PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 2008-145

Enhanced Gas Recovery:

Factors Affecting Gas-Gas
Displacement Efficiency
S.S. K. SIM, A.T. TURTA, A.K. SINGHAL. B.F. HAWKINS
Alberta Research Council

This paper is accepted for the Proceedings of the Canadian International Petroleum Conference/SPE Gas Technology Symposium
2008 Joint Conference (the Petroleum Society’s 59th Annual Technical Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 17-19 June 2008. This
paper will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and
subject to correction.

Abstract
This paper is a part of a series of papers on results of Enhanced
Gas Recovery (EGR) research conducted at the Alberta Research
Council during 2003-2007. In this Joint Industry Project (JIP), the
soundness of the concept of gas-gas displacement for enhancing gas
recovery was investigated via laboratory investigations,
compositional modeling and economic analyses. The results of
Phase I, gas/gas displacement tests conducted at relative high
pressure and temperature (70 oC and 6.2 MPa) in 4 cm diameter 30
cm long Berea core were recently reported1,2.
In the second phase (2004-2005) of the JIP, the main targets were
low pressure volumetric (closed) reservoirs, in advanced stages of
exploitation and also, gas bearing strata overlaying oil sand
intervals. Pressure maintenance of a depleting gas reservoir by
waste gas injection can serve to (1) arrest the decline in gas
production rate, prevent pre-mature well abandonment and
increase ultimate recovery (2) discourage the advance of aquifer (if
present) into the gas zone, and (3) in the case of “Gas-Over-
Bitumen” situations, mitigate declining reservoir pressure during
natural gas production to enable exploitation of the underlying oil
sands. One example of a field application of this EGR technology
was the GRIPE Project operated by Paramount Resources during
2005-2006.
A series of gas/gas displacement tests was conducted at room
temperature and at pressures between 0.7-3.5 MPa in the presence
of connate water in 4 cm diameter x 2 m long sand-packs.
Experimental parameters, such as nature of the injection gas,
displacement pressure and displacement rate were systematically
varied to study their effect on the displacement efficiency.
Numerical simulations of the experimental results were also
conducted to gain better understanding of the interrelationship
between the different variables.
The laboratory results showed that, during low velocity
displacement of methane by flue gas in a homogeneous linear sand-
pack, molecular diffusion has a dominating effect on the recovery of
marketable methane. Reasonable values of molecular diffusion
coefficient for different gas/gas displacement conditions were
obtained by matching the experimental test results with numerical
simulation.
In spite of anticipated adverse effects of mixing between displaced
and displacing gas due to molecular diffusion under low pressure
and low flow velocity conditions, incremental recoveries of
marketable methane under the experimental conditions were
encouraging and suggest that EGR by gas-gas displacement can

