the Buffalo Coulee Bakken Sand Pool located approximately Stock Tank all with Carbon Dioxide and Ethane
five kilometres west ~d five kilometres north of ColeviIle, The cleaned Buffalo Coulee wellhead oil was saturated with
Saskatchewan. The discovery well, B7-22-32-24 W3M, was . .
drilled ' A
. m ugus
t 1952 2 Thi
.
1 1 . th
s 01 poo IS e resu to,
.1 f carbon dioXIde at 1.83, 3.51, 5.20. and 6.99 MPa at the
f 25 5°C 111 de . f th carbon
h droc bo . th di . naI I . . f th reservOir temperature 0 . . e nSlty 0 e
trapping yarns m e up- p eroslo Iffilt 0 e di .ct ted k +__1, il . creased fro 967.2 kg! 3
Mi . " " Midal B -I.1. d 111 il . h (966 OXl e-samra SlOC 1lUll\. 0 m m m , at
SSISSlpplan e ~en san. e 0 IS eavy . 3'
kg! 3) d . ( . tel 900 mP t . .tial annosphenc pressure, to 974.3 kg/m at 6,99 r..r1Pa(FIgure 2).
m .an VISCOUS approXlffia y a.s a ml F th bo di ' d ted I th ' .d d
"
diu' ) A . th I1h
...or e car n oX! e-satura . 01, ere IS a rapl ecrease
"
reservoir con ODS . gas cap IS present m e no em
f th e poo. 12 A f th rod U. d m VISCOSity between atmosphenc pressure and 5 MPa and then
~
po...on 0
. data .
summary
ted . T bl 1 3
0 e p uc on an 1 ll . hi h
a eve mg at g er pressure
(F"
19ure
2) Th ' ,
e VISCOSItyv aIues
,
reservoir ISpresen m a e . "
at 25.5°C are 1935 mPa.s at atmosphenc pressure and 45.0
Buffalo Coulee samples were collected from well BIO- mPa's at 6.99 MFa for the carbon dioxide-saturated stock tank

_ 22-32-24 W3M. A new cleaning procedure was developed

as the liquid sample was a tight emulsion and high speed
as unabl to th te A
oil. a forty-threefold reduction.
,..
The gas-oil rauo and swelling factor of the stock tank 011-
.
'entrifu gation W
~ e remove e wa r.
combination of heating (at 60°C) and centrifugation in the
bo di ' d '. "th bo di
car n OXl e ~IXtureS increase WI car n oXIde ~~on
. "
8
presence of calciwn chloride was used to remove the [mal pressure. The,! valu~ at 6.99 MFa are 84.5 sm 1m and
trace of water. Precautions were taken to prevent the loss 1.1614, respecuvely (FIgure 3).
of light ends of the oil during heating. The pressure-composition relationship for the stock tank oil-
The phase behaviour study is divided into two categories: carbon dioxi.de .syste~ is illus.trated in Figure 4. ~e amount
stock tank oil studies and reservoir fluid (recombined of carbon dioxIde dissolved m the stock tank otl was 22.2,
separator oil and gas) smdies It should be noted that th 38.5. 54.3. and 59.8 mol % at 1.83, 3.51, 5.20, and 6.99 MPa,
phase equilibrium process in tlus gas/heavy oil system w~ r~~ti~ely. The plot. indicates that the solubility of ca:bon
found to be time dependent, that is, the rate of gas dioXIde m stock ~ 011 tends to level off at pressures higher
dissolution (CO2, CH4, c,.~ into the oil decreasedwith than 7 MPa at 25.5 C.
time. It was assumed that the system had reached The srock tank oil was saturated with ethane at 4.17 Wa
equilibrium when the rate at which tile pressure decreased and 25.5°C for comparative purposes. The density and
viscosity of the ethane satur-ated stock tank oil saturated at 4,17

