,

SPE/DOESoomyof U.S. Dopwtmonl

SPEIDOE 12709 Pofrobum Englnesra of Energy

Enhanced Oil Recovery by Nitrogen Injection:

The Effect of Increased Temperature and the Amount
of Gas in Solution
by C.F. Alcocer, * Montana C. of Mineral Science & Technology, and D.E. Menzie,
U. of Oklahoma
Members WE-AIME

Copyright 19S4 .%ciity of Petroleum Engineers of AlME

This papar was presented at the SPE/DOE FourthSympmium on EnhancedOil Recovery held in Tulsa, OK, April 15-18, 19S4. The material is subjectto
correctionby the author. Permissionto copy is restrictedto an abstractof not
morethan 300 words.Write SPE, 6200 NorthCentral Expressway, Drswer
S4706, Dallas, Texas 75206 USA. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.

ASSTRACT

The results of laboratory research conducted to fluids are not miscibles on the first contact, but
study displacement of crude oil by high-pressure nit- form two phases, with one of the fluids absorbing
rogen injection are presented in this paper. The components from the other. After sufficient contacts
objectives of this research were to study the effect and exchange of components, the system becomes mis-
. . .
of temperature and orxgiiialqas-~11 ratm .-. in solution cible. Na-light crude oil miscibility phenomenon is
on crude oil recovery and the miscibility process in .L._
complex and depends on the cornposicxunof the zeser-
high-pressure (H-P) nitrogen injection. Also in addi- voir fluid, temperature, pressure, as well as other
tion, the effectiveness of nitrogen injection after factors such as interphase mass transfer, effect of
waterflooding and the effect of nitrogen-driven pro- relative permeability, capillary pressure and gravity2,
pane slugs was examined. Nine experimental tests W2re
p.erfo~nneeGsiRg .VUJa~oil
----- _ of 42.3° API recombined with This research is the continuation of an investi-
natural gas. The experimental tests were made using gation contiuctedby Tazek Ahmed and Donald h!enzie~
two temperatures (70”F and 120”F) and three gas-oil (1983). These researchers studied the displacement
ratios in solution (575 SCF/STB, 400 SCF/STB and 200 of light crude oil by nitrogen at different injection
SCF/STB). The reservoir model used was a stainless pressures at room temperature and using a constant gag
.--.L . a .
n ..-. in diameter,
steel tube Ld> ~eec Loiiqan= A7K iIICheS oil ratio in solution.
packed with sand consolidated to give an average per-
meability of 910 md. The model was provided with five The primary objectives of this research are:
..
sampQng - -1...=+flF
ia.v.. Ilect va.pr
.“ .o----- samples. The vapor
(1) Formulation and preparation of a computer program
samples were analyzed by using a gas chromatography. A to simulate tineheat tramfer process in the physical
temperature control system was built based on the re- model, (2) TO confirm the validity of the data obtain-
sults obtained from a heat transfer mathematical model ed by various researchers using the same physical
specifically prepared for this research. The results model, (3) Injection of nitrogen into the reservoir
obtained in this study suggest very strongly that model at one pressure and different temperatures, (4)
crude oil recovery and miscibility in this kind of oil Injection of nitrogen into the reservoir model at one
depend on temperature and oil-gas ratio in solution. pressure above the miscibility pressure and different
Multiple-regression equations to predict crude oil solution gas-oil ratio to study the effect of the gas-
recovery using temperature and gas-oil ration in solu- oil solution on oil recovery, miscibility and track
tion were developed based on the experimental data. the compositional changes taking place during dis-
placement, (5) Run a regular waterflood and then dis-
INTRODUCTION place nitrogen to study if miscibility is obtained
under those conditions, and (6) Run a nitrogen-driven
A relatively new process of vaporization gas
I
propane slug test to study the Pos=ibili&f fer future
drive, the application of high-pressure nitrogen (l&a) ~-,va=tig=tionOf USiIXI the same laboratory equipment.
injection to increase ultimate production, has been
receiving special attention because of the high cost Literature Review
and limited supply of natural gas.
In 1928, I?ower3performed a laboratory study to
The main goal of injection of N2 is to achieve determine whether air is superior to natural gas as
miscibility with the reservoir fluid. The miscibility a driving medium or vice versa. Power also used
obtained by nitrogen injection in a light crude oil nitrogen in his experiments. He concluded: (1) That
reservoir is a conditional miscibility; where the the volubility of natural gas in oil is snuchgreater
than that of nitrogen at equal temperature and pres-
sure; and that the volubility of nitrogen in oil
References and illustration at end of paper. closely approaches that of air, (2) Volume by volume,

