SPE 141241

EoS Modeling for Two Major Kuwaiti Oil Reservoirs

Moudi Fahad Al-Ajmi, Kuwait Oil Company, Peter Tybjerg, SPE, Calsep A/S, Claus P. Rasmussen, SPE,
Calsep A/S, Jawad Azeem, Calsep FZ-LLC

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference held in Manama, Bahrain, 25–28 September 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Two fluids with extensive routine PVT and miscible gas injection EOR data from two different major Kuwaiti oil
fields are presented. Eight component EoS models were developed for the two fluids using the volume corrected Soave-
Redlich-Kwong equation of state.
A sensitivity study has been conducted on the routine PVT and EOR data for both fluids using multiple linear
regressions. The critical temperatures and critical pressures were found to be the most sensitive parameters when modeling
routine PVT data, while the EOR data was found to be more sensitive towards changes in acentric factors and binary
interaction parameters.
Both routine PVT and EOR data was matched very well with the developed EoS models. With an accurate match of
the critical points in the Swelling Test experiments and the near-critical compositions in the Equilibrium Contact and Multiple
Contact experiments, the MMPs of the two reservoir fluids were matched very well predictively without further parameter
adjustments.

Introduction
The global demand for oil is projected to increase by 37% from 86 million barrels per day in 2006 to 118 million
barrels per day in 2030 (EIA, 2007). At the same time the discoveries of easy accessible, conventional oil reserves are
projected to stagnate or decline (ASPO, 2007). To meet demands global oil production must be increased either through
utilization of unconventional oil resources or by increasing the yields from existing fields. The latter may be achieved through
application of enhanced recovery methods as for example miscible gas injection EOR.
Kuwait Oil Company (KOC) is currently planning application of miscible gas injection EOR to two different major
Kuwaiti oil fields using CO2 rich injection gases. Compositional reservoir simulation studies must be carried out to evaluate
how much the recovery could possibly be increased by use of miscible gas injection. The accuracy of the reservoir simulation
results is dependent on the EoS models for the oils and their ability to accurately emulate the phase behavior during miscible
gas injection EOR.
EoS models for oils produced using primary recovery methods must accurately describe pressure depletion effects,
i.e. liberation of the gas dissolved in the oil. To develop such EoS models routine PVT data covering Constant Mass
Expansion, Differential Liberation, and Separator Test data is sufficient. EOS models for oils produced using miscible gas
injection EOR must further provide a good representation of gas injection effects e.g. vaporization of oil into the gas. To
develop EoS models for such purposes Swelling Test, Equilibrium Contact, Multiple Contact, and Slim Tube experiments are
furthermore required.
Two oils have been sampled from two different major Kuwaiti oil fields. Extensive routine PVT and EOR data has
been measured for both oils and will be used to develop EoS models. Christensen (1999) has shown that routine PVT data can
be matched by adjusting only the critical temperatures and critical pressures of the heavy end pseudo-components. However,
miscibility in an oil reservoir undergoing miscible gas injection develops through a critical point and it is therefore a
requirement for any EoS model to be used for simulating miscible gas injection processes that the critical point on the
Swelling Test saturation point curve is matched accurately (Negahban et al., 2010).
It will be investigated if additional fluid parameters besides critical temperatures and critical pressures must be
adjusted to achieve an accurate match of both the routine PVT and EOR data. It is furthermore to be investigated whether
accurate matches of the critical points in the Swelling Test experiments and the near-critical phase splits and properties in the
2 SPE 141241

Equilibrium Contact and Multiple Contact experiments are sufficient to predictively match the measured minimum miscibility
pressures (MMP).

Compositional Analyses and Routine PVT and EOR Data for Two Oils From Two Major Kuwaiti Oil Fields
The compositions of the two fluids (F1 and F2) and the CO2 rich injection gases applied in the EOR experiments are
shown in Table 1. The reservoir fluid compositions have been analyzed to C36+ using gas chromatography and the C7+
molecular weights and liquid densities have been determined from measured average values for the liquid from a flash of the
bottom hole sample to standard conditions.
Tables 2 to 5 show Separator Test, Constant Mass Expansion, Differential Liberation, and Viscosity data for the F1
and F2 fluids, which type of data in the following, will be referred to as routine PVT data. The saturation points of the F1 and
F2 fluids are found to be 87.5 bar at 350.4 K and 171.0 bar at 353.7 K, respectively.
Table 6 shows Swelling Test data using the CO2 rich gases in Table 1 as injection gases. For both Swelling Test
experiments it is seen that the saturation point at the last Swelling Test stage is a dew point. The critical composition is
therefore to be found for a molar gas/oil mixing ratio between those of the two last stages in each experiment.
Table 7 shows results of an Equilibrium Contact experiment carried out for F1 using the injection gas in Table 1.The
experiment was carried out at the reservoir temperature for a near-critical composition and two pressures, one at and one
below the MMP. No Equilibrium Contact experiment was carried out for F2.
Table 8 shows the results of forward Multiple Contact experiments carried out for F1 and F2 with the injection gases
in Table 1. The experiments were designed to provide information about the phase split at near-critical conditions while still
having enough gas from one equilibrium stage to bring forward to the next stage. The experiments were carried out at
pressures close to the observed MMPs.
Table 9 shows Slim Tube results for the MMPs for F1 and F2 using the injection gases in Table 1. The MMP for F1 is
found to be 157.9 bar, while for F2 miscibility is seen at the saturation point of 171.0 bar.
A description of the above PVT experiments has been given by Pedersen and Christensen (2006).