1
prolong the productive life and increase natural gas recovery from
many volumetric gas reservoirs.
Introduction
Alberta currently has about 42,000 gas pools, which are in different
stages of exploitation and many of them are approaching the end of
their production life. The main goal for the second phase of our
Joint Industry Project was to investigate enhanced gas recovery
from low pressure volumetric (closed) reservoirs, in advanced stage
of exploitation and also, from gas bearing strata overlaying oil sand
intervals. Pressure maintenance of a depleting gas reservoir by
waste gas injection can serve to (1) arrest the decline in gas
production rate, prevent pre-mature well abandonment and increase
ultimate recovery (2) discourage the advance of aquifer (if present)
into the gas zone, and (3) in the case of “Gas-Over-Bitumen”
situations, mitigate declining reservoir pressure during natural gas
production to enable exploitation of the underlying oil sands. One
example of a field application of this EGR technology was the Gas
Re-Injection and Production Experiment (GRIPE) Project operated
by Paramount Resources during 2005-2006.
To achieve both technical and economical success in EGR
operations, contamination of produced natural gas by the injection
gas should be minimized. Contamination reduces the calorific value
of the produced gas and renders it non-marketable. Separation of
CO2 and nitrogen from natural gas requires substantial amount of
capital and operational expenses. Thus, the objective of our
laboratory tests was to identify the key factors that affect the extent
of mixing during gas-gas displacement within porous media. Very
few research reports relevant to this area have been published1,2,3,4
so far.
EXPERIMENTAL
A schematic diagram of the experimental setup is presented in
Figure 1. The equipment and procedure were very similar to those
described previously1 except that a 2 m long sand-pack was used
during the present studies, instead of the 1 foot long Berea core
used earlier. Table 1 summarizes the physical properties of the
sand-pack.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Typical test results are presented in Figure 2 (Test 8). Composition
of the effluent, and percentage methane recovery as percentage of
Original-Gas-In Place (OGIP) are plotted with respect to both time
and pore volume throughput. During a typical test, the effluent
sample usually contains close to 100% methane prior to
breakthrough of the displacing gas. The volume of methane
produced during a given period was calculated based on the volume
and composition of the gas produced during that interval.
Cumulative volume of methane produced in standard condition
Litres (SL) is plotted as a function of pore volume injected as well
as a function of time. Relevant tests were compared to gain insights
into effect of various parameters on methane recovery. The
variables investigated included: (1) pressure, (2) flow velocity, and
(3) nature of displacing gas
2
Effect of Displacement Pressure on Methane
Recovery
Tests #8, #9 and #10 were conducted using flue gas (containing
14% CO2 and 86% N2) to displace methane under different
pressures of 0.69, 1.38 and 3.45 MPa. The results are presented in
Table 2. Figure 3 compares the effluent composition and recovery
during Tests 8 and 9. It was shown that breakthrough of displacing
gas occurred earlier for the tests conducted at 0.69 MPa and the
mixing zone (arbitrary defined as the region containing 1% - 99%
methane) is wider than observed in test at 3.45 MPa.
These results indicate that displacement at high pressure would
result in a better recovery of uncontaminated natural gas. These
observations are in agreement with the results of Sigmund5 showing
that the magnitude of molecular diffusion coefficient is lower at
higher pressure. At low to moderate pressures, binary diffusion
coefficients (DAB) vary inversely with pressure or density as shown
in equation (1)5,6.
0.00266T 3 / 2
D AB = --------------------------------- (1)
PM 1AB/ 2σ AB
2
ΩD
DAB = Binary diffusion coefficient, cm2/s
T = temperature, K
P = pressure, bar
AB = characteristic length
D = diffusion collision integral, dimensionless
MA, MB = molecular weights of A and B gases
MAB = 2[(1/MA)+ (1/MB)]-1
Thus, at high pressure, molecular diffusion is small; relatively less
mixing of displacing gas with the displaced gas occurs at the
displacement front; and it results in a more efficient piston-like
displacement leading to a higher methane recovery.
Effect of Flow Velocity on Methane Recovery
The effect of flow velocity on displacement efficiency was analyzed
by comparing the results of Test #2 with Test #17 (Table 2). In both
cases, nitrogen was used to displace methane at a pressure of 0.69
MPa. Higher flow velocity of 5.44 m/day was used in Test #2
whereas in Test #17, the flow velocity was reduced to 1.08 m/day.
Breakthrough of nitrogen occurred at 0.6 PV injected for flow rate
of 1.08 m/day and was 0.78 PV when the flow rate was 5.4 m/day.
As a result, the breakthrough recovery of methane for Test #17
(57% OGIP) was less than that obtained during Test #2 (76%
OGIP). Effluent gas composition and methane recovery from Test
#2 and Test #17 are compared in Figure 4.
A similar observation was made from comparison of results of Test
#3 and Test #7. In both of these tests, carbon dioxide was used to
displace methane at a pressure of 0.69 MPa. Test #3 was conducted
at a higher rate (3.6 m/day) whereas a slower rate (1.2 m/day) was
used in Test #7. The results (Figure 5) show that displacement at the
higher rate gave a higher methane recovery at breakthrough (98%
compared with the lower recovery of 81% at a lower velocity).
The results further substantiate our earlier conclusion that molecular
diffusion affects the gas/gas displacement front. At lower flow rate,
the residence time of the gas mixture within the porous medium is
longer allowing more mixing of molecules causing a widening of
the mixing zone and hence, lower recovery at breakthrough. More
discussion on the relative importance of dispersivity and molecular
diffusion on gas/gas displacement efficiency under the present test
conditions are presented in the numerical simulation section.
Effect of Displacing Gas Properties on