383
2 ENHANCED OIL REC
nitrogen is superior to natural gas as a propulsive
agent at all pressures.
In 1958, Koch and Hutchinson4 conducted a labora-
tory study on miscible displacement using flue gas.
The results confirmed that the composition of the dis-
placement gas is relatively unimportant in establish-
ing the miscibility pressure for a given reservoir
fluid. They also reported that above the miscibility
pressure the breakthrough recovery is a constant.
5,6,7 con
Between 1976 and 1977 Rushing, et al.
ducted experimental works. They mainly studied the
effect of N2 injection pressure on oil recovery. They
concluded that “the lighter crudes, with some gas in
solution, have been more responsive to high-pressure
nitrogen injection.”
8
In 1978, Paterson conducted laboratory tests of
crude oil recovery by nitrogen. The model was satur-
ated with oil and displaced with N2 at 4280 psi at
reservoir temperature. Results showed that miscibil-
ity was obtained after multiple contacts and 90% of
the oil recovered after injection of about 90% PV of
Na .
In 1975, Hardy and Robertsong reported a field
case history in Block 31 field, Texas. In Block 31
the miscibility pressure for flue gas (87% N2, 12% C02
and 1% CO) was practically identical to miscibility
pressure for hydrocarbon injection gas.
10
In 1980, Vogel and Yarborough conducted labor-
atory tests in which condensate reservoir fluids and
black oil were contacted by N, at reservoir conditions
They concluded that N2 injection into condensate reser
voir fluid will significantly increase the dew point
pressure. When black oil is contacted with Na, the
light and intermediate components will reduce drasti-
cally in the oil.
In 1980, Ahmed and Menziel conducted laboratory
work using nitrogen injection at high-pressure and
room temperature. The GOR in solution was kept con-
stant during all of the six tests (575 SCF/STB). The
authors determined successfully the miscibility pres-
sure for the system. They also, determined the com-
positional changes taking place during the displace-
ment of crude oil by nitrogen injection.
11
In December 1981, Carlisle and Crawford
reported on their laboratory investigation of dead
crude oil displacement by nitrogen-driven propane
slugs. They concluded that “nitrogen-driven propane
slugs can be very effective in producing oil.”
EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT
The experimental equipment available at the
University of Oklahoma was modified to perform this
research. A schematic diagram of the modified experi-
mental equipment used in this work is shown in Figure
.J..
The experimental equipment is divided into the
following systems: (1) PVT-injection system, (2)
Reservoir physical model, (3) Temperature control
System and (4) Production and analytical system.
The reservoir physical model was represented by
a linear horizontal core constructed by packing con-
3RY BY NITROGEN SPE-12709
solidated sand inside a stainless steel tube 125’
long and .435 “ internal diameter. The model was
constructed with 5 sampling valves along the length
of the tube to facilitate the taking of vapor samples
during the displacement test for chromatographyanaly-
sis. The average porosity of the model was 32% and
absolute permeability was 910 md. The absolute per-
meability was obtained by nitrogen displacement.
The temperature control system used in this work
consisted of heating units, thermostat, insulation
blanket and thermometers. Three commercial heating
units were used with a capacity of 1500 BTU/Hr each.
The production and analytical system consisted
of a back-pressure regulator, graduate cylinder, gas
filter, gas metering apparatus, chromatographyand
refractometer. The chromatographyused had a micro-
processor (CPU) that allows the operator to write
programs to control gas analysis.
Material
The oil used was obtained from Noble County,
Oklahoma. Table 1 shows the oil properties and some
PVT characteristics. The gas used to recombine the
oil was obtained from the same field in Oklahoma.
Table 2 shows gas properties and composition.
PROCEDURE OF INVESTIGATION AND TECHNIQUES
Separate experimental procedures and techniques
were required in this investigation. The procedures
involved are: (1) Procedure for recombination process
(2) Procedure for PVT analysis, (3) Procedure for
–.L .= ~ Precedure of
sam.lra=ioiio~ &@ reservGiF --a-l
.,,”..=- , (4)
nitrogen displacement, (5) Procedure for oil recovery
by waterflooding, and (6) Procedure for oil recovery
by propane slug driven by nitrogen. The procedures
from 1 to 3 were standard procedures for this type of
research. The procedure 4 can be summarized as
follows:
After the model had been saturated with water
and recombined oil and the temperature of the system
was at the desired test temperature, the equipment
was ready to run a displacement by nitrogen.
The steps were as follows: Set the pressure
(2000 psi) at the back-pressure regulator, started
nitrogen injection, started collecting information
and vapor samples for chromatographic analysis.
Stopped displacement at N2 breakthrough. The most
important parameters that were recorded were: (1)
Temperature along the model (“F), (2) Barometric
pressure (nEnHg),(3) Nitrogen injection pressure
.-.— .
(psi), (4) Outlet pressure (pSl), (5) T~e (mm), (6)
Oil recovery (CC), (7) Gas produced (SCF), (8) Water
saturation at initial condition (fraction of pore
.-.
volume) , (Y) Fore voiume (fractioriof pore volume! ,
(10) Oil saturation at initial condition (fraction
of pore volume), (11) GOR in solution in oil (SCF/
STB), (12) Formation Volume Factor (BBL/STB), (13)
Oil gravity (“API), (14) Room temperature (“F), and
(15) Time and crude oil recovery leveis when the
vapor samples were collected.
Nitrogen Displacement After Waterflooding:
After crude oil saturation the system was dis-
Wzter. ~atez iP+jecticfi
piaced tiit?~ wss ~t~pped at
3 ENHANCED OIL
breakthrough and nitrogen injection started. The addi-
tional parameters recorded were water injection and
pressure drop.
Procedure for Oil Recovery by Propane Slug Drive by NZ
After the reservoir model was ready for displace-
ment, a pre-calculated amount of liquid propane was
transferred to a chamber. By handling the appropriate
valves, the chamber could be put in series in the
injection line to the model. Then the propane slug
was pushed into the reservoir by N2 at high pressures.
Heat Transfer Simulation
In an effort to select a proper heating system
for this research, in order to keep the reservoir
physical model at a constant desired temperature, a
computer program was developed to simulate the heat
transfer. The block diagram of the main program is
presented in Figure 2.
PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
=S.is of Variables Used in the Study
In this study, injection pressure was selected as
a fixed variable. Pressure effect on miscibility is
a very well recognized factor in the technical litera-
turel*3,5,6*7. Injection pressure was constant at
4000 psi for all experiments. The outlet pressure was
fixed at 2000 psi. Consequently, the rate of advance
of the displacement front was a fixed variable. In
general, the independent variables used in all the
experiments were pressure, temperature, gas-oil ratio
in solution, water saturation and initial oil satura-
tion. Pressure, temperature and GOR in solution were
directly manipulated variables. The dependent vari-
ables were crude oil recovery, gas recovery and com-
positional change in the second zone which will be
described later.
NC Control Qr determination of relative permea-
bilities was made during displacements. The effect
of gravity was theoretically reduced by using a slim
consolidated core of .435 inches in diameter. The
