SPE

Society of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 18061

An Interpretation of the Displacement Behavior of Rich Gas

Drives Using an Equation-of-State Compositional Model
by J. Mansoori and S.P. Gupta, Amoco Production Co.
SPE Members

Copyright 1988, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 63rd Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
Houston, TX, October 2-5, 1988.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of information. contained in an a~stract submit~ed by the
author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed ~~the Society ?f Petroleum Engmee.rs and ~re s~bJect to correction by the
author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any pos1t1on of the Soc1ety of Petroleum Engmeers, lts.offlcers, or ~e11_1bers. Pape~s
presented at SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Perm1ss1on to copy 1s
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. The abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of
where and by whom the paper is presented. Write Publications Manager, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836. Telex, 730989 SPEDAL.
r
miscibility, the oil recovery did not increase sig-
ABSTRACT nificantly beyond that achieved at the slim tube ME.
This paper presents the results of a composi- Simulation results for the
tional simulation study to investigate the relation- condensing/vaporizing system were also compared with
ship between the displacement mechanism, the minimum those predicted by a classical condensing mechanism.
enrichment requirement, and the oil recovery effi- These comparisons showed that: a) for a classical
ciency for a rich gas system. The simulation condensing mechanism, the thermodynamic and the slim
results indicated that the displacement mechanism tube methods predicted the same minimum enrichment
over a wide range of solvent enrichment was governed requirement; b) at low dispersion the two mechanisms
by a condensing/vaporizing process; however, the showed similar displacement behavior; and c) higher
relative importance of the condensing or vaporizing values of dispersion had a bigger impact in reducing
mass transfer processes, and their impact on the the displacement efficiency of the
overall displacement efficiency, was a function of condensing/vaporizing mechanism compared with the
the enrichment level. For displacements simulated classical condensing process.
at or above the slim tube minimum enrichment (ME)
level (determined from the recovery breakover point INTRODUCTION
on a recovery versus enrichment plot), recovery was
high and the process behaved very similar to a clas- Hydrocarbon miscible gas flooding has long been
sical condensing mechanism. Displacements simulated recognized as a viable enhanced recovery method by
below the slim tube ME were less efficient; however, the petroleum industry. To improve the economic and
both condensing and vaporizing mass transfer proc- technical success for projects involving rich gas
esses contributed to the overall recovery effi- injection, it is essential to have a good under-
ciency. At enrichment levels considerably above the standing of the displacement mechanism and minimum
slim tube ME, the effect of the condensing mass enrichment requirement for achieving an efficient
transfer process on the displacement became less displacement.
significant and the behavior approached that of a
classical vaporizing mechanism. Traditionally, 1 ' 3 - 6 the displacement mechanism
of rich gas drives has been assumed to be via a con-
The slim tube technique for determining the ME densing process in which the intermediate components
requirement based on simulation results was further of the solvent enriched the reservoir oil toward the
compared with two other computational methods: one point of miscibility. However, the work of Stalkup 7
based on Hutchinson and Braun's multiple contact in 1965 and recent investigations 8 ' 9 have challenged
mixing, 1 and the other based on displacement behav- this traditional concept for some rich gas'displace-
ior at the limit of zero dispersion. 2 For this rich ments. Zick 8 showed that a very efficient oil
gas system, the minimum enrichment level predicted recovery can be achieved through a combined
by these methods was significantly higher than the condensing/vaporizing mass transfer interaction
slim tube ME and corresponded to conditions of ther- between the reservoir fluid and the injected sol-
modynamic miscibility development by a classical vent. His study was based on limited phase behavior
vaporizing mechanism. Despite such a high enrich- experiments and equation of state (EOS) calculations
ment requirement needed to achieve thermodynamic for a rich gas system. Novosad et al., 9 using slim
tube displacements and EOS calculations, claimed
References and illustrations at end of paper. that many Canadian rich gas projects are not con-