Methane Recovery
Under similar pressure and flow velocity conditions for CO2 and N2
injections, it was observed that breakthrough of CO2 was delayed.
As a result, methane recovery at breakthrough is higher when CO2
was used as the displacing agent compared to N2. This conclusion
was derived from comparison of the results from two sets of
experiments which are presented in Table 3. The first set of tests
compares methane recovery for injection of N2 (Test #17) and CO2
(Test #7) at the same rate (1.0 m/day) and the same pressure (0.69
MPa). The results show that higher breakthrough recovery of 81%
was obtained when CO2 was used, compared to the 57% recovery
obtained by nitrogen. Similarly, at a higher pressure of 3.45 MPa,
and at a similar flow velocity (Test #4 and #5) CO2 injection
resulted in a better breakthrough recovery (98% OGIP versus 85%
OGIP, when nitrogen was used). Effluent gas composition and
methane recovery from the tests conducted at 0.69 MPa are
presented in Figure 6. Similar observations were made when
methane was displaced with flue gas in Tests 6, 8, 9 and 10. It was
noticed that the breakthrough of CO2 was significantly delayed as
compared to that of nitrogen during these tests.
A probable reason for carbon dioxide performing better than
nitrogen and yielding a higher methane recovery is likely due to its
significantly higher solubility in water than that of nitrogen under
the test conditions. A significant amount of CO2 was removed from
the leading edge of the displacement front due to dissolution in the
connate water. This resulted in the delay of CO2 breakthrough and
prolonged the period of uncontaminated methane production.
Numerical simulation of the displacement process (following
section) demonstrates that higher solubility of the displacing gas in
the connate water exerts a dominating effect on the width of the
mixing zone as well as, the timing of breakthrough.
Numerical Simulation of Laboratory Tests
The objectives of conducting numerical simulation to match
laboratory test results were two fold. First, we want to identify the
dominant factors affecting the size of the mixing zone and
displacement efficiency. Second, we wanted to scale up laboratory
results to field performance during gas/gas displacement. The
simulation was conducted using a commercial compositional
simulator9.
Initially, a sensitivity study was conducted to investigate the effect
of the following parameters (1) effect of grid size10 (2) effect of
molecular diffusion and dispersion on the width of displacement
front (mixing zone) and recovery efficiency of displaced gas, and
(3) effect of gas solubility in water.
Effect of Grid Size
The effect of grid size on methane recovery efficiency was studied
during simulation of Test 17 using a one dimensional model.
During this test, methane was displaced with pure nitrogen at a rate
of 1 m/day at 0.69 MPa. Sensitivity runs were conducted to
3
determine the effect of grid size on numerical dispersion during
simulation of the gas-gas displacement process and to identify the
optimal grid size to minimize the widening of the mixing zone
(displacement front) due to numerical dispersion. The number of
grid-cells between the injector and producer was varied from 100 to
2000, by reducing grid size in the x- direction from 2 cm to 0.1 cm
during these simulations, effects of dispersivity, molecular
diffusivity and gas solubility in water were ignored by setting them
to zero.
Figure 7 shows the effect of grid size on gas recovery at various
stages of the displacement process upon injecting pure nitrogen.
When the number of grid cells between injector and producer, is
less than 200, relatively earlier breakthrough of nitrogen was
predicted by the model, due to numerical dispersion and resulted in
lower predicted recovery of the uncontaminated methane than when
grid cell number exceeded 1000. As the number of grid cells is
further increased, the recovery becomes less dependent on grid cell
number and is essentially independent when grid cell number
exceeded 1000. Hence, 1000 grid cells were used for subsequent
simulation of the laboratory tests involving 2 m long sand-pack.
Effect of Gas Solubility in Water
Solubility of carbon dioxide in water was investigated next. The
simulation software allows incorporation of Henry’s constant
(Equation 1) in the input file to account for the dissolution of
various gases in water. Although several sources of published data
on solubility of CO2 and natural gas in water could be found in the
literature, there exists a certain degree of experimental uncertainty
between these published data,7,8 , especially for low pressure
conditions. Figure 8 shows the calculated results of displacing
methane with pure CO2 (Test 7) using three slightly different values
of Henry’s constant for CO2 ( 69; 104 ; and 138 MPa). As an
example, using a Henry’s constant of 138 MPa for CO2, its
solubility in water at a partial pressure of 0.69 MPa will be 0.005
mole fraction, or 5.4 standard ml of CO2 per ml of water. In these
calculations, the diffusivity and dispersivity were set to zero. From
Figure 8, it can be seen that, as the solubility of CO2 increases, the
displacement front become more piston-like, the mixing zone
becomes narrower and there is a delay in breakthrough of the
displacing CO2. These phenomena are due to removal of CO2 from
the leading edge of the displacement front by dissolution in connate
water.
As a result of these sensitivity studies, we concluded that CO2
solubility in reservoir connate water significantly affects the
breakthrough time of CO2, as well as, the recovery of CO2-free
methane. On the other hand, the solubility of nitrogen in water,
compared to CO2, is relatively small and displacement efficiency
was not found to be sensitive to moderate variation of the Henry’s
constant (6200 MPa) used to calculate the solubility of nitrogen in
water.
f2 = H X2 -----------------------------(2)
where f2 = gas fugacity (MPa)
X2 = the molar fraction of gas dissolved in water
H = Henry’s constant ( MPa)
Effect of Dispersion on Methane Recovery
Effect of Dispersion on Methane Recovery
12
Tests #2 and #17 helped investigate the effect of dispersivity on
the displacement efficiency. Both tests were conducted with