effect of possible spots of heterogeneties along the
core was theoretically minimized by using a long core
with a length of 125 feet.
During the six first tests and test #9, the water
saturations were immobile water. The effect of mobile
water was studied in tests 7 and 8. Initial composi-
tion was a fixed variable.
Experiments Results
In this section, the results are presented exper-
~e~’c ~---._.-”:.,.em+
IJyCApc.u,=
.... The data analysis was focused
on the displacement process and developed from pro-
duction curves analysis, compositional vapor analysis,
composition profiles, ternary diagrams and liquid and
vapor intensive properties. Nine (9) dynamic displace
ment experiments performed in this investigation are
presented. The tests were distributed as follows:
Six (6) regular nitrogen displacement processes; one
(1] regular water flceding; Qne[l) tertiary recovery
by Na, and (1) propane slug driven by Na.
A summary of the results of the experiments are
shown in Table 3.
RECOVERY BY NITROGEN sPE-12709
First Experiment
This experiment was designed to test whether
-: -:-$-----.AA4+4
s~gsl~~l~a.,. recovery would be obtained
a.A..A.&oP.zl
above the miscibility pressure. The pressure injec-
tion was varied from 4000 to 6000 psi in periods of
30 minutes during the test, The crude oil recovery
for this test was 83% of OOIP. The crude oil recover
obtained seems to agree very well with conclusions
drawn from previous researchl.
The production history of the test is shown in
Figure 3, 4 and 5. The 83% crude oil recovery sug-
gests that miscibility was achieved. In Figure 3 a
change in shape is noted in the curve after produc-
ing 312 cc of crude oil. This increment in displace-
ment effectiveness may be explained by proposing that
the displacing front becomes miscible with virgin
crude oil after being immiscible for a long section
in the core.
In Figure 5, the produced gas-oil ratio is shown
as a fraction of oil recovery. The shape of this
curve shows that there is small variation in the pro-
duced gas-oil ratio.
Second Experiment
This test was designed to establish reliability
and validity of the model used in this study. Also ,
this test was used in the comparative analysis with
future tests to study the effect of temperature and
gas-oil ratio on crude oil recovery and miscibility.
The production data obtained in this test are pre-
sented in Table 4.
Thirteen vapor samples were taken from the dif-
ferent sampling points along the physical model. The
results of the chromatographic analysis of vapor
samples are shown in Table 5.
During the test, the following steps were made
to gather and evaluate the experimental data: (a)
Vapor samples were taken and .aii.iiped
b: n?e?msof the
chromatography. Then the molal fractions were plotted
compound by compound as a function of pore volume of
nitrogen injected. Figure 6 shows the vapor molal
fraction as a function of PV nitrogen injected at the
sampling point D. (b) Produced gas and oil were
measured periodically. Production history of this
test is presented in Figure 7, 8 and 9. (c) The
liquid molal fractions was calculated, using experi-
mental values of vapor molal fraction, based on the
convergence pressure method (2). (d) The displace-
ment process by nitrogen injection was represented
by a ternary diagram. (e) Liquid and vapor phase
intensive properties were calculated by using avail-
able correlations (2).
The analysis of resuits obtaiiiedfzax the propex
evaluation of steps a, b, c, d, and e shows very
clearly that three zones exist in the displacement
of reservoir light crude oil by nitrogen injection.
These zones are: (a) A virgin zone which is the
leading zone during the displacement. (b) The second
zone which is a two-phase flowing zone. (c) The
third zone, which is a one-phase fi~ii~g z~ce.
The first zone was identified by analyzing the
crude oil and gas produced. No compositional change~
3
4 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY BY NITROGEN
took place in this zone. The second zone is the resul
of nitrogen being initially immiscible with the reser-
voir light crude oil. Analysis of the shapes of the
compositional profiles (Figure 10 and 6) suggested
that vaporization is very strong in the beginning of
the process and at the leading edge of the second
zone. The slopes of straight lines of the composi-
tional profiles (Figure 10,6) are a direct consequence
of vaporization rates.
In this test, miscibility was postulated after
no change in the composition of the front was detectec
In Figure 6, miscibility is present when the slope of
the compositional profile is zero. Miscibility was
detected at the sampling point D between 76% and 82%
P.V. of Nz injected (Figure 6). The miscible bank wa:
approximately 6% of the Pv.
Figure 11 and 12 are ternary diagrams illustrat-
ing and monitoring the building up of miscibility for
this test. Figure 12 shows the composition of the
miscible bank. BY using this ternary diagram, it is
possible to make a prediction of miscibility during
the displacement. Analyzing liquid samples taken
during the displacement would improve this prediction.
Theoretically, miscibility is reached when all
the intensive properties, such as density and viscos-
ity in the liquid phase, are similar to density and
viscosity in the vapor phase and the interracial
tension is zero. In this study the interracial ten-
~i~~ never reaches the theoretical value of zero.
This suggests that miscibility is incomplete or
partial under these laboratory conditions.
The crude oil recovery of 81.1% suggest by it-
self that at least partial miscibility was achieved
during displacement. This test result is in agree-
ment with results reported by previous researchers
(1, 3, 5 and 6). The first two tests showed that the
reservoir physical model is reliable to conduct this
type of research.
Third Experiment
This test used a light crude oil displacement by
high pressure nitrogen injection. Parameters, condi-
tion and production data are shown in Table 6. A
gas-oil ratio in a solution of 400 SCF/STB was used.
.-
Both the calculatectFVF and the sakzraticm pressure
decreased for this reservoir crude oil.
The fractional recovery of crude oil was 75.4%
of OOIP. The strong vaporization process at the
beginning of the test seems to be typical of this
type of displacement. Again, miscibility was postu-
lated when no compmitional change was observed in
the results of the sample analysis. The miscible
bank formed during this test was approximately 5%
of the P.V. The same procedure used to treat the
second test data was used in this test; i.e. chro-
matographic analysis of vapor samples and construc-
tion of ternary diagrams.
Fourth Experiment
In this test the amount of natural gas dissolved
in the crude oil was reduced to 200 SCF/STB. Hence
the FVF and saturation pressure decreased in rela-
tion to the previous tests. Production history data
is shown in Table 7. The routine already established
i
SPE-12709
in this study, to conduct the test and evaluate the
data, was followed in this experiment.
The crude oil recovery obtained in this test was
66% of the OOIP. Miscibility was not achieved under
the conditions of this test. The lower recovery by
itself strongly suggests that the displacement was
an immiscible process. Confirmation of this fact is
ebtsined by observing the compositional profiles and
the ternary diagram shown in Figure 13.
Fifth Experiment
This test was run at 120”F. The chromatographic
analysis, in the form of a compositional profile, for
sampling pint “D” is given in Figure 14. The frac-
tional crude oil recovery was 84.5% of OOIP. Compo-
sition profiles confirm miscibility was obtained. The
size of the miscible bank was 8% of the P.V. In com-
parison with all tests run at lower temperature con-