35
 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR OF
2 RICH GAS DRIVES USING AN EQUATION-OF-STATE COMPOSITIONAL MODEL
densing drives; high displacement efficiencies are
achieved via the extraction (vaporization) of hydro-
carbon components from the oil into the solven~,
rather than condensing the solvent components 1nto
the pil phase. In a recent experimental study,
Tiffin et al. 10 conducted displace~ent tests to spe-
cifically address the question of .rich gas displace-
ment mechanism. They concluded, based on the
compositional analysis of the core effluents, tha~
most of the oil was recovered by a mass transfer
process similar to a classical condens~ng ~echa~ism.
No evidence of the oil component vapor1zat1on s1g-
nificantly affecting the ultimate oil recovery was
detected.
With respect to the question ~f solvent.minimum
enrichment requirement for the des1gn of a r1~h g~s
flood, several techniques have been reported 1n ~he
literature. Although the method based on the sl1~
tube recovery versus solvent enrichment has been the
preferred approach, other techniques and their
interpretations! such as the use of pseudoternary
diagrams 11 ' 12 ' 3 multiple contact mixing calcula-
tions,1'~ and the method based on 1 PV recovery at
zero dispersion 2 have also been reported by some
investigators. The non~unique~ess of the ~nferred.
displacement mechanism and enr1chment requ1rement 1n
some of these techniques has been demonstrated by
Novasad et al. 9 Such in~onsistencies between vari-
ous methods proposed to predict solvent enrichme~t
requirement could have significant impact on proJect
economics.
The main objective of this paper is to present
computational results addressing the rel~tionship
between the rich gas displacement mechan1sm, the
enrichment requirement, and the displacement effi-
ciency. The role of the condensing a~d vaporizing
mass transfer processes between the o1l and the sol-
vent and the relative effect of each mechanism on
the ~verall displacement efficiency are discussed.
The minimum enrichment requirements predicted from
several techniques are compared for the rich gas
system studied. The re~ationships betwe7n these
enrichment levels and d1,splacement behav1or are
investigated. Furthermo,re, the simulated perform-
ance of this rich gas displacemen~ and the related
minimum enrichment calculations is compared with
those predicted by a cla~sical.condensing m7chanism.
Finally, the effect of d.1spers1on o.n such d1splace-
ments is addressed.
METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
The methodology adopted in this work consists
of the following steps: (1) an equation of state
(EOS)-based fluid description is developed to match
the experimental first contact and multiple contact
vapor-liquid phase equilibria.for an ~il(ric~ gas
system; (2) the developed flu1d ?e~cr1pt1~n 1s • fresh solvent with the oil whose composition is
incorporated into a fully compo91t1onal s1mulator,
the results of 1-D simulations are analyzed to
determine the mass tranafer mechanism at various
enrichment levels and to calculate the slim tube ME
requirement; (3) multiple contact f~ash.ca~c~l~tions
are performed to obtain thermodynam1c m1sc1b1~1ty
criteria for the same system to be compared w1th the
slim tube ME; and (4) the performance of this :ich
gas system is further compared ~ith a hypothet1c~l
fluid description tuned to pred1ct a thermodynam1c
36
SPE 18061
miscibility development by a classical condensing
mechanism.
The oil/rich gas system chosen for this inves-
tigation was reported by Stalkup in 1965. 7 This
fluid system was selected due to extensive vapor-li-
quid phase equilibria measurements and multiple con-
tact flash experiments. A summary of Stalkup's
experimental results is ~iven in the appendix.
The fluid description developed to match the
phase behavior data is based on a version of the
Redlich-Kwong e~uation of state reported previously
by Turek et al. 4 The C7+ fraction of the oil is
represented by seven pseudo-components whose proper-
ties are adjusted to produce an acceptable overall
match to the experimental data. A comparison
between the experiments and EOS predic'tions is also
presented in the appendix.
The simulator used throughout this work is the
generalized compositional model described earlier by
Young and Stephenson. 15 Recently, Shiralkar and
Stephenson 16 incorporated a physical dispersion for-
mulation into the model based on a new numerical
algorithm which drastically reduced the effects of
the numerical dispersion and grid orientation. All
simulations are conducted in 1-D using a constant
value of physical dispersion coefficient for a given
displacement. To simulate slim tube conditions, a
Peclet number (Pe) of 800 (equivalent to a disper-
sivity of 0.05 ft in a 40 ft long slim tube) is
used. Peclet number is a dimensionless parameter
defined here as L/a where L is system length and a
is dispersivity. Previous investigators have
reported Peclet numbers in the range of 1000 to 3000
for the slim tube. 17 ' 18 For the simulations pre-
sented here, increasing the Peclet number above 800
did not have a significant effect on the displace-
ment performance.
DETERMINATION OF THE SOLVENT MINIMUM ENRICHMENT
REQUIREMENT
The concept of miscibility development by a
multiple contact mixing mechanism between the reser-
voir oil and the injected gas was originally pre-
sented by Hutchinson and Braun. 1 A numerical
algorithm based on this technique w,as r~cently
developed and reported by Turek et al. The multi-
ple contact path proposed by Hutchinson and Braun 1
leads to the thermodynamic miscibility development
by one of two mechan~sms. In a class~cal vaporizing
mechanism, the original oil is repe,atedly contacted
by a vapor phase whose composition is continuously
changing throughout the process due to the
extraction (vaporization) of the intermediate compo-
nents from the oil phase. Conversely, in a clas-
sical condensing mechanism, thermodynamic
miscibility is developed by repeated contact of the
changing due to the condensing of the intermedia~e
components from the gas phase. The enrichment
level, or pressure, at which thermodynamic miscibil-
ity is first established as a result of the multiple
contact mixing process is here referred to as the
thermodynamic ME, .or thermodynamic MMP, respec-
tively.
A second approach for determining the solvent
ME requirement using 1-D simulation results was
SPE 18061 J. MANSOORI AND S. P. GUPTA
recently proposed by Stalkup. 2 The basic principle
of this technique 1s derived from the work reported
previously by Dumore et al. 20 They ~hawed, using
the method of characteristics, that .when a multiple
contact process develops miscibility in a piston-
like displacement at the limit of zero dispersion,
all the in-place oil should be recovered at exactly
one pore volume of the fluid injection. Since some
level of numerical dispersion is always present in
the finite difference approximation pf flow
equations, compositional simulators ca.n not exactly
predict the displacement behavior at zero disper-
sion. To overcome this numerical shortcoming, as
suggested by Stalkup, the simulated recovery at 1 PV
is calculated at several dispersion levels, and the
results are extrapolated to zero dispersion. The
lowest enrichment level at which 100% oil is recov-
ered after injection of .1 PV of the .displacing fluid
(at the limit of zero dispersion) determines the ME
requirement.
A third method for determining the minimum
enrichment requirement widely used in the industry
is by conducting slim tube displacements for a given
oil/rich gas system at several solvent enrichment
levels. In this technique, the oil ~ecovery at
1.2 HCPVI is plotted versus solvent enrichment, and
the point where recovery is high and it no longer
increases significantly with increased enrichment
level determines the slim tube ME requirement. The
minimum enrichment requirement predicted by these
three methods are compared in this investigation for
the oil/rich gas system reported by Stalkup. 7 Other
empirical methods of determining solvent enrichment
requirement, such as Benham I s corre 1 at1on,
• 3 are not
included in this study.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
1 - Effect of Gas Enrichment on Displacement
Behavior
The compositions of the oil and the rich gas
used in slim tube simulations were the same as oil 2
and rich gas 2 of Table 1 in Stalkup's paper. 7 The
gas enrichment level was changed by adding or sub-
tracting a 50/50 mixture of c2 and c3 from the base
gas. Compositional simulations were then conducted
at two pressures of 2500 and 3000 psi using gas
enrichments in the range of 43 to 69 mol% C2+. A
Peclet number of 800 was used for all simulations to
mimic slim tube conditions. Figure 1 shows the pre-
dicted oil recovery at 1.2 hydrocarbon pore volume
injected (HCPVI) at two displacement pressures of
2500 and 3000 psi plotted as a function of the
enrichment level. It is observed that recovery
first increases steeply with enrichment and then
levels of£. The intersection of th• two line seg-
ments drawn through the low and high recovery seg-
ments of the curves determines the simulated slim
tube ME requirement for each displacement pressure.
From Figure 1, minimum enrichments p£ about 55 and
50 mol% C2+ are required for this rich gas system in
order to achieve an efficient displacement perform-
ance at 2500 and 3000 psi, respectively.
These simulated slim tube ME's are now compared
with the thermodynamic ME's calculated from the
algorithm of Turek et al. 19 Figure 2 shows the pre-
dicted the.rmodynamic MMP versus solvent (C2+) mole
fraction. Two important observations are made.
37
3
First, for all the rich gases in Figure 2, thermody-
namic miscibility is predicted to be achieved by a
vaporizing mechanism. This is consistent with the
predicted shape of the pressure-composition -(P-X)
diagram of Figure A-1 showing a critical point to
the left hand side of the maximum 2-phase pressure. 9
Secondly, as the enrichment level is increased,
thermodynamic miscibility is developed at a lower
pressure. From Figure 2, the minimum enrichment
levels needed to achieve thermodynamic miscibility
at 2500 and 3000 psi are about 68 and 58 mol% C2+,
respectively. Compared with the predicted slim tube
ME's of 55 and 50 mol% C2+ at these pressures, it is
observed that this rich gas system requires consid-
erably higher enrichments (13 and 18 mol% higher C2+
at 2500 and 3000 psi, respectively) to achieve ther-
modynamic miscibility than that predicted by the
slim tube method.
The minimum enrichment calculations presented
above were also compared with the method of zero
dispersion proposed by Stalkup. 2 Figure 3 shows the
simulated recovery at 1 PV of solvent injection
plotted against the square root of inverse Peclet
number at various enrichment levels for the 2500 psi
displacement. Stalkup originally suggested using a
dimensionless gridblock size to represent dispersiv-
ity. This was because in his simulations, the
numerical dispersion (governed by the number of
gridblocks rather than the actual dispersion coeffi-
cient which is used here) was used to account for
the effect of dispersion. Based on the extrapolated
behavior shown in Figure 3, it is observed that a
minimum enrichment of 68.5 mol% C2+ is required to
achieve 100% recovery at 1 PV of injection at the
limit of zero dispersion. Hence, the criteria for
the development of thermodynamic miscibility based
on Hutchinson and Braun's 1 multiple contact mixing
agrees favorably with the method of zero dispersion.
Both of these techniques, however, predict ME
requirements significantly higher than the slim tube
technique. Similar results are expected for the
displacement at 3000 psi.
Although a significant difference exists
between various methods of determining ME require-
ment, it is noted from Figure 1 that increasing the
solvent enrichment beyond the slim tube ME does not
significantly affect the oil recovery performance
under slim tube conditions. The slim tube technique
gives the smallest estimate of the solvent minimum
enrichment requirement to achieve an efficient dis-
placement for this rich gas system.
2 - Comparison With Experimental Data
Stalkup 7 also reported the results of a limited
slim tube tests conducted in a sand-packed tube. At
3000 psi, miscibility development was first observed
for a rich gas containing 50.5 mol% methane with an
intermediate distribution similar to the rich gases
used for other phase behavior studies. 7 No explana-
tion was provided as to the criteria by which misci-
bility determination was established. Nevertheless,
comparing with the simulated performance at
3000 psi, it is noted that the experimental ME
agrees favorably with the simulated slim tube ME,
rather than the thermodynamic ME, or that based on
the method of zero dispersion (Figures 1, 2 and 3,
respectively).
 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR OF
4 RICH GAS DRIVES USING AN EQUATION-OF-STATE COMPOSITIONAL MODEL SPE 18061