12-2

MPa are 825.2kg/m3and 8.9 mPa.s,respectively(Figure
2). Thegas-oilratio of this fluid underthe samecondition
wasdetermin~to be 179sm'/m.'andth~swellingfactorto
be 1.4544(FIgure3). The flwd contained74.47 mol %
ethane.
In contrastto the PVT resultsobtainedfrom the stock
tank oil-carbon dioxide system, ethane has ~n
demonstrated to be a more effective agent (than carbon
dioxide)in solubilizingthe heavyoil and in turn, swelling
theoil andreducingtheoil viscosityat reservoirconditions.
Whenconsideringthe useof ethaneas a solventreplacing
carbon dioxide, a n~ber of .other fac.~rs.need to.be
addressed suchas gravItyovemde,solubility m formation
warer.and source.
Buffalo Coulee Reservoir Fluid Characterization
Reconstituted BuffaloCouleereservoirfluid wasprepared
by recombiningthe cleanedstocktank oil andmethaneto
a bubble point pressureof 4.20 MPa at 25.5°C. The
8 physi~ an~ chemical pr~perties of the r.ec°~tiwted
reservolfflUIdarepresentedin Table4. The V1SC?Slty was
reducedfrom 1935 mPa.sfor th~ stock tank oil to 819
mpa:s for the methane-~wratedoil at 4;20 MPa, and the
dens~t~from 967.2kg/~ to 963.0 kg/m unde~the same
condition. The formationvolume factor, swellmgfactor,
gas-oilratio of thisreservoirfluid at 4.20MPawere1.0196.
1.0128,and 11.4 sm3/m3,respectively. The recombined
.' fluid contained
16.57mol % methane.Figures5aand5b
showthe pressuredependence of the viscosityand density
of this fluid at four different temperatures (25.5, 50, 80,
110°C). The viscosity and density of the reconstituted
reservoirfluid increasedwith rising pressureanddecreased
with rising temperature.The compressibilityof the fluid
varied from 1.90x 10-3to 1.46x 10.3m3/m3fMPa in the
pressurerangeof 5.61MPa to 24.50MPa,respectively.
Reservoir Fluid With Carbon Dloxlde
Th . ted Buffa! C 1 . fl .d
e reconstttu 0 ou ee reservolf UI was
mixed separatelywith three concentrationsof carbon
8 dioxide. The fluid mixtureshad their respectivesaturation
pressures of 4.58,6.30,and7.68MPa at 25.5°C. ThePVT
datagenerated for theserecombinedfluids arepresentedin
Table4 andshowngraphicallyin Figures6 through8.
Th t f bo di .d digs 1 ed . th . demonstratethe effect of the pressureson the oil recovery
e amoun 0 car n OXIe 0 v In e reservoir
fluid wa.'!34.6, 50.4,and 56.7 mole percent(Figure7 and
Table4). The density,bubblepoint pressure,gas-oilratio
(GOR) and swelling factor increasedwith increasing
dissolutionof carbondioxidein the pressuremngestudied
(Figure8 andTable4). The densityincreasedfrom 963.0
kgim3for the reservoirfluid (bubblepoint pressure= 4.2
MPa) to 970.7 kgim3 for the carbon dioxide-saturated
reservoirfluid at 7.68 MPa. Undersimilar conditions,the
12-3
--
GORrosefrom 11.4sm3/m3 to 87.0sm3/m3(Figure8), andthe
swellingfactor from 1.0128m3/m3to 1.1554m3/m3.
Figure 6 depicts a rapid decreasein viscosity initially,
followed by a shallowerslope at higher concentrations of
carbondioxide. The viscosityis reducedfrom 819 mPa.sfor
the reservoirfluid at 4.2 MPa to 42.0 mPa.sfor the ~oon
dioxide-saturated reservoirfluid at 7.68 MPa (56.7mol %), a
nineteenfoldreduction.
A differentialliberationexperimentwas ~rformed on the
reservoirfluid saturatedwith carbondioxideat 6.3 MPa. The
testwascarriedout at 25.5°Coverthe rangeof pressures from
6.3 MPa to 0.1 MPa. Four pressuredecrementswere
conductedduringtheex~riment. The resultsfrom this testare
presentedin Table 5 and illustratedin Figures6 to 8.
The cumulative gas-oil ratio was 65.2 sm3/m3and the
associatedformationvolumefactor(FVF) was 1.125(fable 5).
In additionto GCR andFVF, the oil viscosities,densities,and
gas compositionswere dererminedduring the differential
liberationstudy(Table5). a
The solubilitiesof carbondioxide and methaneduring"
liberationcyclesat 4.58.2.85, 1.47.and0.1 MPaare shownin
Figure7. It is evidentfrom the plot that morecarbondioxide
was retainedin solutionduring liberationthan was dissolved
during pressurization at any given pressure.
Similarly, the solutiongas-oilratio valuesplottedin Figure
8 are higherand the viscositieslower (Figure6) for the
liberationexperimentsthanfor the pressurization experiments
at the samepressure. The retentionof more carbondioxide
during the liberation cycle and the lower viscosity values
suggestthat the mobility and productionrate of the reservoir
fluid will be maintainedat highervaluesfor a longerperiod.4
It is important that the hysteresiseffect observedin the
solubilityandviscosityvaluesof carbondioxidein oil be taken
into considerationduring numericalsimulationstudies.
SCALED PHYSICAL MODEL EXPERIMENTS
In collaborationwith the Saskatchewan ResearchCouncil,
Dr. S.M.FarouqAli of theUniversityof AJbertaconducte(J18
carbondioxidedisplacement testsin theirscaledphysicalm-
usingcleanedSenlacwellheadoil andan unconsolidated sand
pack at 2.5 and 4.1 MPa. The purposeof this work was to
f
actor.
The modelconsistsof a steel-flangedrectangularpressure
vessel(inside dimensions46 cm x 46 cm x 2.2 cm) with
injectionand productionwells, fluid injectionand production
systems, a double cylinder positive displacementpump,
pressureand temperature
indicatorsand an on-line data
acquisitionsystem.This apparatllswasscaledto theAberfeldy
reservoirin the Lloydrninsterregion (reservoirpro~rties are
 given in Reference5). It is capableof operational. a the effect of pressure,for differentequivalentslug volumes,
pressureof 10MPaand lOOOC, with a maximumdeflection may be comparedbecausethe numberof moles of fluid
of lessthan 0.01 mm. An importantcharacteristicof the injecrro in both runswasapproximatelyIhe same. Therefore.
modelis that it canberotatedto ~rform horizontal,vertical the parameterof intrest is the volumeof carbondioxide (at
andinclinedfloods. reservoirconditions). Figure 9 showsthat the two runs had
. ". . almost identical initial slopes (bar chart inset) but that Run 1D2
The eqwpment. de~s, ~peraung p~edures, ~easunng (4.1 MFa) rformed better than Run TDI (2.5 MFa) durin
f th ~f100dIifi g
methodsand
d FscalmgAJcntenaThwereh~hl:-
descnbed.."
prevIouslyth
by most0 e e.
RoJas
"
an arouq 1.
.6
e; ~lg cntena lor e
immisciblecarbondioxideprocesswerederivedby means Figures 10 and 11 show the oil recoverydistributionsfor
of bothdimensionaland inspectionalanalyses.FarouqAli RunsTD 1 andm2, respectively.For RunTO1 (2.5MPa)the
andRojas7haveshownthisprocessto be stronglygoverned fIrst slug oil recoverywassignificant,but oil recoveryfor thc
by viscousand gravitationalforces. It was felt that for remainingslugsdroppedoff dramatically. Total oil recovery
heavyoils the ratio of capillary to viscousforceswas so was 40.86% HCPV. Post-waterfIoodrecovery is absent
low that unscaledcapillarypressures had negligibleeffect becausea 20:1 water-oil ratio had been reachedduring thc
on the;process.s WAG process.The oil recoverydistributionfor RunTO2 (4.1
. tal tests
E penm
x en
d ted .
were con
. uc usmg reservOIr
MPa) was much more;uniform with the fIrst slug being
.. "
prod