ditions (70”F), this miscible bank was larger.
Sixth Experiment
The objective of this test was to compare the
combined effect of GOR in solution and temperature on
recovery and miscibility with the previous tests.
The sixth test was run at 120°F and used a GOR in
solution of 200 SCF/STB.
In comparison with experiment No.4, recovery
at breakthrough (66% of the OOIP) was higher in this
b.ighertemperature conditions (69.4% (’)O1p
teS. .&-,der
No miscibility was achieved during this test. There
was no evidence of miscibility from compositional pro-
files or production history.
Seventh and Eighth Experiment
The seventh test was a regular waterflooding at
120°F . The injection water was stopped at water
breakthrough. The eighth test was a tertiary oil
recovery by high pressure nitrogen injection. The
gas-oil ratio in solution was 575 SCF/STB. Vapor
samples from the displacement phase were taken and
analyzed. This eighth test was designed to observe
how the temperature would affect tertiary recovery
with a low saturation of oil and free water in the
reservoir.
Samples of vapor were very difficzlt to obtain
at the pre-established times during the injection
because only water was obtained at the sampling points
The few samples that were possible to analyize did
not show any compositional change,
Ninth Experiment
In this ninth experiment, a 10% P.V. propane
slug driven by high pressure nitrogen was used to
recover crude oil with a GOR in solution of 200 SCF/
STB . The production data for this test is presented
in Table 8. The crude oil recovery obtained in this
test was 88% of the OOIP.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The evaluation of the production history curves,
ternary diagrams, compositional profiles in all the
tests in this study showed consistently that three
zones exist in the displacement of light crude oil
5 ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY BY NITROGEN
by high pressure nitrogen injection. This pattern
was observed in all the displacements regardless of
miscible or immiscible conditions.
The secofidzom is the most important one in
understanding the mechanisms involved in building
up miscibility. The miscible bank may or may not be
developed in the second zone. The displacement is
immiscible until the miscible zone is created. Con-
sequently, the amount of reservoir fluid that is
immiscible displaced is primarily a function of the
concentration of intermediate components in the
original crude oil. In this study the miscible dis-
tance was found between 72 and 96 feet. The mis-
cible distance was observed to decrease with increas
ing temperature and GOR at constant injection pres-
sure. The shape of the compositional profile from
tests No.2 to 6 suggest that the vaporization is
very strong at the beginning of the process in the
leading edge of the second zone. This suggests that
the original composition of the crude oil is a key
factor for achieving miscibility at an early stage
of the displacement process.
The size of the miscible bank is directly
affected by both temperature and GOR in solution
a~~~rdinq to the results of this study. It is
obvious that when the gas-oil ratio in solution
increases, the concentration of intermediatecom-
ponents increases since more intermediate components
are available in the crude oil. The temperature
effect could be justified by the kinetic theory of
gases. The size of the miscible bank is found to
decrease substantially due to retrograde vaporiza-
tion when pressure increases.
The vaporization process is the most important
mechanism in the build up of miscibility in this
study . The results analyzed show that the following
actions should be considered to increase the crude
oil recovery using nitrogen injection. (1) Increas-
ing the density of the displacing gas phase, (2)
Decreasing the density of the displaced oil phase,
(3) Increasing viscosity of the displacing gas
phase, (4) Decreasing viscosity of the displaced
oil phase, (5)Reducing the surface tension in the
system, and (6) Improving the mutual volubility of
both phases at the leading edge of the second zone.
Effect of temperature and gas-oil ratio on high
pressure nitrogen injection
The resuits of ail cxperizva=tsperfwmed in
this study are summarized in Table 3. Figures 16
and 17 show the effect of temperature on displace-
ment process. The tests where temperature was the
unique independent variable showed that increases
in temperature produce increases in crude oil
recovery at breakthrough. As can be observed in
Figure 17, increments in temperature seem to fol-
low a pattern, creating a family of cun?es that
characterize the effect of temperature on crude oil
recovery in nitrogen displacement. The only con-
clusion that might have merit from Figures 16 and
17 is that a general increase in crude oil recovery
occurs when temperature and GOR in solution are
increased.
There appears to be no basis for assuming a
linear relation between temperature and crude oil
recovery beyond the range of temperature in this
SPE-12709
study . With this limitation in mind, and by using
the statistical analysis package (sAS) available at
Oklahoma University, a multiple regression equation
was obtained to predict crude oil recovery with both
temperature and GOR in solution as predictors. The
resulting equaticm is:
R = 0.5546756 + 0.00053705T + 0.00041454 GOR...(1)
Equation (1) predicts crude oil recoverY when
the injection pressure is 4000 psi. The correlation
coefficient for Equation (1) is .99590.
As demonstrated in Ahmed and Menzie’s work,
crude oil recovery is a function of injection pressur(
1 All the results obtained in this study were put
together with theirl results (Table 9) to produce a
multiple regression equation to predict crude oil
recavery. Temperature, pressure and gas-oil ratio
in the reservoir physical model used in this study
were used as predictors. The resulting equation is
as follows:
R = -0.164 + 0.0294 T + 0.0001198P + 0.000338 GOR
...(2)
Standard deviation of R about regression line
S equals 0.05672. The statistical minitab package
was used to obtain this equation. The coefficient
of determination of equation (2) is 77.3%.
The increase in crude oil recovery with an
increase in temperature in high pressure nitrogen
displacement could be explained as follows: Molecular
activity increases with temperature, producing more
interaction between phases. This increase in phase
interaction is translated into a faster vaporization
process during nitrogen displacement of crude oil and
an increase of equilibrium constants with temperature
That means, theoretically, that miscibility can be
obtained faster because vaporization is greater at
higher temperatures.
On the other hand, liquid viscosity is a strong
function of temperature. The viscosity decreases in
the liquid phase in the second zone will promote
miscibility at the leading edge of this zone. The
relative permeability for both liquid and vapor
phases is a function of temperature. At least Kro
:.
increases with temperatureL2. TO SUiil~~iZ2f =P.}’
significant increase in temperature helps the heavy
ends in the reservoir fluids to be more volatile in
contact with the nitrogen.
I?z Injection as a tertiary recovery method after
waterflooding
A regular waterflooding was performed in this
study . The only observation of merit is that the
temperature used in this study (120”F) appears not
to be high enough to cause a significant difference
in crude oil recovery for waterflooding.
The results obtained from the test where nitro-
gen was injected after waterflooding suggests that
when there are low saturations of crude oil and free
water in the reservoir model, the efficiency of the
6 —-.. HY
ENHANCED OIL RE( dM-tY. . .. NY1’KJGIiN
---------- --- . .“a -
s.PM-L.z/uY