The composition of various hydrocarbon frac-

3 - Mass Transfer Mechanism from Simulation Results
tions in the oil and gas phases throughout the
system at 0.52 HCPVI .is shown in Figure 5. The com-
The details of simulation results for the dis-
ponents were lumped to represent four groups of
placement at 2500 psi discussed above was further
light (C 1 , N2, C02), light intermediates (C2-Cs),
analy~ed for three separate enrichment regions : A)
middle intermediates (Cs-C3o) and heavy (C3o+) frac-
displacements between the slim tube ME of
tions. This type of lumping was used by Zick 8 as a
55 mol% C2+ and thermodynamic ME of 68 mol% C2+; B)
suitable tool for interpreting displacement behavior
displacements below the slim tube ME of 55.mol% C2+;
for a condensing/vaporizing system. Figure 5 shows
and C) displacements above the thermodynam1c ME of
different mass transfer regions of the transition
68 mol% c 2+. The mass transfer mechanisms in each
zone separated by a solid vertical line in the
of these three regions are discussed below.
figure. In the region to the right (toward the pro-
ducing end), the mole fraction of the light interme-
To facilitate the interpretation of the dis-
diate components (C2-Cs) in the oil phase increa~es
placement mechanism from sim';llated performa~c7, in
due to the condensing of these components from the
addition to saturation, dens1ty, and compos1t1onal
gas phase. This region is called the condensing
profiles the tie-line length within the 2-phase
region. In the region to the left, the behavior of
region w;s also calculated. At a fixed hydrocarbon
the middle intermediate (Cs-C3o) fractions in the
pore volume of rich g•~ ~nj7ction, the.tie-line
oil and the gas phase indicates some vaporization of
length between the equ1l1br1um phases 1n the 2-phase
these components from the oil into the gas phase;
region was calculated from:
the c2-C5 fractions of the oil as well as the light
and heavy ends (C3o+) (not shown in the figure)
remain unchanged. As a result of this vaporization
N 2
phenomenon, the solvent which was originally without
~ L{x - y )
Cs-C3o fractions reaches a maximum concentration of
TL --=1--=i_ _ i about 5 mol% at the point separating the condensing
.[2 from the vaporizing region •