nitrogen displacing methane at 0.69 MPa but at different flow
velocities (5.44 m/day versus 1.08 m/day). Comparison of the
simulation results is presented in Figure 9 (Test #2) and Figure 10
(Test #17). It is noted that good matches were obtained for both
tests using the same value of molecular diffusion coefficient (0.002
cm2/sec).
To estimate dispersivity, Koval’s equation was used. This equation
(Equation 3) involves two terms: a molecular diffusion (D)
dependent term and a flow velocity (V) dependent term5.
D
K = + λ V
F φ ------- (3)
where K = Dispersion (m2/s)
D = Molecular Diffusion (m2/s)
F = Formation factor
φ = Porosity, (fraction)
λ = Dispersivity (m)
V = Velocity (m/s)
The fact that both Tests #2 and #7 can be matched with the same
molecular diffusion coefficient suggests that dispersion during
gas/gas displacement is dominated by the first term of the dispersive
equation (namely molecular diffusion D) and the contribution of the
second term, which is flow rate dependent, can be ignored for the
range of velocities under the test conditions. Also, it appears that
dispersivity ( ) is quite small for the laboratory tests of this
investigation. It may not necessarily be so under field conditions
(more heterogeneity).
History Matching of Flue Gas EGR
Experiments
As a result of history matching Tests #2, #3, #7 and #17 where pure
nitrogen and CO2 were used for displacing methane, appropriate
values of Henry’s constants and molecular diffusion were obtained
and are listed in Table 4. These values of Henry’s constants and
molecular diffusion coefficients were, in turn, used in the numerical
simulation of Tests #6 and #8 where flue gas, was used as the
displacing gas. It can be seen from Figure 11 that a reasonably good
match was obtained. These physical constants can be appropriately
modified for field cases depending upon heterogeneity and then
used to predict the outcome of the gas-gas displacement process in
the field during EGR.
Conclusion
As a result of the laboratory linear displacement tests and numerical
simulation performed, the following was concluded:
Under the test conditions, recovery of marketable methane increases
with increased displacement pressure and displacement velocity.
When displacing methane with pure gases, CO2 provided better
methane recovery at breakthrough than N2. When using flue gases
for displacement, the significantly higher solubility of CO2 in
connate water resulted in a delayed CO2 breakthrough relative to
nitrogen. This delay is beneficial to natural gas production as it
4
reduces the operating costs of corrosion mitigation during
production of CO2. The amount of green house gases and acid gas
(CO2, H2S) being sequestered in the reservoir will also increase due
to these effects.
During low velocity gas-gas displacement in a homogeneous linear
sand-pack, molecular diffusion has a dominating effect on the
recovery of the marketable methane. Reasonable values of
molecular diffusion coefficient and Henry’s constants
corresponding to different conditions were obtained by matching
the experimental test results with numerical simulation. These (after
accounting for dispersion) are useful in the prediction of methane
recovery for field scale enhanced gas recovery operations.
In spite of anticipated adverse effects due to mixing between
displaced and displacing gas by molecular diffusion under low
pressure and low flow velocity conditions, incremental recoveries
of marketable methane under experimental conditions were
encouraging and suggest that EGR by gas-gas displacement can
prolong the productive life and increase natural gas recovery from
many volumetric gas reservoirs.
REFERENCES
1. Alex T. Turta, Steve S. K. Sim, Ashok K. Singhal and Blaine
F. Hawkins, “Basic Investigation on Enhanced Gas Recovery
by Gas-Gas Displacement”, presented at the 8th Canadian
International Petroleum Conference, Calgary, Alberta, June 12-
14 2007.
2. Ashok K. Singhal, Alexandru T. Turta, Steve S. Sim and
Blaine F. Hawkins, “ Enhancing Natural Gas Recovery form
Nearly Depleted Gas Reservoirs by Injecting Waste Gases”,
presented at the 8th Canadian International Petroleum
Conference, Calgary, Alberta, June 12-14 2007.
3. Mamora, D.D. and Seo, J.G.: “Enhanced Gas Recovery by
Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Depleted Gas Reservoirs”,
presented at the SPE annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, September 29-October 2, 2002, Houston,.
4. Papay, J, “Improved Recovery of Conventional Natural
Gas”, : Part I: Theoretical Discussion of Recovery Methods,
Erdoel, Erdgas, Kohle,. NO 6, pp. 302-308, January 1999 and
Part II: Results of a Pilot Test; Erdoel, Erdgas, Kohle, NOS 7-
8, pp. 354-355, July -August 1999.
5. P. M Sigmund, “Prediction of Molecular diffusion at
Reservoir Conditions. Part I. Measurement and prediction of
molecular diffusion co-efficients”, JCPT, pp. 48-57, April-
June 1976.
6. Reid, Prausnitz and Poling, The Properties of Gases &
Liquids, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1986, P. 582
7 Wiebe, R. and Graddy, V.L.,”Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in
Water at Various Temperatures and Pressure”, Jour. Amer.
Chem. Soc. (Feb 1939) P.315 (April 1940), P. 815, (Feb 1941),
P. 475.
8. Stewart, P. B. and Munjal, P., “Solubility of CO2 in pure
Water, Synthetic Sea water”, Jour. Chem. and Eng. Data’, V.
15, No. 1 (1970), P. 76. V. 16, No.2 (1971), P. 171
9. Anon, “CMG Advanced Compositional Reservoir Simulation
User’s Guide 2007”.
10. Camy, J.P. and Emanuel, A.S. “Effect of Grid Size in the
Compositional Simulation of CO2 Injection”, SPE paper 6894
presented at the SPE annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition, 9-12 October 1977, Denver Colorado.
11. Perkin, T.K. and Johnston, O.C., “A Review of Diffusion and
Dispersion in Porous Media”, Society of Petroleum Engineers
Journal (SPE 480) March 1963, P. 70-84.
12. Horner, W.N., Guichon, D.A., Danielson, A., and Beliveau,
D.A., “Application of Waste Gas Injection into Natural Gas
Reservoirs”, U.S. Patent 7,172,030 issued February 6, 2007.
13. Guichon, D.A., Beliveau, D.A., Horner, W.N., and Danielson,
A., “Application of Waste Gas Injection into Natural Gas
Reservoirs”, Canadian Patent 2,483,896 issued February 26,
2008.