nitrogen displacement phase appears to be poor. The NOMENCLATURE

early breakthrough of nitrogen may be explained if
the nitrogen follows the viscous fingers already FvF . Formation Volumetry factor, ~m
developed during waterflooding; consequently, the
mass transfer of intermediate components from the GOR . Gas-oil ratio, SCF/STB
residual oil to the vapor phase is severely limited.
The most important mechanism in the process, vapor- K . Permeability, md
ization, is reduced to,a minimum.
Kro . Oil relative permeability function
criiFieoil reccwery By pzcpzze slug driven by high
~ssure nitrogen injection L . Reservoir path length, ft.

The result of this test suggested very strongly Nz . Nitrogen

that the process’was fully miscible from the begin-
ning of the displacement. The high recovery (88% of OOIP . Original oil in placer cc
the OOIP) indicates that the propane slug process
could be a more efficient method than regular nitro- P . Pressure of the system, psi
gen iiijectioiir
especial~i if i< is mapared with the
first six tests performed in this study. The pro- Pv. . Pore volume, fraction
duction history of the test suggests a deterioration
of the propane slug with distance. R . Crude oil recovery, fraction
11 .
Crawford et al reported about the same crude s Standard deviation
oil recovery using a propane slug of 4.5% of the P.V
The test performed in this study used a propane slug SCF . Standard cubic feet
of 10% of the.P.V. This comparison suggests that
there must be a optimum slug size and optimum con- STB . Stock tank barrel
dition for stabilization of the propane slug.
T . Temperature of the system, ‘F
CONCLUSIONS AND SUNMARY
Xi . Mole fraction of ith component in liquid
Based on this research, the following conclu- phase
sions were made for the subject experimental condi-
tions: (1) The model is reliable for this type of Yi . Mole fraction of :th component in vapor
research. (2) The crude oil recovery increased as phase
temperature increased. (3) The crude oil recovery
increased as gas-oil ratio increased. (4) TWO multi- Bv . Liquid viscosity,
ple regression equations were developed to predict
crude oil recovery. (5) The effect of temperature I.&l . - .-..:=..:-”ne<+.,
uLquLu VL=X.V-..J ,

on high-pressure nitrogen displacement after water-

flooding seems to be not significant. (6) The REFERENCES
recovery of the discontinuous oil phase with high
saturations of mobile water seems to be inefficient 1. Ahmed, T.H.,: “Preliminary Experimental Results
when compared to displacement by high pressure of High-Pressure Nitrogen Injection for EOR
nitrogen injection. (7) The size of the generated Systems,” Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal,
miscible bank slightly increases with increases in (April 1983) VO1.23, No. 2, 339-348.
temperature and GOR in solution. (8) Distance to
form miscibility zone slightly decreases with 2. Alcocer, Carlos F.: “A Laboratory Study With a
increases in temperature and GOR in solution. (9) Light Crude Oil to Determine the Effect of High-
Laboratory results obtained in this study (Experi- -pressureNitrogen Injection Enhanced Oil Recovery,
ment #9) strongly suggests that high recovery might A Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Oklahoma,
be expected from nitrogen-driven propane slugs. 1982.
(10) A two-phase flowing zone was generated in all
of the high pressure nitrogen displacement tests. 3. Power, Harry H.: “Relative Propulsive Efficiencies
- . s .,_L. --, <- .&==o---
n--..n~-nDrive Onera-
This fact suggest that the initial composition of 01 ?ur aiia maLULaL GSS w -= -—-.