In summary, the transition zone developed in

where x. and y. denote the mole fraction of compo-
this condensing/vaporizing displacement is made up
nent i in the ail and the gas phases respectively,
of two distinct mass transfer regions. In the con-
and N is the total number of components. Since this
densing region, the dominant mechanism is the trans-
definition uses mole fractions over the entire com-
fer of intermediate components (C2-.Cs) from the
position space, it is independent of the c~m~onent
solvent to the oil phase; in the vaporizing region,
lumping generally used to represent com~os1t1onal
mass transfer is controlled by the vaporization of
trajectories on ternary or quaternary d1agrams. The
(c 6 -c3o) components from the oil into the gas phase.
~2 in the denominator normalizes t~e.tie-li~e
The properties of the oil and gas phases approach
lengths with respect to the comROSltlonal d1stance
each other as these two regions merge to form a
between pure components.
near-critical region within the transition zone. As
shown in Figure 4, the tie-line length which is
A - Displacement Mechanism between the Slim Tube ME
indicative of the degree of compositional difference
and Thermodynamic ME
between the oil and the gas phase reaches a small
value of about 0.01 for this particular displacement
The displacement mechanism in this region, as
simulated between the slim tube ME and thermodynamic
discussed below, showed characteristics very similar
ME.
to a classical condensing drive. The effect of com-
ponent vaporization on the overall displacement
The compositional trajectory for this displace-
efficiency was insignificant.
ment is also plotted on a quaternary diagram shown
Consider the simulation at 2500 psi and at the in Figure 6. The .overall comp~sitional path first
enters the 2-phase condensing regio,n, similar to a
enrichment level of 63.5 mol% C2+ which is between
classical condensing mechani'sm, then travels into a
the slim tube ME of 55 mol C2+ and the thermodynamic
2-phase vaporizing region toward the injected sol-
ME of 68 mol% C2+. The oil saturation, phase den-
vent concentration. Sin~e the path is very close to
sity, and tie-line length profiles for this run at
the dew point surface, very little re~idual oil is
0.52 HCPVI are shown in Figure 4. It is observed
left behind (Figure 4).
that phase densities within the transition zone
first converge and then diverge toward the back end
Since the trans~tion zone contains both con-
of the transition zone. The tie-line length and the
densing and vaporizing -;a-ss transfer regions, the
density difference reach their minimum ~t some po~i­
overall displacement efficiency is inherently a
tion within the transition zone. The o1l saturat1on
function of both types of mass transfer processes.
profile changes rapidly as it passes thro';lgh the
The contribution of each type to the overall recov-
constriction point separating the converg1ng and
ery efficiency can be qualitatively evaluated by
diverging regions, le•ving a very small residual oil
calculating the remaining stock tank oil in place
behind. The fact that phase properties tend to con-
(fraction of OOIP) at a fixed time at several grid-
verge somewhere within the transition zone is indic-
blocks within the condensing and vaporizing regions
ative of a condensing/vaporizing me.chanism, as
from the inlet to the o~tlet. The results of the•e
discussed by Zick. 8 In a classical co.ndensing mech-
calculations are sho.wn in Figure 7 at 0. 52 HCPVI.
anism, phase properties approach ea.ch other at the
For this highly efficient displacement simulated
tail end of the transition zone, whereas in a vapor-
above the slim tube ME, most of the .oil is displaced
izing mechanism, this phenomenon takes place at the
as a result of the mass transfer procesa within the
leading edge oi the transition zone.
condensing region of the transition zone. The