EoS Model Development for F1 and F2 for Use in Miscible Gas Injection EOR
Saturation points are key properties to match in EoS modeling. Otherwise the EoS model will not simulate the correct
number of phases at pressures near the saturation point. Accurate simulation results for the bubble points are also a
prerequisite for accurate simulation results for the produced reservoir fluid compositions and percentage recoveries.
The most important properties to match for a Constant Mass Expansion experiment are liquid densities and relative
volumes. The latter is typically matched well before regression and will not require any weighting during regression. It is not
in general recommended to assign regression weights to compressibilities and Y-factors. The development in compressibility
with pressure is essentially determined by the functional form of the equation of state and regression will seldom significantly
influence the match. Rather than paying attention to the Y-factor it is found to be more important to match Differential
Liberation and Separator Test experiments.
Oil formation volume factors, solution gas-oil ratios, and liquid densities are the most important properties to match
for a Differential Liberation experiment. The compressibility factor (Z factor) of the gas is difficult to match because of the
general nature of cubic equations of state. The same applies for the gas formation volume factor, which is a related property.
Finally, it is usually not needed to assign any weight to the gas gravity to get a good match.
The Swelling Test experiments conducted for F1 and F2 provide information on the critical point after a single
contact between reservoir fluids and injection gases. Since the MMP is the lowest pressure at which a miscible zone develops
in the reservoir after multiple contacts between reservoir oil and injection gas, and miscibility develops through a critical point,
an accurate match of the critical point on the Swelling Test saturation point curve (Negahban et al., 2010) is a prerequisite for
matching the MMP.
The Equilibrium and Multiple Contact experiments provide data about phase compositions and phase properties at
near-critical conditions after a single or multiple contacts between reservoir oils and injection gases. These experiments are
therefore valuable supplements to the Swelling Test experiments, and must accordingly also be matched well.
The Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation of state (Soave, 1972) with volume correction (Peneloux et al. (1982) and
Jhaveri and Youngren (1988)) was selected for both reservoir fluids, which were characterized using the method of Pedersen et
al. (1992). It splits up the C36+ fraction into carbon number fractions from C36 to C80 assuming the logarithm of the component
mole fraction to be linearly decreasing with carbon numbers. This assumption has been found to be valid for extended
compositional analyses to C80 (Pedersen et al., 1992). The viscosity model of Lohrenz et al. (1964) was selected to model the
viscosity experiments for F1 and F2.
To prevent a prohibitively high computation time in subsequent compositional reservoir simulations, the total number
of components in the final EoS models was not to exceed eight. As gases rich in CO2 are to be injected into the reservoirs, it
was further decided to keep CO2 as a separate (non-lumped) component. The fractions from C7 to C80 were lumped into four
pseudo-components of approximately equal weight amounts. N2 and C1-C6 were lumped according to K-factors simulated at
the bubble point of the reservoir fluids at the reservoir temperature. For both F1 and F2, N2 and C1 had the highest K-factors
and were lumped together. C2, C3, iC4, and nC4 had similar K-factors and were lumped together (C2-C4), and likewise with iC5,
nC5, and C6, which were lumped into a C5-C6 fraction.
SPE 141241 3

All routine PVT data could be matched after marginal adjustments of the coefficients in the property correlations used
to assign critical temperatures and critical pressures to the heavy end pseudo-components (Christensen, 1999). The regression
algorithm applied was the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm as proposed by Marquardt (1963). However, neither the Swelling
Test, nor the Equilibrium Contact, nor the Multiple Contact data was matched satisfactorily using this approach.
A sensitivity analysis of the critical temperatures (Tc), critical pressures (Pc), acentric factors (ω) of the heavy end
pseudo-components and of the binary interaction parameters (BIP) between CO2 and the heavy end pseudo-components was
conducted. The method applied was multiple linear regressions to simulated routine PVT and EOR data. The simulated data
have been included in a full factorial design where the pseudo-component parameters have been treated as four factors (Tc, Pc,
ω, BIP), where each factor is taking three levels. The ‘Standard’ level is taking the parameters assigned by the characterization
procedure of Pedersen et al. (1992) and the ‘Low’ and ‘High’ levels are determined by decreasing and increasing the assigned
standard parameters by 10%, respectively. Four factors (k), each at three levels, result in a Full Factorial design of 34 = 81
simulation runs.
The objective was to identify the most sensitive component parameters when modeling EOR data while the same
parameters should only marginally affect simulation results for routine PVT data. The solution gas/oil ration (Rs), in the
Differential Liberation experiment was chosen as the reference routine PVT property and the saturation pressure in the
Swelling Test experiment was chosen as the reference EOR property.
The 81 simulated data points are modeled using a multiple linear regression model as shown below:

(1)

where y is the property, α is the intercept, βk (k = 1,2, … p) are the parameters, xk are the factors Tc, Pc, and ω, and BIP, and ε is
an error. The p-values for the factors were found to be less than 0.05, which corresponds to a statistically significance on a
95% confidence interval in the multiple linear regressions.
Figures 1-4 show the results of the conducted multiple linear regressions. The parameter values are plotted for each
factor at each stage in both experiments for both F1 and F2. The larger the absolute value of a parameter, the more influencial
the parameter on the property modeled. As can be seen from Figures 1-2, the critical temperatures and pressures are the key
factors when describing solution gas/oil ratios. From Figures 3-4 it can be seen that the acentric factors and binary interaction
parameters between CO2 and the heavy end pseudo-components has more impact on the EOR data much than on the routine
PVT data, especially at high gas injection volumes where the CO2 concentration is higher.
The full regression scheme applied to develop the EoS models for F1 and F2 can be seen in Table 10.
The characterized and regressed fluid from the initial plus fluid regression to routine PVT data was used as the
starting point for three subsequent characterized fluid regressions to match the EOR data. For each fluid a final regression was
carried out to match the Viscosity experiments. For information necessary to reproduce the presented results, please contact
the corresponding author (pt@calsep.com). The resulting EoS models for F1 and F2 can be seen in Tables 11-12 and Tables
13-14, respectively.

Results of EoS Modeling

For information necessary on the match of the routine PVT data, please contact the corresponding author
(pt@calsep.com). Figures 5-12 show plots of experimental and simulated Swelling Test results for F1 and F2 using the
injection gases listed in Table 1. The simulated critical points are marked on the saturation point curves (Figures 6 and 10).
Table 15 shows simulated results and percentage deviations from experimental Equilibrium Contact data for F1 and
Table 16 simulated results and percentage deviations for the Multiple Contact data for F1 and F2.
Table 17 shows measured and predicted MMPs for F1 and F2. The predicted MMPs have been calculated using the
tie-line method of Jessen et al. (1998) as well as using a 1D slim tube simulation (Metcalfe et al, 1972; Pedersen et al., 1986).
The experimental MMPs were not included in the EoS development, which means the obtained simulated MMP values using
the EoS model are purely predictive.

Discussion of EoS Modeling Results

An excellent match of the routine PVT data was obtained after a single plus fluid regression using the coefficients in
the property correlations for critical temperatures and critical pressures as regression parameters (see Table 10). This
corresponds well with the findings in the conducted sensitivity analysis, which concluded that the critical temperatures and
critical pressures have the largest impact on the routine PVT data and that an adjustment of these will be sufficient to match
the routine PVT data. This initial plus fluid regression would have been sufficient were the developed EoS model (only) to be
used to describe natural pressure depletion production.
As can be seen from Figures 5-12 and Tables 15-17, the EOR data is matched very well for both developed EoS
models. The obtained match of the EOR data was achieved through three characterized fluid regressions for each fluid as
outlined in Table 10. From Table 10 it can be seen that it was necessary to include acentric factors and binary interaction
4 SPE 141241

parameters as regression parameters to match the reported EOR data. This corresponds well with the findings in the conducted
sensitivity analyses, which concluded that acentric factors and binary interaction parameters have a significant impact on the
EOR data and adjustments of these will be necessary to match the EOR data.
The critical points on the Swelling Test saturation point curves are matched accurately for both EoS models. The
simulation results also show a good match of the Equilibrium Contact data for F1 and the Multiple Contact data for F1 and F2.
The highest pressure stage in the Equilibrium Contact experiment for F1 was for a gas/oil mixing ratio, which at the saturation
point would form a critical mixture. The conditions at which the Multiple Contact experiments for F1 and F2 have been
conducted are also near-critical. It can be seen from Tables 15-16 that the developed EoS models for F1 and F2 satisfactorily
match the phase splits and phase properties of these near-critical fluid compositions. This is important to ensure that the
developed EoS models will accurately describe gas injection effects, i.e. vaporization of oil into the gas. A forward Multiple
Contact experiments follows the phase equilibrium at the gas-oil contact, which is where miscibility will develop for a 100%
vaporizing drive. Typically CO2 injection will lead to a combined vaporizing/condensing drive, but the Multiple Contact data
is still important to provide info about near-critical fluid phase behavior.
As can be seen from Table 17, the experimental MMP for F1 is predicted within 10% using the tie-line method as
well as 1D slimtube simulation, which can be considered a satisfactory match quantitatively considering the experimental
MMP was not included in the EoS development for F1. For F2 experimental miscibility was found from the saturation
pressure and up. Both the tie-line method and the 1D slim tube simulation finds a MMP for F2, which is lower than the
saturation pressure and the developed EoS model for F2 is therefore qualitatively accurate in the prediction of the MMP.

Conclusion
Two fluids with extensive routine PVT and EOR data from two different major Kuwaiti oil fields have been
presented. For both fluids EoS models with eight components were developed for the volume corrected Soave-Redlich-Kwong
equation of state.
During EoS model development focus was on matching the critical points on the Swelling Test saturation point
curves as well as the near-critical phase compositions and phase properties in the Equilibrium Contact and Multiple Contact
experiments without deteriorating the match of the routine PVT data.
This was achieved by conducting multiple linear regression analyses for both fluids, which revealed that the fluid
parameters having the largest impact on the routine PVT data were the critical temperatures and critical pressures. The EOR
data was found to be sensitive towards changes in acentric factors and the binary interaction parameters and the latter
parameters were used to fine tune the model to also match EOR data
Both routine PVT and EOR data was matched accurately with the developed EoS models. It was found to be
unnecessary to regress to slim tube MMPs. With an accurate match of the critical points in the Swelling Test experiments and
the near-critical phase behavior in the Equilibrium Contact and Multiple Contact experiments, the MMPs were matched well
predictively. This applied to the tie-line method as well as to a 1D slim tube simulation.