the displacement phase would be a key factor for tions,” Petroleum Transactions, AIME Vol. 82
earlier miscibility and higher recovery. (1929)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4. Koch, H.H., Jr.: “Miscible Displacements of

This investigation was partially funded by
Tenneco Oil Co. The rest of the funding was pro-
vided by the Department of Petroleum and Geological
Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. This
study was submitted by Dr. C. F. Alcocer in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for Ph.D. degree in
the Department of Petroleum and Geological Engin-
eering at the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Donald
Menzie directed this study.
Reservoir Oil Using Fiue Gas,:!PetrokiuiiI
‘1’rziis=
actions, AIME Vol. 213, (1958) 7-10.
5. Rushing, M.D. :’’High-PressureAir Injection,”
Petroleum Engineering (Nov. 1976)
6. Rushing, M.D. et al.:“Miscible Displacement by
High Pressure Nit~gen Injection,” 24t Annual
Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Ass. Mtg.
p~-~~. (~977),
7 ENHANCED OIL RECO ‘ERY BY NITROGEN SPE12709

7. Rushing, M.D. et ai: ,,u<-L-c.Y-*c,,Yo

=Ay.1.--------Nitroqen 10. Yarbrough, L. and Smith, L.R.: “Solvent and
or Air May be Use~for Miscible Displacement Driving Gas Compositions for Mi.SC$D~eSkig
in Deep, Hot Oil Reservoir,” SpE Paper #6445 Displacement,” SPEJ (Sept. 1979) 298-31O.
(April ;977) .
11. Carlisle, Larry E. and Czwfon2, Paul S.: “Oi
8. Peterson, A.V.: “Optimal Recovery Experiments Recovery by Nitrogen-Driven Propane Slugs,”
with N and COZ,l*Petroleum Engineer, (NOV.1978). Petroleum Engineering International, (Dee.198
2
86-84.
9. Hardy, Jay H. and Robertson, Nelson: “Miscible
Displacement by High-Pressure Gas at Block 31,”
Petroleum Engineer (Nov. 1975).

TABLE 1

SOUTH ELM UNIT OIL PROPERTIES

Avg. stock tank ‘API Gravity at GooF................. 42.4

o
Specific Gravity at 60 F............................. 0.814

Oil viscosity at 70°F. (CP)... . ...

_ ● ● ● ● S*.... ● ● ● ● . . ● *. 3.2

Formation Volume Factor at Pressure 2,000 PSI:

(With lTaturalGas) - gbl
At GOR = 2ooscF/sTB ...............**..****.*. 1.1=

At GOR = 400 SCF/STB.*.* .*. ..*.... . ....... 1.23&

● ● ● ●

At GOR = 575 SCF;STB..*. . ● ● ● .. . ● ● ● .. . . .9*** 1=2% bl

● ● ●
.B

Bubble Point Pressure at 70°F.

At GOR = 200 SCF/STB.*..,. ,.,.9*. *...,....** 750 PSI

● ●

At GOR = 400 SCF/STB .. . ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ** * . . ....

● ● ● ● ● 1550PSI

At GOR = 575 SCF/STB ********.*.*...******** 1790PSI

● ● ●

389
 TABLE ~

CHROMATOGRAPHICANALYSIS OF FIELD NATURAL GAS

Ssmple collected at: South Lone Elm Field

Noble County, Oklahoma

Sampled and run by: CU

Chromatography
run conditions

2CC of sample
65-00-00-65-10
65-200-160

Carrier Gas: Helium, 55 cc/rein.

Paper Speed: 4 cm/min.

COMPOSITION MOL%
78.32
c1
C* 11.32
4.96
C3
i-c4 .75
N-C4 2.49
i-c5 .’79
N-C5 .98
C6+ .36
99.99

TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF EXPERIOfENTS
(High-pressureN2 Injection)
OIL GRAVITY 42.4° API
= TEMP.°F GOR ‘o
—. ‘w FVF
—— STOIP RECOVERY TYPE PRESSURE

1. 72 575 77.0 23 1.29 689.92 83% MISCIBLE VARIABLE

2. 69.5 575 76.38 23.62 1.29 621.75 81.1% MISCIBLE 4000

3. 70.5 400 78. 22 1.2 762.50 75.4% MISCIBLE 4000

69..5 .-A
8ZW W- 9Z f.? ~Q9 Q(-J
●
66,0% INMISCIBLE 4000
4. II* ~z

5. 120 575 80.2 19.8 1.29 647.28 84.5% MISCIBLE 4000

6. 120 200 80.88 19.12 1.1 738.18 69.4% INMISCIBLE 4000

7. 120 575 80.2 19.8 1.29 652.71 68.8 INMISCIBLE VARIABLE

8. 120 575 25.0 75.0 1.29 203.71 10.2 INMISCIBLE 4000

9. 120 200 79.0 21.0 1.1 747.27 88.9 MISCIBLE 4000

SP E12709
 TABLE4
HIGH PRESSURE NITROGEN INJECTION
- EXPERIMENT #2
Iniection Pressure : 4000 PSIG
CUMULATIVE OIL CUMULATIVE OUTLET
TIXE ATT
WAJA
mmrq-.
. ..”-” ~~~Qv~RY PRODUCED PRESSURE
(MIN) (cc) GAS
(% OOIP) (SCF) (PSIG)

o -- -- -- 2000
20 21 0.034 .08 2000
30 30 0.048 .11 2000
60 56 0.090 .20 2010
90 83 0.134 .30 2000
120 108 0.174 .39 2005
150 136 0.219 .49 2000
175 160 0.257 .58 2000
200 183 .294 .66 2000
240 220 .354 .80 2010
255 232 .373 .84 2000
300 272 .438 .98 2000
330 303 .487 1.10 2000
345 316 .508 1.14 2005
390 356 .573 1.29 1995
420 384 .618 i.39 2000
450 412 .663 1.49 2000
480. 436 .676 1.57 2000
495 454 .730 1.64 2005
510 480 .766 1.74 2000
540 502 .798 1.87 2000
550 503 .809 1.90 2000
N.
L