38
 SPE 18061 J. MANSOORI AND S. P. GUPTA
vapor1z1ng region does not contribute a great deal
to the displacement efficiency. Hence, the simu-
lated slim tube displacement behavior for solvent
enrichments above the slim tube ME acts very similar
to a classical condensing mechanism.
B - Displacement BehaYior Below the Slim Tube ME
For this enrichment range, the displacement
mechanism is still governed by a
condensing/vaporizing type process, however, both
condensing and vaporizing mass transfer processes
affect the oil displacement efficiency.
Consider a case simulated at 2500 psi and
43.5 mol% C2+ enrichment which is below the slim
tube ME of 55 mol% C2+ (Figure 1). Th~ phase prop-
erties and the quaternary diagram for this displace-
ment at 0.39 HCPVI are shown in Figures 8 and 9,
respectively. Similar to the previous case, the
displacement behavior is one of
condensing/vaporizing; however, the displacement is
less efficient due to a much bigger difference
between the fluid properties at the point of transi-
tion from condensing to the vaporizing region.
The contribution of each mass transfer region
on the overall displacement efficiency at 0.39 HCPVI
is shown in Figure 10. This behavior shows that the
effect of condensing (region to the right of the
minimum tie-line) and vaporizing (region to the
left) mass transfer processes on the oil displace-
ment is equally significant for displacements below
the slim tube ME. This figure also shows that
despite a lower cumulative recovery (86% OOIP,
Figure 1) at 1.2 HCPVI, a very small amount of resi-
dual oil is predicted over some initial distance
from the injection point. This phenomenon is purely
a throughput effect caused by many pore volumes of
solvent contacting the reservoir fluid over a short
distance; it is not a good measure of the overall
displacement efficiency which is typically deter-
mined at 1.2 HCPVI.
C - Displacement Behavior Above ~he Th~rmodynamic
Miscibility
A displacement at 68.5 mol% C2+ solvent enrich-
ment (above the thermodynamic ME of 6S mol% C2+) was
also ~imulated by the compositional model. Similar
to the simulation of a solvent between the slim tube
ME and thermodynamic ME, this displacement is also
very efficient with recovery in excess of 99% OOIP,
as shown in Figure 1. Unlike the previous case,
however, the transition zone is completely made up
of a single vaporizing region (Figure 11). The ori-
ginal reservoir oil remains single phase due to a
high solubility of the rich solvent before entering
a vaporizing region over a path very near the dew
point surface. As a result, a very small amount of
residual oil is left behind .the front. This behav-
ior is mechanistically identical to a ~lassical
vaporizing mechanism as observed by previous inves-
tigators for gas displacements, such as C02, above
the minimum miscibility pressure. 6 Further simu-
la~ions showed that the condensing region began to
disappear at about 68 mol% C2+ enrichment which is
in excellent agreement with the thermodynamic ME
predicted by either multiple contact method of
Hutchinson and Braun, 1 or that derived based on 100%
recovery at 1 PV at the limit of zero dispersion.
39
5
In summary, it is observed from the quaternary
diagra~s of Figures 6, 9, and 11 that as the enrich-
ment level is increased from a low efficient region
below the slim tube ME to a very efficient displace-
. ment at the simulated slim tube ME and beyond, the
size of the condensing region is reduced and the
displacement is transformed from a
condensing/vaporizing mechanism to a classical
vaporizing mechanism at and above the thermodynamic
ME. The displacement efficiency below the slim tube
ME is controlled by both condensing and vaporizing
mass transfer effects; those above the slim tube ME
and below the thermodynamic ME behave similar to
classical condensing gas drive with negligible
vaporization effects; displacements at or above the
thermodynamic ME are all by a classical vaporizing
mechanism, leading to contact miscible displacements
at much higher enrichment levels.
4 - Comparison with a Classical Condensing Mechanism
To perform a qualitative comparison of slim
tube simulations and minimum enrichment calculations
between the condensing/vaporizing and a classical
condensing mechanism, a second fluid description was
developed using the same set of experimental data.
An additional restriction was further imposed on
this fluid description to predict thermodynamic mis-
cibility by a condensing mechanism. As discussed in
the appendix, with the added miscibility
restriction, it was not possible to match all the
experimental data, most notably the dew-point region
of the P-X diagram (see Figure A-1). Nevertheless,
some comparison of the performance of these two dis-
placement mechanisms is presented in the following
sections.
A - Comparison of the Minimum Enrichment Requirement
When the displacement behavior is characterized
by a classical condensing mechanism, all three meth-
ods of minimum enrichment determination discussed
previously predict the same enrichment requirement.
This differs from a condensing/vap,orizing mech.anism
where, as shown before, the slim tube ME was consid-
erably leaner than that predicted by the thermody-
namic criteria. Figure 12 compares the simulated
slim tube oil recovery at 1.2 HCPVI versus C2+
enrichment as predicted by the classical condensing
and the condensing/vaporizing mechanism discussed
earlier. Both mechanisms predict a slim tube ME
(break in recovery) at about 55 mol% C2+ enrichment.
Furthermore, for the classical condensing mechanism,
multiple contact calculations of Hutchinson and
Braun predicts a minimum enrichment of 55 mol% C2+
for ~he development of thermodynamic miscibility at
2500 psi. In addition, when the simulated oil
recovery at 1 PV of injection is plotted ver~us the
square root of inverse Peclet number (Figure 13),
100% recovery is achieved with a solvent of approxi-
mately 55 mol% C2+ at the limit of zero dispersion.
In summary, therefore, these observations show that
for a classical condensing mechanism, all three
methods predict the same minimum enrichment require-
ment for the oil/rich gas system studied.
 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR OF
6 RICH GAS DRIVES USING AN EQUATION-OF-STATE COMPOSITIONAL MODEL
B - Comparison of the Displacement Performance at
Low Dispersion
The two mechanisms show similar behavior for
displacements at low dispersion. The predicted oil
recovery performance and the oil saturation profiles
by the two descriptions under slim tube conditions
(Pe = 800) at an enrichment level of 58.5 mol% C2+
(above the slim tube ME, but below the thermodynamic
ME) are shown in Figure 14. For this low dispersion
simulation, the recoveries are comparable and the
only minor difference is in the residual oil satu-
ration left behind the front. The
condensing/vaporizing process, because of the vapor-
ization effect, leaves a very small amount of resi-
dual oil behind, whereas the classical condensing
process displaces 100% of the contacted oil. Over-
all, the two mechanisms predict very similar dis-
placement behavior at low dispersion.
C - Comparison of Displacement Performance at High
Dispersion
At higher levels of dispersivity, the recovery
efficiency predicted by the condensing/vaporizing
mechanism suffers more dramatically than that of the
classical condensing mechanism. The simulated per-
formance at 2500 psi and 58.5 mol% C2+ solvent
enrichment is compared in Figure 14 at a dispersion
level equivalent to Peclet number o£ 24. At this
higher dispersivity, the oil recovery predicted by
the condensing/vaporizing process is somewhat more
affected than the classical condensing process.
The differences in the predicted behavior can
be explained by observing the shape of the in situ
oil saturation profiles, as shown in Figure 15.
Firstly, compared with the low dispersion simu-
lation, the condensing/vaporizing process predicts a
higher level of ~esidual oil saturation behind the
gas-oil transition zone. In contrast, the classical
condensing mechanism achieves 100% recovery effi-
ciency. The increase in the residual oil saturation
at higher dispersion predicted by the
condensing/vaporizing mechanism is consistent with
Stalkup observations. 2 A second factor affecting
the level of oil recovery at a given HCPVI for this
rich gas system is the difference in the distrib-
ution and magnitude of the oil saturation within the
transition zone. For the condensing/vaporizing pro-
cess, the saturation profile is more smeared and,
hence, the lower oil phase mobility (due to smaller
oil saturation) within the 2-phase region results in
a lower cumulative oil recovery at 1.2 HCPVI. Based