5
 Table 1: Properties of Sand-pack
Particle size of silica sand 45-106 m
Length (cm) 43
Diameter (cm) 4.14
Air permeability (mD) 2000
Porosity (%) 43
Pore volume (ml) 1157

Table 2: Summary of Test Results

Test # Displacing gas Pressure Calcd Velocity CH4 CH4 recovery
Water recovery at at 20%
Saturat’n break- contamination
through
MPa % m/day % OGIP % OGIP
2 N2 0.69 10 5.44 76 89
5 N2 3.45 19 4.00 85 93
17 N2 0.69 15 1.08 57 78
3 CO2 0.69 18 3.56 98
4 CO2 3.45 13 3.02 98
7 CO2 0.69 21 1.17 81
6 Flue gas 0.69 13 5.20 79 90
8 Flue gas 0.69 21 1.01 56 77
9 Flue gas 3.45 19 0.95 77 90
10 Flue gas 1.38 17 0.96 71 87

6
 Table 3: Effect of Gas Properties on Recovery Efficiency
Pressure Swi Velocity Methane Methane
Recovery Recovery
MPa % m/day 1% 20%
contamination contamination
7 CO2 0.69 21 1.2 81 92
17 N2 0.69 15 1.1 57 78

4 CO2 3.45 18 3.6 98

5 N2 3.45 19 4.0 85 93

Table 4: Molecular Diffusion Coefficient and Henry’s Constants used in Matching

of Test Results
Test Displacing Velocity Diffusion Henry Constant
# gas
(m/day) Coefficient (MPa)
2
(cm /sec)
N2 CO2 CH4 N2 CO2 CH4
2 N2 5.4 0.002 0.002 6200 7028
17 N2 1.1 0.002 0.002 6200 7028
3 CO2 3.6 0.001 0.002 137.8 7028
7 CO2 1.0 0.001 0.002 137.8 7028
6 Flue gas 5.2 0.002 0.001 0.002 6200 137.8 7028
8 Flue gas 1.0 0.002 0.001 0.002 6200 137.8 7028