Nomenclature

Bg Gas formation volume factor

BIP Binary interaction parameter
Bod Differential liberation oil formation volume factor
c Volume shift parameter
EOR Enhanced oil recovery
EoS Equation of state
F1 Fluid 1
F2 Fluid 2
FVF Formation volume factor
GOR Gas/oil ratio
K Index
K-factor Equilibrium factor
MMP Minimum miscibility pressure
Mol% Mole percent
Mol Wgt Mole weight
Pc Critical pressure
Rel Volume Relative volume
Rsd Differential liberation solution gas/oil ratio
Sat P Saturation point
Tc Critical temperature
Vb Volume at bubble point
Vc Critical volume
x Factor variable
SPE 141241 5

y Property variable
Z Factor Compressibility factor
1D One dimensional

Greek letters
α Intercept
β Parameter
ε Error
ω Acentric factor

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to KOC for permission to publish the work and would further like to acknowledge CoreLab in Abu
Dhabi, United Arab Emirates for carrying out the experimental work.

References

APSO, Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, “The General Depletion Picture”, Newsletter No. 76, April, 2007, p. 2.

Christensen, P.L., ”Regression to Experimental PVT Data”, Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology, 38. 1999, pp. 1-9.

EIA, Energy Information Administration, “International Energy Outlook 2007”, DOE/EIA-0484, 2007, p. 2.

Jessen, K., Michelsen, M.L. and Stenby, E., “Global Approach for Calculation of Minimum Miscibility Pressure”, Fluid Phase Equilibria
153, 1998, pp. 251-263.

Jhaveri, B.S. and Youngren, G.K., “Three-parameter Modification of the Peng-Robinson Equation of State to Improve Volumetric
Predictions", SPE Res. Eng., August 1988, pp. 1033-1040.

Lohrenz, J., Bray, B.G. and Clark, C.R., ”Calculating Viscosities of Reservoir Fluids from Their Compositions”, J. Pet. Technol., 1964, Oct.,
pp. 1171-1176.

Marquardt, D.W., "An Algorithm for Least-Squares Estimation of Nonlinear Parameters", SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 1963, 11,
pp. 431–441.

Metcalfe, R.S., Fussel, D.D., Shelton, J.L., "A Multicell Equilibrium Separation Model for the Study of Multiple Contact Miscibility in
Rich-Gas Drives", Presented at the SPE-AIME 47th Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Tx, USA, 8 – 11 October, 1972.

Negahban, S., Pedersen, K.S., Baisoni, M.A., Sah, P., and Azeem, J., “An EoS Model for a Middle East Reservoir Fluid with an Extensive
EOR PVT Data Material”, SPE-136530-PP, Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi,
UAE, 1-4 November 2010.

Pedersen, K.S., Fjellerup, J., Thomassen, P. and Fredenslund, Aa., “Studies of Gas Injection Into Oil Reservoirs by a Cell-To-Cell
Simulation Model”, SPE15599, Presented at SPE ATCE, New Orleans, LA, USA, 5-8 October, 1986.

Pedersen, K.S, Blilie, A.L., and Meisingset, K.K., “PVT Calculations on Petroleum Reservoir Fluids Using Measured and Estimated
Compositional Data for the Plus Fraction”, I&EC Research, 1992, 31, pp. 1378-1384.

Pedersen, K.S. and Christensen, P.L., “Phase Behavior of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids”, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, 2006.

Peneloux, A., Rauzy, E., and Fréze, R., “A Consistent Correlation for Redlich-Kwong-Soave Volumes”, Fluid Phase Equilibria 8, 1982, pp.
7-23.

Soave, G., “Equilibrium Constants from a Modified Redlich-Kwong Equation of State”, Chem. Eng. Sci. 27, 1972, pp. 1197-1203.
6 SPE 141241

Component F1 F2 F1 Injection Gas F2 Injection Gas

Mol% Mol Wgt Density Mol% Mol Wgt Density Mol% Mol%
g/cm3 g/cm3
N2 0.293 0.273 0.030
CO2 0.223 0.323 59.660 59.700
C1 21.657 36.084 10.300 10.900
C2 6.758 8.370 7.690 7.590
C3 7.024 6.998 9.500 9.400
iC4 1.325 1.280
nC4 4.229 3.935 6.790 6.650
iC5 1.817 1.638
nC5 2.680 2.412 6.060 5.730
C6 4.146 3.390
C7 4.114 291 0.8945 3.477 262 0.8799
C8 4.181 3.467
C9 3.698 3.174
C10 3.412 2.703
C11 2.954 2.256
C12 2.535 1.890
C13 2.332 1.682
C14 1.958 1.394
C15 1.854 1.312
C16 1.661 1.144
C17 1.431 0.974
C18 1.306 0.885
C19 1.259 0.845
C20 1.126 0.740
C21 0.997 0.662
C22 0.940 0.614
C23 0.845 0.540
C24 0.762 0.489
C25 0.727 0.457
C26 0.625 0.390
C27 0.587 0.375
C28 0.583 0.381
C29 0.542 0.329
C30 0.528 0.329
C31 0.541 0.300
C32 0.458 0.288
C33 0.440 0.256
C34 0.399 0.246
C35 0.391 0.223
C36+ 6.659 3.475
Table 1 Molar compositions of F1, F2, F1 injection gas, and F2 injection gas.
SPE 141241 7