on these observations, therefore, higher dispersiv-
ity has a greater impact on reducing the displace-
ment efficiency of a condensing/vaporizing process
compared with a classical condensing process.
Whether or not these differences are significant
under actual field condition should be answered by
conducting field scale compositional simulations.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1 - Simulated slim tube displacements of an
oil/rich gas system exhibited a .
condensing/vaporizing behavior over a wide range of
solvent enrichments. The relative importance of the
condensing and vaporizing mass tra~sfer effects was
a function of the enrichment level. Displacements
at or above the slim tube minimum enrichment were
40
SPE 18061
very efficient and the oil recovery was mainly con-
trolled by a mass transfer process similar.to a
classical condensing mechanism; the effect of vapor-
ization was negligible. Displacements below the
slim tube ME were less efficient; however, both the
condensing and the vaporizing mass transfer proc-
esses influenced the recovery efficiency. Displace-
ments simulated at enrichment levels much above the
slim tube ME had characteristics similar to a clas-
sical vaporizing mechanism.
2 - The slim tube ME predicted by the
condensing/vaporizing mechanism was compared with
that obtained from the thermodynamic miscibility
criteria of Hutchinson and Braun. 1 For this rich
gas system, a considerably higher enrichment was
required to achieve thermodynamic miscibility. The
onset of transition from a condensing/vaporizing
mechanism to a classical vaporizing mechanism, as
predicted by the simulator, was in excellent agree-
ment with the thermodynamic ME.
3 - For the rich gas system studied, the ther-
modynamic ME agreed favorably with the minimum
enrichment needed to recover 100% of the oil at one
pore volume of solvent injection at the limit of
zero dispersion.
4 - Despite requ1r1ng a much higher enrichment
level to achieve thermodynamic miscibility, increas-
ing the solvent enrichment beyond the slim tube ME
did not further increase oil displacement efficiency
under slim tube conditions.
5 - For a classical condensing mechanism, the
three methods of minimum enrichment determination
(slim tube, thermodynamic criteria, and 1 PV recov-
ery at zero dispersion) predicted the same enrich-
ment requirement.
6 - Higher dispersion had a greater impact on
reducing the displacement efficiency of a
condensing/vaporizing mechanism than that of a clas-
sical condensing mechanism.
REFERENCES
1. Hutchinson, C. A., Jr., and Braun, P. H.,
"Phase Relations of Miscible Displacement in
Oil Recovery," AIChE J. (1961), v. 7, 64.
2. Stalkup, F. I., "Displacement Behavior of the
Condensing/Vaporizing Gas Drive Process,"
SPE 16715, presented at the 62nd Annual Techni-
cal Conference and Exhibition of the SPE held
in Dallas, TX, September 27-30, 1987.
3. Benham, A. L., Dowden, w. E., and Kunzman,
W. J., "Miscible Fluid Displacement- Predic-
tion of Miscibility," Pet. Trans. AIME,
vol. 219, p. 229-1960.
4. Rutherford, W. M., "Miscibility Relationship in
the Displacement of Oil by Light Hydrocarbons,"
SPEJ, 340-346, Dec. 1962~
5. Clark, N. J., Schultz, W. P., and Shearin, H.
M. "Condensing Gas Drive, Critical Displace-
ment Process -- New Injection Method Affords
 SPE 18061 J. MANSOORI AND S. P. GUPTA
Total Oil Recovery," Pet. Eng. (Oct., 1956) 28,
B-45
6. Stalkup, F. I., Jr., "Miscible Displacement,
Monograph Series, vol. 8, SPE of AIME, Dallas,
Texas, 1983.
7. Stalkup, F. I., "Using Phase Surfaces to
Describe Condensing - Gas - Drive Experiments,"
SPEJ, September 1965, 184-188.
8. Zick, A. A., "A Combined Condensing/Vaporizing
Mechanism in the Displacement of Oil by
Enriched Gases," SPE 15493, presented at the
61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of the SPE held in New Orleans, LA,
October S-8, 1986.
9. Novosad, Z. and Costain, T., "New Interpreta-
tion of Recovery Mechanisms in Enriched Gas
Drives, 11 Jour. Cana. Pet. Tech. (March-April
1988) Vol. 27, No 2, 54-60.
10. Tiffin, D. L., Sebastian, H. M., and Bergman,
D. F., "Displacement Mechanism and Water
Shielding Phenomena for a Rich ~as/Crude Oil
System," paper SPE 17374 presented at the
SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium held in
Tulsa, Oklahoma, April 17-20, 1988.
11. Cohen, G. S. and Shirer, J. A., "Prediction of
Conditions Necessary for Multiple-Contact Mis-
cibility, 11 paper SPE 12111 presented at the
58th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
San Francisco, CA, Oct S-8, 1983.
12. Pederson, K. s., Fjellerup, J., Thomassen, P.,
and Fredenslund, A., "Studies of Gas Injection
into Oil Reservoirs by a Cell-to Cell Simu-
lation Model," paper SPE 15599 presented at the
61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition
of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in
New Orleans, LA, Oct. 5-8, 1986.
13. Wu, R. S., Batycky, J. P., Harker, B., and
Rancier, D., "Enriched Gas Displacement: Design
of Solvent Compositions," Jour. Can. Pet. Tech.
(1986) Vol. 25 55-59.
14. Turek, E. A., Metcalfe, R. s., Yarborough, L.
and Robinson, R. L., "Phase Equilibria in
C02-Multicomponent Hydrocarbon Systems : Exper-
imental Data and an Improved Prediction Tech-
nique," SPEJ (June 1984) 308-324.
15. Young, L. C. and Stephenson, R. E., "A General-
ized Compositional Approach for Reservoir Simu-
lation," SPEJ (Oct. 1983) 727-742.
16. Shiralkar, G. S. and Stephenson, R. E., "A Gen-
eralized Formulation for Simulating Physical
Dispersion a.nd a New Nine-Point Scheme," paper
SPE 16975 presented at the 1987 Annual Techni-
cal Conferen.ce and Exhibition of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers held in Dallas,
Sept. 27-30.
17. Gardner, J. W., Orr, F. M., Patel, P. D., "The
Eifect of Phase Behavior on C02 Flood Displa~e­
ment Efficiency," JPT (Nov. 1981) 2067-2081.
41
7
18. Renner, T. A.: Amoco Production Company, Pri-
vate Communication.
19. Turek, E. A., Luks, K. D., and Baker, L. E.,
"Calculation of Minimum Miscibility Pressure,"
SPE/DOE 14929 presented at the SPE/DOE Fifth
Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery held in
Tulsa, OK, April 20-23, 1986.
20. Dumor~, J. M., Hagoort, J., Risseeum, A. S.
"An Ana 1 yt1cal
. Mod~l for One-Dimensional, '
Three-Component Condensing and Vaporizing Gas
Drives," SPEJ, Apr. 1984,
21. Turek, E. A.: Amoco Production Company, Private
Communication.
APPENDIX
Stalkup phase behavior studies
The compositions of the two reservoir fluids
and rich gases (labeled 1 and 2) used in Stalkup's
phase behavior study are given in Table 1 of
Stalkup's paper. 7 A comparison of the measured and
calculated P-X diagrams using Stalkup's reservoir
fluid 2 and rich gas 2 is shown in Figure A-1. As
observed, the equation of state which predicts a
condensing/vaporizing displacement mechanism is able
to match the experimental data with reasonable accu-
racy.
The tuning of the EOS parameters was achieved
by breaking the C7+ fraction into seven pseudocompo-
nents •. Critical temperatures, critical pressures,
acentr1c factors, and the interaction parameters
between the light and the heavy ends were adjusted.
Additional vapor-liquid phase equilibrium stu-
dies for various mixtures of reservoir fluids and
r~ch gases were also reported by Stalkup. These
m1xtures were analyzed for phase compositions phase
volume fraction, and saturation pressure meas~re­
ments. Generally good agreement wa~ observed
between the experimental data and EOS prediction~.
A summary of the results of these multiple contact
studies is discussed in the following.
1. Rich gas 2 was added to the reservoir fluid 2
in an equilibrium cell 7 to obtain a mixture
containing 66 mol% rich gas. This mixture
(labeled 1-1') was then flashed at 3000 psi and
phase compositions were measured. Results are
compared in Table A-1. The agreement between
the experimental and measured compositions are
satisfactory. Experimentally, mixture 1-1 1 had
a bubble point pressure of 3150 psi which also
agrees well with the calculated value of
326 7 psi.
2. The liquid part of mixture 1-1 1 was further
contacted with additional rich gas 2. This
mixture, labeled 2-2', indicated an exper-
imentally measured dew point pressure of 4300
psi, and a 3.4 volume percent liquid at
3000 psi. Based on EOS calculations, the best
overall agreement with the properties of this
mixture was achieved by mixing 68 mol% rich gas
2 and 32 mol% reservoir fluid 2. The calcu-
lated volume fraction at 3000 psi was 2.3%
 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE DISPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR OF
8 RICH GAS DRIVES USING AN EQUATION-OF-STATE COMPOSITIONAL MODEL SPE 18061