u . th
ced

waSr an
]a 0 samp
. es
te d

om rod
S lac
il

we;redv-
I fr 11 1 ~ 35 - 38 - 27 domInant. Total
I Th
o.f 5 4 percent! es.
oil
. f th . . .al .1 .
recovery
red
was 46.26% HCPV, an mcrease

~ W3M d "
e umecove portIon 0 e mlu 01-In-
lac . h " UREC". F" 10 d 1 Th .
:"mth e ad
en1 c reservOir.
th en
edi pusan
Ch was
nzatI
". p e ISs own as m Igures an 1. c mcreasc
.., em ease porousmum. aracte on .. "
f th S nl il red,. d tail b Jha.4 In 011recovery ISaccountedfor by the post-watcrflood recovcry
0 e e ac 0 waspresen me, y (4.96%)at the higherpressures as well astheslight increasein 8
Two secondarycarbondioxide;WAG displacement tests blowdownrecoveryat the higherpressures dueto the increased
werecompletedat 21~22°Cusinga WAG (waterto carbon carbondioxide-oilsolubility. Thecarbondioxiderequirements
dioxideslugvolume)ratioof 4:1 (10 slugs)andan injection andretentionswere45.4sm3/m3, 48.9% and40.2sm3/m3, 28.7
rateof 0.776mId. % at 2.5 and 4.1 MFa, respectively.
Runs TDI and ffi2 consistedof injecting an equal CONCLUSIONS
number of moles of carbon dioxide at two different
pressures.The;numberof molesinjectedwascalculatedto
.. .
1. ~e densItyand VI~Slty of the Buffalo Coulee,,:,ellh~d
be equalto thenumberof molesrequiredfor a 20%carbon 011andof the.reconsututed Buffalo ~ouleereser--:°lf~u!ds
dioxideslug at 5.5 MPa (1.41 g-mol). Consequently, the decreasedWith tem~rature and mcr~ With IlSmg
volumeof carbondioxide injectedat 2.5 MPa (illl) was press?Te.The saturationpressure,gas-oilmho (G.OR) and
equivalentto 0.53 PV. The volume of carbondioxide s:vel~ngf~ctor of.the Buffalo Coulee",,:cllhead
oII~ar~n
injectedat 4.1 MPa (ID2) was equivalentto 030 PV dioXIdeffilxtW"esmcreasedsmoothlyWIthcarbondioxide
Pressuresof 2.5 and4.1 MPawerechosenbecause'most of concentration. The GOR and swelling factor slartcd to
the Senlacreservoirsfell within this rnnge. The objective level off at carbondioxidepressuresgreaterthan7 MPa.
wasto detecttheeffectof thepressureson recoveryfactor. 2. The viscosity of the carbon dioxide-saturatedBuffalo
Owing the carbon dioxide WAG drive, the injecrro C.ou~eereservoir flui~ decreased~ith .increasin~carbon
carbondioxide was divided into 10 slugs with eachslug dioXIdepress~. A nmeteenfoldVISCOSIty reduchonfrom
8~parated by water. TheWAG processwasfoUowedby an the bubblepomt pressure(4.2 MPa) of the reservoirfluid
extendedwaterfloodanda final blowdown. Waterflooding
was carriedout subsequent to the WAG processuntil an
to ~carbo~dioxide~ress~ of 7.7 MP~wasob~cd. The
f1~Iddensity,~as.-oilratlo and.swe~lingfactor Increased
8
instantaneousproducing WOR greater than 20:1 was WIth.carbondioxIde concenttatJon (In the pressurernnge
reached.In Run TDI (conductedat 2.5 MPa), this WaR studied).
was reachedat the end of the WAG process,therefore, A large reductionin the oil viscosity(93%) and an 8.7%
subsequent waterfloodjngwasnot initiated. in~ in the swelling factor of the carbon dioxidc-
Theexperimentalresultson the oil recoveryand carbon saturatedBuffalo Couleestocktankoil at moderate pressure
dioxiderequiremcntare summarizedin Table6. Table 6 (4.0 MFa) and 25.5°C suggestthat enhancedrecoveryof
alsogivesthe operatingparameters, model sandand fluid ~~ ~dersley-type heavyoil is viableby carbondioxide
properties. mJecuon.
Figure9 showsthe oil recoverycurvesfor the two runs 3. o.uri~g the differential liberation cycle of the; carbon
on the basisof cumulativemolesof fluid injected. Thus, dioxide-saturatedBuffalo Coulce reservoir fluid. more