F1
FVF
Stage Pressure Temperature GOR Gas Gravity Oil Density 3 3
3 3 3 Sep m /Sm
bar K Sm /Sm Air=1 g/cm

1 87.5 350.4 <----------- Sat Stage -----------> 1.190

2 3.8 310.9 45.2 0.901 0.8689 1.044
3 1.01 310.9 7.7 1.540 0.8771 1.018
F2
FVF
Stage Pressure Temperature GOR Gas Gravity Oil Density 3 3
3 3 3 Sep m /Sm
bar K Sm /Sm Air=1 g/cm

1 171.0 353.7 <----------- Sat Stage -----------> 1.392

2 30.3 310.9 78.4 0.697 0.7957 1.157
3 3.8 310.9 27.4 1.008 0.8183 1.083
4 1.01 310.9 15.7 1.609 0.8397 1.019
Table 2 Experimental Test Separator results for F1 and F2.
F1 F2
Stage Pressure Rel Volume Compressibility Density Pressure Rel Volume Compressibility Density
Bar V/Vb 1/bar g/cm3 bar V/Vb 1/bar g/cm3
1 449.2 0.9644 7.890E-05 0.8255 552.59 0.9495 1.002E-04 0.7532
2 414.7 0.9671 8.224E-05 0.8232 518.12 0.9529 1.050E-04 0.7506
3 380.2 0.9699 8.586E-05 0.8208 483.64 0.9564 1.101E-04 0.7478
4 345.8 0.9728 8.963E-05 0.8183 449.17 0.9602 1.157E-04 0.7449
5 311.3 0.9759 9.355E-05 0.8157 414.70 0.9641 1.217E-04 0.7418
6 276.8 0.9791 9.790E-05 0.8130 380.22 0.9683 1.284E-04 0.7387
7 242.3 0.9825 1.024E-04 0.8102 345.75 0.9727 1.356E-04 0.7353
8 234.4 0.9833 1.036E-04 0.8096 311.28 0.9774 1.437E-04 0.7318
9 207.9 0.9861 1.073E-04 0.8073 276.80 0.9824 1.526E-04 0.7280
10 173.4 0.9898 1.127E-04 0.8043 261.98 0.9846 1.566E-04 0.7264
11 138.9 0.9937 1.182E-04 0.8011 242.33 0.9877 1.624E-04 0.7241
12 111.3 0.9970 1.224E-04 0.7984 207.86 0.9934 1.732E-04 0.7199
13 104.4 0.9979 1.234E-04 0.7977 194.07 0.9958 1.775E-04 0.7182
14 97.5 0.9987 1.243E-04 0.7970 187.17 0.9971 1.796E-04 0.7173
15 90.6 0.9996 1.256E-04 0.7964 180.28 0.9983 1.816E-04 0.7164
16 87.5 1.0000 0.7961 173.38 0.9996 1.826E-04 0.7155
17 87.5 1.0003 170.97 1.0000 0.7152
18 87.0 1.0022 169.59 1.0024
19 86.7 1.0033 169.11 1.0033
20 86.7 1.0035 167.93 1.0054
21 85.8 1.0072 166.83 1.0074
22 84.4 1.0127 164.21 1.0124
23 81.9 1.0240 Y Factor 158.97 1.0231 Y Factor
24 77.4 1.0463 2.83 149.73 1.0448 3.16
25 70.1 1.0908 2.74 135.12 1.0883 3.01
26 59.5 1.1808 2.61 119.12 1.1536 2.83
27 46.7 1.3606 2.43 104.09 1.2404 2.67
28 36.0 1.6325 2.26 84.37 1.4172 2.46
29 27.4 2.0491 2.10 66.93 1.6840 2.27
30 22.0 2.5054 1.98 54.59 1.9963 2.14
31 17.3 3.1765 1.87 44.04 2.4222 2.03
32 13.2 4.2332 1.75 34.38 3.0657 1.92
Table 3: Experimental Constant Mass Expansion results for F1 at 350.4 K and F2 at 353.7 K. Vb is volume at bubble point.
8 SPE 141241