(versus 3.4% experimentally), and a dew point

of 4000 psi (versus 4300 p~i experimentally).
As shown in Table A-2, the measured and calcu-
lated compositions are in a very good agree-
ment.

3. A mixture of reservoir fluid 1 and rich gas 1

(Table 1, Stalkup's paper 7 ) was prepared exper-
imentally which had a bubble point of 3050 psi.
To match this bubble point pressure, EOS calcu-
lations indicated that the overall mixture
should contain 60 mol% rich gas 1. This mix.-
ture which had a calculated bubble point pres-
s~re of 3066 psi (versus 3050 psi
experimentally) was then flashed at 3000 psi.
The predicted compositions of the liquid phase
(labeled 4 1 ) is compared with the experimental
data, as shown in ~able A-1. No vapor phase
analysis was reported by Stalkup.

4. The liquid portion from the previous test (mix-

ture 4') was further contacted with rich gas 1.
The overall mixture (labeled 5-5 1 ) exhibited a
dewpoint at 3\00 psi. The best agreement with
the results of this test was achieved by mixing
42 mol% gas with 58 mol% of the reservoir
fluid. This mixture resulted in a calculated
dewpoint pressure of 3357 psi and gave 37%
liquid fraction at 3000 psi, which compares
very well with 35-40% liquid volume fraction
reported experimentally. The composition of
phases is compared in Table A-1.

Fluid Description Predicting Classical Condensing

Mechanism

In this investigation, it was observed that all

fluid descriptions predicting a critical point on
the P-X diagram to the left of the maximum two-phase
pressure also predicted thermodynamic miscibility by
the vaporizing mechanism, according to Hutchinson
and Braun's multiple contact calculations. Since
the experimental P-X diagram had a critical point to
the left of the maximum 2-phase pressure, it soon
became evident that it was not possible to match the
entire range of the experimental data and, at the
same time, obtain a classical condensing mechanism
for this rich gas system. Nevertheless, for a qual-
itative comparison with the condensing/vaporizing
system, a classical condensing system was developed
with a minimal effort by matching some of the exper-
imental data.

In order to develop a description predicting a

classical condensing mechanism using the Redlich-
Kwong equation of state, it was necessary to further
reduce the number of pseudo-components of the C7+
~raction. This procedure is not new and, in fact,
has been applied in the past to generate fluid
descriptions which predict classical condensing
mechanism for miscibility development. 21 The calcu-
la~ed and measured P-X diagram for this system is
compared in Figure A-1. Although the match to the
bubble point region is reasonably well, a very poor
match is achieved for the dew point regie~. No fur-
ther attempts were made to match the vapor-liquid
equilibrium compositional data with this fluid
description.

88158ART0144

42
 SPE 18 0 6 1

TABLE A-1
Comparison of Calculated and Experimental Vapor-Liquid
Equilibrium Phase Compositlons7 ·

MIXTURE 1-1' MIXTURE 2-2'

Vapor Phase, mol % Liquid Phase, tnol % Vapor Phase, mol % Liquid Phase, mol %
Component ~ EOS ~ EOS Component ~ EOS ~ EOS
N2 0.36 0.24 N2 0.28 0.13
c. 48.11 51.93 37.21 37.71 c, 44.74 44.13 21.14 21.45
C0 2 0.94 0.89 C0 2 1.19 1.29
c2 18.41 19.00 19.68 19.74 c2 26.15 23.79 25.98 25.13
Ca 19.67 17.62 19.77 19.53 Ca 23.24 22.08 24.92 22.40
fc4 3.93 3.52 4.76 4.50 {'c4 3.01 3.17 3.91 3.93
nC 4 nC4
{iC5 1.61 1.36 2.43 1.96 {'C5 0.65 0.81 1.14
nC 5 1.44
nc 5
Cs 0.58 0.59 1.24 0.96 Co 0.07 0.30 0.91 0.50
C7+ 7.69 4.68 14.91 14.47 C7+ 2.14 4.25 21.70 24.03
C7 +MW 147 159 197 194 C7 +MW 156 183 280 288
C7 + Sp. Gr. 0.7963 0.7863 0.8228 0.8289 C7 + Sp.Gr. 0.80 0.8011 1.088

MIXTURE4' MIXTURE 5-5'

Vapor Phase, mol % Vapor Phase, mol% Liquid Phase, mol%
Component Expl'l EOS Component ~ EOS ~ EOS
N2 N2 0.18 0.13
c, 37.81 38.34 c, 40.68 .44.24 34.50 34.96
C0 2 C02 0.61 0.60
c2 21.91 20.31 c2 24.85 23.68 22.87 24.23
·ca 19.05 18.42 Ca 19.36 20.01 21.79 21.05
{'c4 4.72 4.67 {'c4. 3.93 3.54 4.36 4.09
nC 4 nC 4
{'C5 1.89 2.16 {'C5 2.17 1.29 1.49 1.61
nC 5 nC5
Cs 0.82 0.73 co 0.32 0.38 0.79 0.50
C7+ 13.80 15.37 C7+ 8.69 6.07 14.20 12.83
C7 +MW 190 190 C7 +MW 175 176 202
C7 + Sp.Gr. 0.8277 0.8258 C7 + Sp.Gr. 0.8136 0.8 0.8448

1.02 4000
a..
0
0 0.98
·a;
0 a.
co
a.t
0.94 a.: 3500
~
>
a..
0.90 ~

u legend 0
.EaJ 3ooo
:I: 0.86
• 2500 psi displacement c:::::
~ >-
....co 0.82
o 3000 psi displacement
"0
0
E
> 0.78 Q; 2500 - ------ - ----- - - -- - -,- --------- -
I

Q; .c I
0 .....
0 0.74
0
Q)
a: 0.70 2000,_----,-----.------.--~-.-----.---L--,

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
C2+ Mole Fraction C2+ Mole Fraction
Fig. 1-Siim·tube recovery as a function of solvent enrichment level. Fig. 2-Effect of enrichment level on thermodynamic MMP for a condens-
ing/vaporizing rich gas system.

43
 SPE 18061

a.. 1 ~~~ .--O=iI~S~a~t.-=u~ra::..:t:..:..:io::..:n~ 70

0 £Ol 0.9
0 c
0.96 Q)
60
0 ....J 0.8 Oil Density
(IJ

..t MOL% C2+ Q)

+-'
50 .......
0.90 c 0.7
::J
48.5
> 0
::i 0.6
0
a..
~
I
u 6 53.5 Q) 40
:::c 0.86 i= 0.6
3...
+56
0 0.4 30 >
+-'
·u;
X 58.5 c
(IJ
0.80 c
>-
Q;
0 63.5
0
·.;:; 20 c3
0
0
0
Q)
a:
0.76 "68.5
z
(0

(0
CJ)
10

0.70 o~-.--.--.--.-~--~~--.--~~o
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
..J17Pe Fractional Distance
Fig. 3-EIIect of Inverse Peele! number (a/L) on oil recovery at1 PV Injection (2,500 psi) lor a condensing/vaporiz- Fig. 4-Displacement behavior at 2,500 psi and 63.5 mol% C 2 + enrichment (be-
Ing rich gas system. tween slim tube ME and thermodynamic ME) at 0.52 HCPVI.