12-4
 given in Reference 5). It is capable of operation at a the effect of pressure, for different equivalent slug volumes,
pressureof 10 MPa and 100°C. with a maxirnnrn deflection may be compared because the number of moles of fluid
of less than 0.01 mm. An important charncteristic of the injected in both runs was approximately Ihe same. Therefore,
model is that it can be rotated to perform horizontal, vertical the parameter of intrest is the volume of carbon dioxide (at
and inclined floods. reservoir conditions). Figure 9 shows that the two runs had
" .. . almost identical initial slopes (bar chart inset) but that Run 1D2
The eqwpment. de~s. ~peraung p~edures, ~easunng (4.1 MPa) rformed better than Run TD1 (2.5 MPa) durin
f th pe
flood lifi g
methods
. anand
ROJas
scalmg cntena Th
. 6 were
d Farouq AI 1.
descnbed
e scalin prevIously
.."
g cntena bye
lor th most 0 e e.
immiscible carbon dioxide process were derived by means Figures 10 and 11 show the oil recovery distributions for
of both dimensional and inspectional analyses. Farouq Ali Runs TD 1 and 1D2, respectively. For Run TD 1 (2.5 MPa) the
and Rojas7have shown this processto be strongly governed flISt slug oil recovery was significant, but oil recovery for thc
by viscous and gravitational forces. It was felt that for remaining slugs dropped off dramatically. Total oil recovery
heavy oils the ratio of capillary to viscous forces was so was 40.86% HCPY. Post-waterflood recovery is abscnt
low that unscaled capillary pressureshad negligible eff~t because a 20:1 water-oil ratio had been reached during the
on the process.s WAG process. The oil recovery distribution for Run TD2 (4.1
E . tal tests d ted . . MPa) was much more uniform with the flISt slug being
xpenmen were con uc USIng reservoir .. .

od

pr u . th
W3M w S an
ced

1a 0 samp . es om rod
S lac
ater

we cedv- d
d il 1 fr 11 1 ~ 35 - 38 - 27 doffilnant.

I
o.f 5 4 percenUes.
Th
Total

red . f th . . .al .1 .
oil recovery was 46.26% HCPV, an Increasc

~ e ~ove portIon 0 e InIU 01-m-

"

m e en c reservOir. en pusan was lac . h " UREC ". F' 10 d Th .

. th od I th edi Ch ..;~o.; p e IS s own as m 19ures an 11. e mcreasc
m e m ease porous mum. aracte on .. .
f th S nl it Ied.' d tail b Jha. 4 In ou recovery IS accounted for by the post-watcrflood recovcry ...
0 e e ac 0 was presen me, y (4.96%) at the higher pressures as well as the slight increase in ...

Two secondarycarbon diox.ideWAG displacement tests blowdown r~overy at the higher pressuresdue to the increascd
were completed at 21-22°C using a WAG (water to carbon carbon dioxide-oil solubility. The carbon dioxide requirements
dioxide slug volume) ratio of 4:1 (10 slugs) and an injection and retentions were 45.4 sm3jm3,48.9 % and 40.2 sm3/m3,28.7
rate of 0.776 mid. % at 2.5 and 4.1 MPa, respectively.