F1
Stage Pressure Oil FVF Bod Rsd Gas FVF Bg Oil Density Z Factor Gas Gas Gravity
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Bar m /Sm Sm /Sm m /Sm g/cm Air=1
1 87.5 1.231 60.6 0.7961
2 76.9 1.222 55.7 1.444E-02 0.7984 0.901 0.725
3 66.5 1.209 50.8 1.677E-02 0.8029 0.905 0.717
4 52.7 1.195 44.2 2.143E-02 0.8077 0.917 0.734
5 35.5 1.174 35.1 3.243E-02 0.8146 0.934 0.774
6 18.3 1.151 24.9 6.456E-02 0.8210 0.956 0.888
7 9.7 1.133 17.8 1.232E-01 0.8260 0.970 1.076
8 1.01 1.050 0.0 0.8554 1.743
F2
Stage Pressure Oil FVF Bod Rsd Gas FVF Bg Oil Density Z Factor Gas Gas Gravity
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Bar m /Sm Sm /Sm m /Sm g/cm Air=1
1 171.0 1.449 137.7 0.7152
2 145.8 1.407 120.9 7.260E-03 0.7257 0.851 0.738
3 118.2 1.363 102.4 9.090E-03 0.7369 0.864 0.730
4 83.8 1.309 78.5 1.315E-02 0.7513 0.885 0.733
5 49.3 1.255 55.4 2.311E-02 0.7658 0.915 0.772
6 21.7 1.204 35.1 5.452E-02 0.7799 0.951 0.897
7 11.0 1.176 25.5 1.097E-01 0.7876 0.971 1.099
8 1.01 1.058 0.0 0.8136 2.098
Table 4: Experimental Differential Liberation results for F1 at 350.4 K and F2 at 353.7 K.
F1 F2
Stage Pressure Oil Viscosity Pressure Oil Viscosity
bar cP bar cP
1 449.2 3.261 552.59 0.956
2 414.7 3.135 518.12 0.927
3 380.2 3.011 483.64 0.899
4 345.8 2.890 449.17 0.870
5 311.3 2.771 414.70 0.841
6 276.8 2.655 380.22 0.812
7 242.3 2.542 345.75 0.783
8 234.4 2.517 311.28 0.754
9 207.9 2.433 276.80 0.725
10 173.4 2.327 261.98 0.713
11 138.9 2.227 242.33 0.696
12 104.4 2.131 207.86 0.667
13 87.5 2.087 173.38 0.639
14 76.9 2.283 170.97 0.636
15 66.5 2.412 145.80 0.740
16 52.7 2.546 118.22 0.862
17 35.5 2.768 83.75 1.031
18 18.3 3.300 49.28 1.238
19 9.7 3.909 21.70 1.480
20 1.01 6.620 1.01 2.985

Table 5: Experimental Viscosity results for F1 at 350.4 K and F2 at 353.7 K.

SPE 141241 9

F1
Stage Mol% Gas/ GOR Sat P Saturation Swollen Volume/ Density
3 3 3
Initial Mol Oil Sm /Sm bar Point Initial Oil Volume g/cm
1 0.0 0.0 Bubble 1.0000 0.7961
2 25.0 28.7 110.5 Bubble 1.0761 0.7880
3 75.0 86.2 143.7 Bubble 1.2314 0.7729
4 125.0 143.6 165.9 Bubble 1.3916 0.7586
5 200.0 229.8 198.1 Bubble 1.6296 0.7434
6 225.0 258.4 209.6 Bubble 1.7082 0.7396
7 275.0 316.0 230.3 Dew 1.8656 0.7328
F2
Stage Mol% Gas/ GOR Sat P Saturation Swollen Volume/ Density
3 3 3
Initial Mol Oil Sm /Sm Bar Point Initial Oil Volume g/cm
1 0.0 0.0 170.4 Bubble 1.0000 0.7152
2 15.0 23.0 180.2 Bubble 1.0658 0.7101
3 30.0 45.9 187.8 Bubble 1.1321 0.7053
4 45.0 68.9 193.9 Bubble 1.1978 0.7014
5 80.0 122.5 203.9 Bubble 1.3566 0.6908
6 110.0 168.4 211.5 Bubble 1.4951 0.6825
7 125.0 191.3 215.1 Bubble 1.5658 0.6783
8 150.0 229.6 218.3 Bubble 1.6829 0.6723
9 165.0 252.6 221.2 Dew 1.7519 0.6696
Table 6 Experimental Swelling Test results for F1 at 350.4 K and F2 at 353.7 K. The compositions of the injection gases may
be seen from Table 1.

Temperature Pressure Gas/Liquid Gas Liquid Gas Density Liquid Density

3 3
K bar Molar Mixing Ratio Volume% Volume% g/cm g/cm
350.4 138.9 2.25 27.48 72.52 0.3656 0.7622
350.4 157.9 2.25 23.03 76.97 0.4651 0.7551
Table 7 Equilibrium Contact results for F1. The composition of the injection gas may be seen from Table 1.

F1
Stage Gas/Liquid Gas Liquid Gas Density Liquid Density Gas Mol Liquid Mol
3 3
Molar Mixing Ratio Volume% Volume% g/cm g/cm Wgt wgt
Original 2.77 33.78 66.22 0.4884 0.7586 45.1 95.3
1 2.00 13.81 86.19 0.3408 0.7378 37.9 92.6
2 1.75 34.71 65.29 0.308 0.7686 39.9 106.9
F2
Stage Gas/Liquid Gas Liquid Gas Density Liquid Density Gas Mol Liquid Mol
Molar Mixing Ratio Volume% Volume% g/cm3 g/cm3 Wgt wgt
Original 1.65 35.43 64.57 0.4489 0.7086 42.5 83.7
1 1.25 24.51 75.49 0.2975 0.6932 33.4 85.5
2 1 34.49 65.51 0.2272 0.7074 28.6 94.5
Table 8 Forward Multiple Contact results for F1 at 157.9 bar and 350.4 K and F2 at 176.8 bar and 353.7 K. The compositions of
the injection gases may be seen from Table 1.