0.86
c 1+N z+COz
0.60
c 0.66
0
·.;::; 0.60
u
co
0.46
..t
CD 0.40
0
~
0.36
c 0.30
0
.c 0.26 oil middle intermediates (C6-CJO)
:0
u 0.20 £i!....!jg!!.l...J!!termediat~2-C5L_ _
0
-o>- 0.16
9.C!.~ _'!!.isi..c!Lr::. }!l_t~!.'!:'.f!.c![g~t:~. {9_6_-:;_f; ;5_0)
:X: 0.10
gas lig_h_t_intermf!_qJgtes (C?-:;~§.2__
0.06
0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Fractional Distance
Fig. 5-Compositlonal profiles ol various hydrocarbon fractions In a condensing/vaporizing system
at 2,500 psi and 63.5mol% C 2 + enrichment (between slim tube ME and thermodynamic ME) Fig. 6-Quaternary representation olthe displacement behavior at

.
at 0.52 HCPVI. 2,500 psi and 63.5 mol% C 2 + enrichment (between slim tube
ME and thermodynamic ME).

,__ ______
-'= Oil Saturation
'E> 0.9 ' Remaining OIP .c 70

I
+-'
~ 0.8
Ol
c
0.9
60
....J Q)
....J 0.8
Q) 0.7 +-'
c:: Q)
0.7 50 .......
:.:J 0.6 c ::J
I Vaporizing Condensing ::i 0.6 Oil Density
0
~ 0.5 Region <1---+-e..;.....r> Region I
Q) 40 ?i
0.4 i=
._
0.6

0.3
0.2
- - ,\,I
Tie Line / 0

g
0.4
0.3
·.;:; --····./,------lie Line
0.1
(0 0.2
~ -...._;····---·······-Gas Density 10
+-' 0.1
0~-.-----.----~--~~--.---~~ (0
CJ)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 04=~--.-----.-~--~~--.---~~o
Fractional Distance 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Fig. 7-Remalnlng ollln place lor a displacement at2,500 psi and 63.5 mol% Fractional Distance
C 2 + enrichment (between slim tube ME and thermodynamic ME) at Fig. a-Displacement behavior at2,500 psi and 43.5 mol% C 2 + enrichment (below
0.52 HCPVI. slim tube ME) at 0.39 HCPVI.

C1+N z+COz

,_._---I'
-'=
+-'
C) 0.9 Remaining OIP
c
Q) 0.8
....J
Q) 0.7
c::
:.:J 0.6
I
f Region
Condensing
Q)
0.5
i=
0.4
0
c:: 0.3 Tie Line
0
·;:; 0.2
0
(IJ
0.1
Lt
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Fractional Distance
Fig. 9-Quaternary representation olthe displacement behavior at2,500 Fig. 10-Remainlng oil saturation lor a displacement at2,500 psi and 43.5 mol%
psi and 43.5 mol% C 2 + enrichment (below slim tube ME). C 2 + enrichment (below slim tube ME) at 0.39 HCPVI.
44
 SPE 18 0 6 1

Ct+N z+COz
a..
6
0 0.9
u
10
L.t 0.8

>
a.. 0.7
Dew Point u LEGEND
::I:
Curve • Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism
~
0.6
Overall
Composition
Path -
~ -
10
>-
CD
0.6
o Classical Condensing Mechanism

-B~b~~e Point / 0 0.4

__ ---- 0
Q)

Curve a: 0.3
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Cz+ Mole Fraction
Fig. 11-Quaternary representation of the displacement behavior at 2,500 Fig. 12-Comparlson of oil recovery vs. enrichment level for a condensing/vaporizing and a classical condensing
psi and 68.5 mol% enrichment (above thermodynamic ME). mechanism at 2,500 psi.

a.
6
0
u 0.96 --- ---~ Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism
10
L.t --------~ Classical Conden~ Mechanism_
0.90
>
a.
u
::I: 0.86
a..
3 MOL% C2+
i5
0
0.9 0.9
a; 0.80 0.8 c 0.8
> o 53.5 (Blow Thermodynamic ME) c 0.7 0 0.7
0 ·.;::;
CD
0 0.76 t, 55 (At Thermodyn6mic ME) ·g 0.6 co
:; 0.6
0 co 0.5 0.5
0 +-'
Q)
a: U: 0.4
co
(/) 0.4
0.70+---~--~---~----.----~

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0 0.3 0.3

.J17Pe
(J)
a: 0.2 6 0.2
0.1 0.1
Fig. 13-Effect of Inverse Peele! number (all) on oil recovery at 1 PV Injection (2,500 psi) for a classical condens· 0 0 0
lng mechanism.
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
HCPV Rich Gas Injected Fractional Distance
Fig. 14-Comparlson of a classical condensing and a condensing/vaporizing mechanism at low dispersion, 2,500
psi, Pe= BOO, 58.5 mol% C 2 + enrichment (above slim tube ME for the condensing; between the slim tube
ME and thermodynamic ME for the condensing/vaporizing system).

Condensing/Vaporizing Mechanism
6200
Classical Condensing_ Mechanism_
6000 Experimental
4800
P.r.t:~ !~ ~t:.<1.. r; ~ 0.c;i.~.r:.!?!r!9.!XP.I?. ~~!?. ~r:.9..¥~~~.C?.r:.i~ r:!
4800
a..
0.9
,--- 4400
Predicted Classical Condensi~echanism_
i5 0.9
0
c
0.8 c 0.8 I Ci5
4200
x Critical Point

0
·.;::;
0.7
0.6
0
·.;::;
co
0.7
0.6
I a..
u1
4000
3800
u a:
co
L.t
0.5 E
co
0.5 ( ::::>
(/)
3600

0
0.4
0.3
(/) 0.4
0.3 I (/)
UJ
a:
3400
3200
6 a..
(J)
a: 0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
I 3000

6 0 0 --,
2800
2800
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
HCPV Rich Gas Injected Fractional Distance 2400
2200
Fig. 15-Comparlson of a classical condensing and a condensing/vaporizing mechanism at high dispersion, 2,500
psi, Pe=24, 58.5 mol% C 2 + enrichment (above slim tube ME for the condensing; between the slim tube
ME and thermodynamic ME for the condensing/vaporizing system). 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
SOLVENT FRACTION
Fig. A·1-Comparlson of the P·X diagrams.

45