BREAKTHROUGH
~g~ %nA
-.. ,811 12.5 2000

!CABL8~: CHROIIIATOGRAPH ANALYSIS OF VAPOR SAMPLES - E)E’ERIKENT#2

TEMPERATURE: 69.5°F:INJlSYlION
PRESSURE: 4000 PSI; GOR: 575 SCF/STB

SANPLEAATPOINT SAKPL~AT POINT SAMPLE$T POINT SAMPLE~T FOINT

PVOF S2 INJECTED (%) 15 17 26 30 45 50 55 65 72 74-s0 B2 85 qo
E2 52.3 71.9 8’7.7 33.2 60.65 84.34 27 53.00 80.94 8.5 14,8 42 87.55

c1 30.1 18.06 7.2 45.1 22.1 7.2 ‘40.2 27.2 11.4 52.26 50.3 35 6.I
C2 6.1 4.21 2.8 8.1 7.2 5.~ 13.4 6 1.0 14.3 12.1 8.2 2.1
C3 3.54 2.4 1.1 6.I 5.05 .27 9.5 6.0 4.5 10.8 9.5 6.2 2.3
C4 2.17 .41 ●2 1.2 .8 .05 1.6 1.1 .16 1.8 1.75 1.1 0.35
N-C4 2.25 1.19 .5 1.4 .75 .15 1.6 1.2 .15 1.81 1.70 1.2 0.45
“C5 .58 .35 .1 .61 .25 .01 .8 .57 .00 1.42 f.1 .7 .*5
N-(&j 1.05 .45 .1 .45 .15 .00 .9 .85 .00 1.32 1.25 .5 .15
C6 + 1.91 .95 .3 3.85 2075 .65 5.% .42 ● 18 7.8 7.5 5.1 .85

SP E127U9
 TABLE 6 TABLE 7

HIGH PRESSURE NITROGEN INJECTION DATA HIGH PRESSURE NITROGEN INJECTION DATA
EXPERIMENT #3 EXPERIMENT #4
Injection Pressure: 4000—. PSIG Iniection Pressure: 4000 PSIG
CUMULATIVE OIL CUMULATIVE PRESSURE CUMULATIVE OIL CUMULATIVE OUTLET
TIME
TIME OIL RECOVERY PRCIDUCED GAS OUTLET OIL PRODUC. RECOVERY PRODUCED GAS PRESSURE
(MIN) (psIG)
(MIN) PRODUCTION (% OOIP) (SCF) (PSIG) (cc) (% OOIP) (SCF)
(cc) o 0 -- 0 2000
o 0 0 0 2000 39 20 0.02 0.05 2000
38 35 0.0459 .09 2005
73 50 0.06 0.06 2000
49 46 0.0603 .12 2000
65 70 0.0918 .18 2000 97 70 0.09 0.09 2000
87 98 0.12852 .25 2000 135 100 .12 0.13 2000
103 112 0.14689 .28 2000
170 136 .17 0.17 2000
123 132 0.1731 .33 2000
156 172 0.225 .43 2000 227 180 .22 0.23 2000
176 200 0.263 .50 2000 262 220 .27 0.28 2000
214 225 0.295 .57 2000
300 254 .31 0.32 2000
230 245 0.32 .62 2010
261 265 0.347 .67 1995 345 300 .37 0.38 2000
277 280 0.367 .71 2000 .40 2000
370 320 0.40
280 300 0.393 .76 2000
396 338 .42 0.42 2000
218 320 0.4196 .81 2000
340 350 0.459 .88 2000 440 378 .47 0.48 2000
362 360 0.472 .90 2000 2000
480 413 .51 0.52
408 400 0.524 1.01, 2000
521 450 .56 0.56 2000
426 415 0.544 1.051 2000
467 468 0.613 1.17’ 2000 554 480 .59 0.60 2000
488 489 0.641 1.23 2000 .66 2000
611 530 0.66
‘a 2000
508 520 0.681 1.31L
IJ 620 530.1 8.51 2000
539 548 0.178 1.38 2000
-T-I
~ 580 568 0.744 1.4:3 2000 N2 BREAKTHROUGH
Q 590 575 0.754 1.4!5 2000
~ 600 575.5 .- 1.8f8N2 BREAKTHROUGH
3
 TABLE 8

PROPANE SLUG DRIVEN BY HIGH PRESSURE

NITROGEN INJECTION--EXPERIMENT #9
Injection PreSSUre: 40GG PSIG

CUMULATIVE CU14UL. TEMPERATURES (“F) OUTLET

TIME OIL PROD. GAs PRESSURE
(~~N) [cc) (SCF) (1) (2) (3) (4) (PSIG)

o 0 0 120 118 118 118 2000

20 18 0.02 122 120 118 118 2000

24 22 0.03 118 117 119 119 2000

31 30 0.04 120 120 119 118 2000

41 40 0.05 119 118 119 118 2000

95 100 .13 119 118 119 118 2000

140 135 .17 120 121 120 120 2000

280 282 .31 120 120 120 120 2000

342
350 .39 120 121 121 120 2000

430 430 .50 120 12.0120 120 2000

580 535 .65 118 118 119 119 2000

750 660 .83 120 120 121 121 2000

758 662 .835 121 120 121 120 2000

765 665 .84 120 118 120 118 2005

770 667 1.9 119 118 120 119 2000

TABLE 9
DATA SET USED TO PROPOSED EQUATIONS (1) & (2)