Fluid Temperature Saturation Pressure MMP

K bar bar
F1 350.4 87.5 157.9
F2 353.7 171.0 171.0
Table 9 Experimental Slim Tube MMP results for F1 at 350.4 K and F2 at 353.7 K. The compositions of the injection gases may
be seen from Table 1.
10 SPE 141241

Regression
F1 F2
Steps

Plus fluid
Tc, Pc, c Tc
regression

Tc, Pc, ω
of C7+ , ω of C7+ ,
Characterized
and BIP and BIP of
regression 1
of CO2- CO2-C7+
C7+

Characterized
c of C7+ Tc, Pc
regression 2

Characterized
c of CO2 c of C7+
regression 3

Characterized
Vc Vc
regression 4

Table 10 Regression schemes for EoS model development for F1 and F2.
Component Mol% Mol Tc Pc ω c
3
Wgt K bar (cm /mol)
CO2 0.223 44.01 304.20 73.76 0.2250 6.06
N2+C1 21.949 16.17 189.43 45.78 0.0086 0.63
C2-C4 19.337 43.37 375.02 42.16 0.1541 5.02
C5-C6 8.643 76.94 482.76 32.21 0.2648 13.97
C7-C15 27.038 138.74 582.21 26.49 0.5568 8.38
C16-C27 12.268 282.82 732.49 14.41 0.8755 67.06
C28-C55 6.893 519.89 931.22 14.76 1.2543 -89.82
C56-C80 3.649 947.00 1350.45 12.59 1.0058 -178.21
Table 11 EoS model developed for F1 using volume corrected Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation of state to match routine PVT
and EOR data. Non-zero binary interaction parameters may be seen from Table 12.

Component CO2 N2+C1

CO2
N2+C1 0.1184
C2-C4 0.1200 0.0007
C5-C6 0.1200 0.0009
C7-C15 0.1880 0.0010
C16-C27 0.1701 0.0010
C28-C55 -0.0052 0.0010
C56-C80 0.1027 0.0010
Table 12 Non-zero binary interaction parameters (BIP) for use with the EoS model for F1 in Table 11.
SPE 141241 11

Component Mol% Mol Wgt Tc Pc ω c

3
K bar (cm /mol)
CO2 0.323 44.01 304.20 73.76 0.2250 3.03
N2+C1 36.357 16.13 189.82 45.86 0.0084 0.63
C2-C4 20.584 42.49 371.57 42.47 0.1514 4.86
C5-C6 7.440 76.89 482.51 32.22 0.2644 13.94
C7-C13 18.649 127.69 557.43 27.45 0.4064 13.18
C14-C23 9.109 243.63 759.09 18.44 0.9275 34.33
C24-C44 4.969 426.20 868.11 13.03 1.0984 21.54
C45-C80 2.569 847.14 1103.89 14.25 1.2602 -316.49
Table 13 EoS model developed for F2 using volume corrected Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation of state to match routine PVT
and EOR data. Non-zero binary interaction parameters may be seen from Table 14.

Component CO2 N2+C1

CO2
N2+C1 0.1189
C2-C4 0.1200 0.0004
C5-C6 0.1200 0.0006
C7-C13 0.1342 0.0006
C14-C23 0.1342 0.0006
C24-C44 0.0058 0.0006
C45-C80 0.0247 0.0006
Table 14 Non-zero binary interaction parameters for use with the EoS model for F1 in Table 13.
Pressure Gas Volume Liquid Volume Deviation Gas Density Deviation Oil Density Deviation
Deviation % 3 3
Bar % % % g/cm % g/cm %
138.91 27.48 +4.7 72.52 -1.7 0.3656 +0.6 0.7622 +2.7
157.87 23.03 +10.4 76.97 -2.7 0.4651 +1.9 0.7551 +2.0
Table 15 Simulated Equilibrium Contact results for F1. The percentage deviations are relative to the experimental data in Table
7.
F1
Stage Gas Deviation Liquid Deviation Gas Deviation Liquid Deviation Gas Deviation Liquid Deviation
Volume % Volume % Density % Density % Mol % Mol %
% % g/cm3 g/cm3 Wgt Wgt
Original 31.94 -5.4 68.06 +2.8 0.4810 -1.5 0.7435 -2.0 45.7 +1.4 91.8 -3.6
1 13.62 -1.4 86.38 +0.2 0.3449 +1.2 0.7346 -0.4 38.3 +1.1 92.4 -0.2
2 28.90 -16.7 71.10 +8.9 0.2662 -13.6 0.7527 -2.1 33.7 -15.5 105.1 -1.7
F2
Stage Gas Deviation Liquid Deviation Gas Deviation Liquid Deviation Gas Deviation Liquid Deviation
Volume % Volume % Density % Density % Mol % Mol %
% % g/cm3 g/cm3 Wgt Wgt
Original 31.08 -12.3 68.92 +6.7 0.4373 -2.6 0.7012 -1.0 42.6 +0.3 81.2 -3.0
1 23.12 -5.7 76.88 +1.8 0.3194 +7.4 0.6922 -0.1 35.2 +5.5 84.7 -0.9
2 31.81 -7.8 68.19 +4.1 0.2427 +6.8 0.7046 -0.4 29.7 +3.8 94.0 -0.5
Table 16 Simulated Forward Multiple Contact results for F1 and F2. The percentage deviations are relative to the experimental
data in Table 8.
Fluid Experimental MMP Tie-line MMP Deviation Slim tube MMP Deviation
bar bar % bar %
F1 157.9 142.5 -9.8 145.8 -7.7
F2 171.0 89.0 - 159.6 -
Table 17 Experimental Slim Tube MMP results for F1 at 350.4 K and F2 at 353.7 K. The compositions of the injection gases
may be seen from Table 1.
12 SPE 141241