7
 Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of Enhanced Gas Recovery Sand-pack

BPR
1 foot Berea core
2 meter sand-pack

Mass Flow
Controller
Wet Test
Meter
To gas chromatograph
h h h
Displacing gas

Figure 2: Displacing CH4 w ith Flue Gas in Test 8 (0.69 MPa, 1.02 m/day)

Time (hrs)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100 10
90 9
% CH4, % N2, % CO2, CH4 recovery (%

Cumulative CH 4 Produced (SL)

80 8
70 7
% N2
60 6
OGIP)

% C1
50 5
% CO2
40 4
CH4 recovery (% OGIP)
30 3
cum CH4
20 2

10 1
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Pore Volume

8
 Figure 3: Pressure effect on EGR: Comparison of displacement at 0.69 and 3.45 Mpa

100

90
N2 (0.69 MPa)
Composition (%), Recovery ( % OGIP)

80 C1 (0.69 MPa)
CO2 (0.69 MPa)
70
Recovery (0.69 MPa)
60 N2 (3.45 MPa)

50 C1(3.45 MPa)
CO2(3.45 MPa)
40
Recovery (3.45 MPa)
30

20

10

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
Pore volume

Figure 4: Effect of Flow Velocity of EGR (Test 2 vs Test 17)

Displacing CH4 w ith N2 at 0.69 MPa

100

90

80

70
Composition, recovery

60 CH4 (Test 2)
N2 (Test 2)
50
Recovery (Test 2)
40 N2 (Test 17)
CH4 (Test 17)
30 recovery (Test 17)

20

10

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
Pore volum e

9
 Figure 5: Velocity Effect on EGR (Test 3 vs Test 7)
Displacing CH4 with CO2 @ 0.69 MPa
100

90 CH4 (3.6 m/d)

CO2 (3.6 m/d)
80
recovery (3.6 m/d)
Compsition (%), Recovery (% OGIP)

CH4 (1 m/d)
70
CO2 (1 m/d)
60 recovery (1 m/d)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
Pore volume

Figure 6: Effect of Displacing Gas Properties (Test 7 vs Test 17)

Displacing CH4 w ith N2 (Test 17) and CO2 (Test 7)
100

90

80

70

60 N2 (Test 17)
CH4 (Test 17)

50 recovery (Test 17)

CH4 (Test 7)

40 CO2 (Test 7)
recovery (Test 7)

30

20

10

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
Po r e V o lume

10
 Figure 7: Effect of Grid Size of methane recovery

95

90
% m e th a n e R e c o v e ry

85

80
recovery at 1% N2

75 recovery at 10% N2
recovery at 20% N2
70
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Number of Grid Blocks

Figure 8: Effect of CO2 Solubility in Water on Breakthrough

Time and Width of Transition Zone
100
90
80
% C1 (HenryCco2=138 MPa)
O 2

70
,%c

60
ne

50
Low Solubility
a

% CO2 (henryc co2=138 MPa)

e
mth

40
%

30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
T ime (hours)

100

90

80

70 % C1 (henryC co2=104 MPa)

%O
C2

60

Medium Solubility
4
H

50 % CO2 (henryC co2=104 MPa)

C
%

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (hrs)

100

90

80

70
O2

% C1(henryc-co2=69 MPa)
C

60
High
4,%

50
H

% CO2 (henryc-co2=69 MPa)

%C

40

30

20
Solubility
10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (hrs)

11
 Figure 9: Matching Test 2 Displacing CH4 with N2 at 0.69 MPa
(Diffusion coefficient =0.0002 cm2/sec)
100

90

80

70
mol % CH4 (lab)
60
mol % N2 (lab)
50

% C1 (calcd)
40

% N2 (calcd)
30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (hrs)

Figure 10: Matching Test 17: Displacing Methane with N2 at 0.69 MPa and 1.1 m/day

100

90

80

70
% CH4 (lab)
Composition (%)

60
% N2 (lab)
50
% CH4 (calcd)
40
% N2 (calcd)
30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (hrs)

12
 Figure 11: Matching Test 8- Displacing CH4 with Flue gas at 0.69 MPa
Velocity + 1 m/day, Henryconst_co2 = 138 MPa
100

90

80
% CH4, % N2, % CO2 CH4 recovery (% OGIP

70
% N2 (lab)

60 % C1 (lab)

50 % CO2 (lab)

40 % C1 (calcd)

% N2 (calcd)
30

% CO2 (calcd)
20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Tim e (hrs)

13
14