TEMPERATURE RECOVERY PRESSURE GAS-OIL RATIO

(T) (R) (P) (GOR)
72.000 0.830000 5000.00 575.
69.500 0.811000 4000.00 575.
70.500 0.755000 4000.00 400.
69.800 0.660000 4000.00 200.
120.000 0.845000 4000.00 575 ●

120.000 0.694000 4000 00

● 200.
70.000 0.800000 4000.00 575.
70.000 0.860000 5000.00 575.
70.000 0.540000 3000 00
● 575 ●

70.000 0.720000 3700.00 575 ●

70 000
● 0.590000 5000.00 o.
sPE127ti9
 ..+..

mum 1: SMN4TIC
0?fWK ==IMUITAL !
Wlmm mm Ill THIS UOSI

OIL RECOVER1
z OOIP

— mum
CUMULATIVEGAS PRODUCEDVS OILFRACTIONRECOVSRY

-mm
ml
4

r
Imwuinlm 72 r
cow 67s m?/slm

2000

I 900

I aoo

A
1700
z
.
; 1600
8
. 1s00
a
g , Uoo

~ 1300

v
= 1200
a
o 1100
*
~ 1000

1
900

000

700

‘“”~
0.0 0.1 0.2 . . . .
mm!
-40M?S.I
OIL RECOVEFI1.
X 00IP
—m78r
GOfi 6’M 8cr/m ncm 5
PRODUCED GOR VS OILRECOVERY
550

I /-
A
5OO
PISUSS 6
./ lb
i
Uso SECONDmERlm
c
:
cOmsITIOs.u PROFILES AT
~ Uoo
; S#MLJNC POINT “D”
: 350
E . N2, Cl, C2 at Scale B
C3, C4, C5, C6+ ac Scale A
: 300
c’ ~
L
n 250
c .
0 1 /
v 200
[

! 150

‘\ /

g.
..
>
‘L!~
0 so 100 150 200 2s0 300 350 ’400 Uso 500 550
1, ~
TIME UI!M1
0
.m .80 .s0
CUMULATIVEOIL?EtOVERY VS TIME %PV N2 lNICCTED

SPE1
 .... .
-4000 m
ImPnAm 08.5r
am 176Sc?m

550

go 1 r
‘4s0

1/’’”/
cu
n 400
u
~
1 350
;
E
~ Soo

:
“ 2s0
:
~ 200
:
1 150

i ml /

‘:~ . .... ,.
0 50 100 !50 2;0 250 300 350 UOO ’450 500 550 600
TIME INIMI

?IGLals
FIGURE
7
CUMUIATIVEGAS PRODUCED VS OIL RECOVERY
CUMULATIVE OIL RECOVERY VS TIME

Pm.m..
?mmlmlllm& ammr
CQW678 8cv/m

r
1
Uooo I

“v
35003

I
o J
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 O.u
OIL RECOVER,.
Q.5
?. OOIP
0.6 0’7 ‘“a
I n- Ei

mum 9 ,“ II* IMJICICO ,a

PEODUCED GOR VS OIL RECOVERY

FIGURE 11
noms 12
SECOND EXPERU4EWP sm.” KmfaInm
—Y D- REPWCUCINC mwmr DI1OMMRmm=ml w
c.x!TW1TIOBAL CIUWES AT
cD5QoS1T1DKALQIAWES AT sumrmo mm w.
SAUPLINO POIWT “C”
m. PRESSURE: 4oaa F.*$ mmsm.x OP
cRITrciL
mum
TU@ERA=: 69.5° ?
GOR: 515 9CPIST8.

\ lam+”
9****” “ w a . l*e*of.+
 FIGOSI 13 B

FWJPZi SXPERK34SST ?lGURX It

,4
TF.RNASYDIAGPAM SSPSESSNTIUG ?3?TH SKPFXIRSST

CSASSES AT
COI4POS1TIONAL IWMFCISITIORLL ~O?lLES AT

WLING POIS’3‘W’ 3AWL111G MIST ‘W

cm: 5n Sc?hm
GOR: 200 SCF/STE Llu. FnEssLmE: Cal Pal
a-
lNJ. PSSSSUSJ: 4W0 ?S1
10
% Tmp~Amk ‘~”v”
~,-5

13
80
U2 (scale A)
se
%
C,.5 (s..1. B)

c: ( W,,l. i)
40

so

I .7 .*
1
.0 t.
I

PC)RE vOLUME MI INJECTED

FIGURE 16

I
.s0

.80 -
1 FRACTIONAL

..-~”-::
CRUDE OIL RECOVSRY VS.
It?J . PF03WJRE: 4030 PSI
TStW_m

/-

600
.70 - --
-“”-z==-””
500 /---
.60 -

Uoo

.50-

300

.40-
200

0 00R . 575 SCF/STR

.30- 0 WR -400 SCF/S’3B
100

O GOR . 200 RcF/STR

,20- o ASMSDIS RRSULTS

0
700 800
(GOR - 575 SGF/S9B)
100 200 300 VOO 500 600
0
TIME 1111
Nl

.10-

Cumulative 01LfiC8VERY VS TIME

.#o
to

SP E1270