3.00
2.00 2.00

Regression Estimates
Regression Estimates

1.00
0.00 ‐3.00
‐1.00
‐2.00 ‐8.00
‐3.00
‐4.00 ‐13.00
‐5.00
‐6.00 ‐18.00
9.70 bar 18.25 bar 35.49 bar 52.72 bar 66.51 bar 11.01 bar 21.70 bar 49.28 bar 83.75 bar 118.22 bar
Intercept 21.18 26.98 35.97 43.92 50.14 Intercept 32.77 42.23 61.30 83.42 106.57
Tc ‐1.80 ‐2.37 ‐3.48 ‐4.61 ‐5.58 Tc ‐3.91 ‐4.98 ‐7.70 ‐11.46 ‐16.05
Pc 1.89 2.15 2.21 2.09 1.93 Pc 2.93 3.35 3.49 3.06 2.10
w ‐0.19 ‐0.36 ‐0.80 ‐1.29 ‐1.75 w ‐0.67 ‐0.97 ‐2.00 ‐3.59 ‐5.66
BIP 0.000 ‐0.004 ‐0.004 ‐0.009 ‐0.004 BIP 0.00 ‐0.01 ‐0.01 ‐0.01 ‐0.03

Figure 1 Rs regression model at each stage in the Figure 2 Rs regression model at each stage in the Differential
Differential Liberation experiment at 350.4 K for F1. Liberation experiment at 353.7 K for F2.
50.00
60.00
45.00

40.00
50.00
35.00
Regression Estimates

Regression Estimates

40.00 30.00

25.00
30.00
20.00

20.00 15.00

10.00
10.00
5.00

0.00 0.00
0 Mole% 25 Mole% 75 Mole% 125 Mole% 200 Mole% 225 Mole% 275 Mole% 0 Mole% 15 Mole% 30 Mole% 45 Mole% 80 Mole%  110 Mole% 125 Mole% 150 Mole% 165 Mole%
Intercept 97.88 116.94 145.91 172.09 212.20 224.75 247.38 Intercept 166.77 172.47 177.82 183.08 196.48 209.80 216.83 228.50 235.26
Tc 9.18 11.32 17.47 27.73 45.42 50.67 59.74 Tc 18.03 19.05 20.44 22.27 28.65 35.42 38.86 44.28 47.26
Pc 11.75 13.52 18.53 28.13 45.69 50.39 57.67 Pc 20.43 20.79 21.56 22.87 28.78 35.94 39.42 44.46 46.97
w 7.14 8.59 12.91 21.05 36.52 41.13 48.92 w 12.49 13.07 13.96 15.26 20.55 26.90 30.19 35.33 38.10
BIP 0.02 1.16 3.44 6.72 12.39 14.06 16.89 BIP 0.03 0.90 1.69 2.49 4.69 6.86 7.94 9.62 10.53

Figure 3 Saturation Pressure regression model at each Figure 4 Saturation Pressure regression model at each stage
stage in the Swelling Test at 353.7 K for F1. in the Swelling Test at 350.4 K for F2.
SPE 141241 13

350

300

250
GOR, Sm³/m³

200

150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Mol% Gas/Initial Mol Oil

Figure 5 Experimental (dots) and simulated (line) results: Figure 6 Experimental (dots) and simulated (line) results: Sat P
GOR in Swelling Test experiment for F1 at 350.4 K. in Swelling Test experiment for F1 at 350.4 K. Critical point
marked by square.

1.80 0.950

1.70 0.900

1.60 0.850
Swollen Volume

Density, g/cm³

1.50 0.800

1.40 0.750

1.30 0.700

1.20 0.650

1.10 0.600

1.00 0.550

0.90 0.500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Mol% Gas/Initial Mol Oil Mol% Gas/Initial Mol Oil

Figure 7 Experimental (dots) and simulated (line) results: Figure 8 Experimental (dots) and simulated (line) results:
Swollen Volume in Swelling Test experiment for F1 at Density in Swelling Test experiment for F1 at 350.4 K.
350.4 K.
14 SPE 141241

300

250

200
GOR, Sm³/m³

150

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Mol% Gas/Initial Mol Oil

Figure 9 Experimental (dots) and simulated (line) results: Figure 10 Experimental (dots) and simulated (line) results: Sat P
GOR in Swelling Test experiment for F2 at 353.7 K. in Swelling Test experiment for F2 at 353.7 K. Critical Point
marked by square.

1.70 0.950

1.60 0.900

0.850
1.50
Swollen Volume

Density, g/cm³

0.800
1.40
0.750
1.30
0.700
1.20
0.650
1.10 0.600
1.00 0.550

0.90 0.500
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Mol% Gas/Initial Mol Oil Mol% Gas/Initial Mol Oil

Figure 11 Experimental (dots) and simulated (line) results: Figure 12 Experimental (dots) and simulated (line) results:
Swollen Volume in Swelling Test experiment for F2 at Density in Swelling Test experiment for F2 at 353.7 K.
353.7 K.