Runs TDI and 1D2 consisted of injecting an equal CONCLUSIONS

number of moles of carbon dioxide at two different .. .
pressures. The number of moles injected was calculated to 1. T.he densIty and VI~SllY of the Buffalo Coulee ~ellh~d
be equal to the number of moles required for a 20% carbon 011and of the.reconsututed Buffalo ~oulee reser.:°tr ~u!ds
dioxide slug at 5.5 MPa (1.41 g-mol). Consequently, the decreased With temJ;>eratureand mcr~ WIth nsmg
volnrneof carbondioxideinj~ted at 2.5 MPa(rD1) was press?£e.
Thesaturation
pressure,
gas-oilrano (G.OR) and
equivalent to 0.53 PY. The volume of carbon dioxide s:vel~ng f~ctor of. the Buffalo Coulee ,,:ellhead oII-c.ar~n
injected at 4.1 MPa (ID2) was equivalent to 0.30 PV. dioXIde ffilxtures mcreased smoothly WIth carbon dioxldc
Pressuresof 2.5 and 4.1 MPa were chosen becausemost of concentration. The GaR and swelling factor slar!Cd to
theSenlacreservoirs
fell withinthisrange. Theobjective leveloff at carbondioxidepressures
greaterthan7 MPa.
was to detect the eff~t of the pressureson reoovery factor. 2. The viscosity of the carbon dioxide-saturated Buffalo
Duringthe carbondioxideWAG drive, the injected C.ou~ee
reservoirflui~ decreased
~ith .increasin~
carbon
carbon dioxide was divided into 10 slugs with each slug dioXIde press~. A nmeteenfold VISCOSIty reducuon from
~parated by water. The WAG processwas followed by an the bubble poInt pressure (4.2 MPa) of the reservoir fluid
extendedwaterflood and a final blow down. Waterflooding to ~ carbo~dioxide~ress~ of 7.7 MP~wasobtained.The
was carried out subsequentto the WAG process until an fl~Id densIty, ,&as.-oilrauo and. swe~ling factor increased 8
instantaneous
producingWaR greaterthan 20:1 was (m the pressure
wIth.carbondioxIdeconcentraUon range
reached. In Run TD1 (conducted at 2.5 MPa), this WaR studied).
was reached at the end of the WAG process, therefore, A large reduction in the oil viscosity (93%) and an 8.7%
subsequentwaterflooding was not initiated. increase in the swelling factor of the carbon dioxide-
Theexperimental
resultsontheoil recoveryandcarbon BuffaloCouleestocktankoil atmoderatepressure
satmated
dioxide requirement are snrnmarized in Table 6. Table 6 (4.0 ~a) and 25.5°C suggest that enhancedrecovery of
also gives the operating parameters,model sand and fluid .th~ ~dersley-type heavy oil is viable by carbon dioxide
properties. mJecuon.
Figure 9 shows the oil recovery curves for the two runs 3. ~uri~g the differential liberation cycle of the carbon
on Ihe basis of cumulative moles of fluid injected. Thus, dioxide-saturated Buffalo Coulee reservoir fluid, more

12-4
 carbon dioxide was retained in solution than was 7. Rojas, G. and Farouq All, S.M. "Current Technology of
dissolved during presswization at any given pressure. Heavy Oil Recovery by Immiscible Carbon Dioxide and
This suggeststhat the mobility and prOOuctionrate of Waterflooding," ~. ill International Conference on
me reservoir fluid will be maintained at higher values Heavy Crude and Tar Sands, Long Beach (1985) .Y.2l:J1
for a longer period. 652-663.
4. Ethane (~HJ, when used as a solvent with Buffalo 8. Dyer, S.B. "Performanceof the Immiscible Carbon Dioxide
Coulee heavy oil, has been demonstrated to be more WAG Process at Low Pressure," M.Sc. Thesis, University
effective than carbon dioxide in solubilizing the heavy of Alberta (1989).
oil and in turn, swelling the oil and reducing the oil
viscosily at reservoir conditions. There are, however, a
number of potential problems associatedwim the useof
ethane (gravity ovenide, low solubility in water, its
availability and high cost).
5. Scaled physical model displacemen(Sof Senlac heavy
oil at two pressures (equal mass of carbon dioxide
injected) showed that me effect of pressureon tolal oil
recovery is small. However, other work' indicates mat
if an equivalent volume of carbon dioxide was injected
8 at 4.1 MFa, the oil recovery would be higher. Thus the
volume of carbon dioxide (at reservoir conditions) plays 8
an important role.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Financial support for this work by Amoco, AOSTRA,
Esso, Gulf, Husky, Norcen, Saskoil, Shell, Texaco, and me
Federal Panel on Energy R&D (PERD) is gralCfully
acknowledged. Thanks are also due to P. deWit, K. Knorr,
and N. Shatilla for their contributions to the experimenlal
work; to J. Barker and D. Sinclair for meir assistancein the
preparation of the manuscript. The scaled physical model
faciliries were provided by the University of Alberta.
REFERENCES
1. Holm, L. W. "Carbon Dioxide Solvent Flooding for
Increased Oil Recovery," ~, AIME, (1959) 216,
225-231.
2. Sugianto, S., SaskaochewanOil and Gas Corporation,
8 Internal Report and Private Communications (1989).
3. Saskatchewan
Energyand Mines,ReservoirAnnual 8
12]9...
4. Jha, K.N. "A Laboratory Study of Heavy Oil Recovery
with Carbon Dioxide," ~ (March-April 1986) 54-63.

5. Farouq Ali, S.M., Rojas, G., Zhu, T. and Dyer S.

"Scaled Model Studies of Carbon Dioxide Floods,"
SPERE (May 1991) 169-178.
6. Rojas, G. and Farouq Ali, S.M. "Dynamics of
Subcritical CO.JBrine Floods for Hea.vyOil Recovery,"
Paper SPE 13598 presentedat the 1985 SPE California
Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, March 27-29.

12-5
 -
Table 1. Summaryof Productionand ReservoIrData Buffalo COUlee

Reserves Initial oil-ln-place(IO!P) 5.082 x 10em~

Estimatedprimaryrecovery 2.5% IOIP

Estimatedsecondaryrecovery 8.7% IOIP

Total 11.ZO/0
IOIP
Recoveryto 31-12-1989 7.0% IOIP

Production CUmulative(to 31-12-1989) 355000 m'

Year1y
total(1989) 25 989 m~

Dally averages (1989) 71 rtr

ReservoIr Data Discoveryyear 1952

Produdng horizon Bakken sand

Developedarea 719 ha

Average reservoirdepth 823 m

8 Initial reservoir pressure 7.94 MPa

Initial reservoirtemperature 25.59C 8

Average net pay , 3.72 m

Average porosity 26.SO/0

Averageconnatawater 25.0%
Oil density 978 kg/m'

Table 2. ChemIcal and Physical Properties of the Cteaned Buffalo Coulee Wellhead Oil

Temperature -C @ 95 kPa Density kg/m' (-API) VIscosity mPa.s

15 973.7 (13.8) -
25 - 2050
25.5 967.2 -
40 958.1 582
60 945.0 172
a
.. Pressure, kPa @ 25.5-C

255
95 967.2

967.4
1935

1956 8
2095 968.7 2036
5635 971.2 2220
9055 973.6 2495
12095 975.8 2587
MoleaJfar Weight 424 g/g;ool

COmponents WeIghtPercent
Saturates 21.8
Aromatics 19.3
Resins 41.9
Asphallenes 13.5

12-6
 . . .'.

Table 3. S[mulatedDlstll!aUonDatafor Buffalo CouleeWellheadon

Weight Percent J Temperature rC) WeIght Percent I Temperature (~)
DIstIlled Distilled

IBP 84 55 569
5 195 60
10 251 65
15 292 70
20 331 75
25 366 80
30 399 85
35 433 90
40 463 95
4S 496 FBP
50 532

8 Boilinq RanQe("C) WeiQllt Percent 8

-
IBP 204 - 5.5
204 - 343 16.2
343 - 525 27.4
525 + Residue 50.9
525 . 600 9.9
600 + Residue 41.0

Table 4. PVT PropertIes. Buffalo Coutee Reservoir Fluid (011+ CH~),and

Buffalo Coulee Re~rvolr fluid/CO2 Mixtures at 25.5°C1

8 Properties Res. Fluid Res. Fluid + cOl 8

Saturation Pressure. MPa 4.20 4.58 6.30 7.68
Viscosity, mPa-s 819 124.5 69 42
Density, kgim3 963.0 963.1 970.0 970.7
FormationVolume Factor 1.0196 1.0884 1.1248 1.1631
Swelling Factor 1.0128 1.0811 1.117~ 1.1554
Gas-OiIRatio,m3/m3 11.4 44.6 65.2 87.0
CH., mol % 16.57 8.73 ~.36 374
CO2,mol % 0.01 34.61 50.38 56.72
Cs+. mol % 63.16 56.43 45.97 39.33

, The viscosity and density for deaned wellhead oil at 25.5°C and atmospheric pressure were
1935 mPa.s and 967.2 kg/m3, respectively.

12-1
 Table5. PVTPropertiesof the CO2.SaturatedBuffaloCouleeReservoIrFluid(Bubble
Point Pressure= 6..30 MPa) from a DifferentialLlberatlonTest at 25.5°C

I Properties I ReservoirFluid +-CO2 I

Saturation Pressure, MPa 6.30 4.58 2.85 1.47 0.1

Viscosity, mPa's 69.0 106.8 270.8 660 (13.7)
Density,kglm3 970.0 969.6 970.0 968.3 1935
FormationVolumeFactor 1.1248 1.0962 1.0547 1.0269 967.2
Swelling Factor 1.1173 1.0889 1.0477 1.0201 1.00
Gas-Oil Ratio, wlm3 65.2 49.3 27.0 10.7 1.00
CH4, mol Ofo 3.36 2.57 1.29 1.36 0
CO2,moIOfo 50.38 43.82 30.57 7.10
C5+, mol Ofo 45.97 53.21 67.78 89.48

8 Tabfe 6. Summary of Scaled Model Results 8

Displacement Test # TO1 TD2

Fluid Parameters
Type - Senlac Senlac
LiveiDead Dead Dead
Oil Viscosity @ 23.C mPa's 3295.0 3295.0
Oil Density kg/mS 969.2 969.2
Model Parameters
Absolute Permeability J1ml 7.62 7.41
Porosity % BV 43.1 41.5
InitialOil Saturation % PV 86.8 90.1
Connate Water Saturation % PV 13.2 9.9
Pore Volume cm' 2100.3 2022.5
IOIP cm' 1823_1 1822.3
Experimental Parameters
WAG Ratio H2O:CO2 4.0 4.0
Operating Pressure MPa 2.5 4.1
Operating Temperature .C 21.0 21.0

..
A
CO, Injection StaQe (CO,)
Superficial Velocity
Total Auid Injected
CO2 Requirement
mId
PV
g.mol
sm'/m'
0.78
0.53
1.41
4S
0.78
0.30
1.41
40 8
Oil Recovery % IOIP 39.4 39.6
Residuaf Oil Sat. (CO2) % PV 52.6 54.4
Extended Waterflood Staoe (EWA
Superficial Velocity mid 0.0 0.78
Total Fluid Injected PV 0.0 0.71
Oil Recovery % IOIP 0.0 5.0
Residual Oil Sat. (EWF) % PV 52.6 49.9
Blowdown StaQe (BD)
Oil Recovery % IOIP 1.5 1.7
Residual Oil Saturation (BD) % PV 51.3 48.4
Oil Recovery Summa!:(
Initial Waterflood % (OIP N/A N/A
Total Oil Recovery % IOIP 40.9 46.3

12-8
 (f:UJ£W) ~.LOV:l ~Nm3MS
(S-edW)AlISOOSI" u ~ ~~
~ - "2:~
'"': ~ - -"10-: - -CD
~ § 8 ~ § ~ ~ 'i3
N N ~ N ~.-
...
~
N..
iU"~ .x
c:
ca
<5 t-.. I-
~ .x "*
91 ~ ~
u ~ I- (/)
!lJ -n tO~ 11-
;>
!
T 0
~
9
(/)
Q)
Q) .
L1- t
Q.
~
W
~
8
.Q

"5 (/] I/) a; ca

~
(/1
z
~
l.
co~

~:¥i
~
80
m 1;P:
,\ ~
\
...g:
~
(/)
w -~
g
0

f tOw
~ "6
?;-
+ \ \ "6
F
~u
OM
(,) a;.in \ \ M'" £lri
'" Q. c: \ II: ~N
!<i 8" " ~ ~"iU
8 """ "
. ..."U '" '" tD
Go ~ () ,," (/)"U:J:
~ ?;- "1 N 1a&,
~
~ N
-Vi

§
~
~ " " .£ 5
&N 8
I- 5 ~
~ ...
'- ~O
QU
.d ~
'"
" " ~

~:6
.- i ~ d~
0>
~
0)
,...:2
0) 01 m
e
5,
t-
..;
.
(£w,6)j)AlISN30 u: 2 2 ~ e
:J
(f:UJ/£WS)Oll~'~ ~

(S"edW) AlIOO:)$", (s.edw))..1.JSOOS[A

~ ~ ~ ~ 02
~
d ~
- §
~ 8
- ~
0
~
>- iU (5
t=
(/1 0
.x
1a
~lIS
~ I- I-
>
i
~-
(/)
§ ~
=
Q.
~
C/)
qI

j ~
8 ~
(/1
z
§
w
Ix:
c1
0
H!
=>
~
!R
8
.Q 8

~ =>
1- £ w ~o
t ~
w
~
:J

0
a:
Q.
~
aJlI)
o~
?;-
~ .'?::- 0 .~=
w ~ ~ ~~
~ -uU
~ @
.
~ '"
cn a~
N
2! _?: .~
~ In §o
~ ~
Q.
§
5
5 :E
,~
. <'J
ca

0>
:2~~g~~
01
(&W;611)
0;
AlISN30
0) 0) 0> m
e:J
I¥: (f:UJI6"'f)AllSN30
co ~
.g.
u.

12-9
 CD
- "Q"

to ~ e
- 0 ~
"~ '" '"
g - ~
u
0 "Q"
.a
(G
~0
-- - '"
(G
c0
t ;:;.
.j;; 8 0
- ~
.~

"'~
5§ ]:v .
'i'O ~'"

1
() -aJ
~1 ~
~
:2
:3
~
"1\
a-
g.
CD~
(U
(3
UI Li:e <: ~ W
()
oa: -~
~'"
~ ;
It tl: ::)
a: j
~
4)~
~Q.
~
0 .offi
8
l ~~ ~ .. g: ~
() 0>4)
"5~ ~
~ I' m~
lit 02 , U -0
~ ,.. co
~
,
'on;:;.
~
..Q & ,'.n.~
8 ~ ~
8
I =3 1'" §
~f-
cd
...
'"'
a N
5.
It)
~ "
" '"
...
~
E
to"
~
:3 ,~ .. :3
2' ,'0 0)
i!o " 0 II:

8
- -
(S"EdW) A.iISO~SI/l (s.edW) A.l1S(X)SI/I

0 0
r-- N

fa
~

~
(U
f-"
-
m -
0
.g
U> ~
<I>
~
to
.-
.a
:> cu
o~
t.n.
~
-
0
u

=0
ro --
0
0

~ -
~
OIl
(U
;:;.
on
.~

0 :3 C
§. m 'i'O ~
8 05.2
~F.Q-
~ .c
'"
u0
<0
"'~
~~
W
:g
Li: Q)
~ 8
1 a: .= :>
c ::) 0011

w
~ .~
"OJ
oU>
-(/)
~ 2;
"'Q.
~<.) a: () '&! ~"t)
"5 ~ ~ Q. Q):'a
<.)..co 1 ~ Q)
.;;; f CX) ~2
~ 8. u <3~
()
'"'
00
~
EN
0
~
. .28.
CUE
~. ~8 "5~
Q
~
~.c:
",.-
:3-
"'~
to
CXJ

.D
..
'" 0 ~~ It)
-= - Q.v ~ e

t --i .~
Ao u-
S (\I

0 IF:
CDr--tOlt)~M(\I~
(ed~) 3i:JOSS31:Jd
NOI1\ICJill'Y'$ (cwJ6)1)
A.iISN30

12-10
 (CWl£W)~Ol~V~ ~Nm3MS
U> U> U> U> U>
~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ::: ::: ~ ~

m j
6
()
~ ..2
i
u.
~
~
! ~
}' (J) -
, (I) ~
" ;2

'..
,, U)~
C1I
~
N
'Q.
~,
"
" ...II:
-
~
w
0
<.)
~
..Q
5<.)
0

~.
..
'6"
" ~ ~ u~ ~
,Q' u. (/) m", a)
.,. ~ .'" W U-N ..,
~ '" .. ~
S C')Q.
II: g'm
~:2
~
J
'oc J, :) .
~,
"
on
'[I:
'.'"
0
0
. -
(J
N

8 t(j
. ". ,
'II:~
N
m~
"8 ~ @I
~
~
~
E
'..,
',~
',aj
g~
.
~
- -~a 8
--.:-
~ 'CJ) 0
I- ..
,
~
:J 0
E

!
Q) -I
II:
--
~~ ~
c
~ E
~

(~WS)Ol1\fdl~ :: u.
IYII'~-O ~t 0 ~".'.I! "0
0 W

u 0-~ ~
"i
0
"""
"'...
0
-
... ...
~
..
0-0
~3
-
... ~
~
~
:.:.
~
~
-::::
..Q . II ~~
"0 .. -. E - . k
U

~
U>
~
0';

000
cu
0
~
0

'"
-
-
~
..
~
~
..
VI VI
-

00
00
. ~
..
~
(\I

m O>~" II
.:: ~ ~
0.
.~
'" -o;~"'"O
x . n
0
r
'"
8
.
:J
[I:
0--
.=
CX"
E
~"o'o
";
-
u
So
, :
a:
.~
.2
IL
C:
.'3;?
v, O
, -~
a~
0 0
c-
u
-
~
U
..
,, to
'"
a:
3:~~
I- 0 0
2
~0 }
a

8 ",
.
'
"
~
'"
0.
0
~
0.
~
~
0
0
,,-° 8
.. ..2
k to Ad:JH~ 'p°:)"POJd I!O
, --- ~
.. ~
.. C
'. N
.0..
-' ,
0
<.)
() ~ ') '0
""! '-, C
on
'"
.
"
'. " --
:3
:J
e ", Q
2.
'"
'. "I.
(/)

~ ,..;
E
OJ
~
~
I- .2'
u-

R 8 .9; ~ ~ @ ~
'. (a;.lOW)Aln180lOS-GOO

12-11
 °-
(\J

'-0
c,-
::J(\J
a:~
QCtj
co..
.Q '2:
C'
'5,-
.D .
~ ~ 'C= ~

'"
~
~
."
0
'"
~
.-
(JJ @J
"Uo~ tJI ON
c~;:.-.
IV
rn~:'<~
..~ -1/1
~ c."
~
0>0
o
Q)00~3: >
0>
-l",3:.~
.-CN
0"-0
m~~u g 0..
a:O
10£;10 .-
-~ °
8 ~-
:::: 8
0>
::J
0)
0
'" -
on
-
0 on 0 i.i:
Ad~H% 'AJaAo:>aMrlo

0-
,-

'-0
c,-
::IN
a:~
QCtj
co..
.Q 2:

8 C'
~
6.
~
..
G
."
ELO:
.c=N
~
VJ IN.
'" ... ._~
"UoO 0 0 8
mO co N
C~::.-.
Q)c"~~
o>.:.~~
-1/1
:J
c."0
":>..

0>0
Q)0~~3: >
-1~_.~
0"'='"
0>n
~
-0..0 L.L-
mo.mU

10gB a:fri.
=
Oe.-
I
0
~
~6~"LI Q)
::J
0)
0
'" -
on 0
- II) 0 [[
Ad:)H% '.(JaAo:>a~ 110

12-12