Slim-Tube

Since the establishment of multi-contact miscibility (MCM) as a dynamic process, a dynamic

experiment was required to demonstrate MCM behavior. Slim-tube method is the most
common and has been accepted as the standard method to determine MMP. Slim-tube test
can mimic porous medium (unconsolidated porous medium or bead) and hence is capable of
representing multi-contact fluid dispersions mechanism due to mixing in the porous medium.
Slim-tube does not account for third fluid water. It also does not provide controlled
measurements of the system phase or volumetric behavior.
In this method, the miscibility conditions are determined by conducting the displacements at
various pressures or gas enrichment levels in the oil-saturated Slim-tube and monitoring
the oil recovery. Then, the oil recovery is plotted against the pressure. The minimum
miscibility pressure is defined as the pressure at which the oil recovery versus pressure curve
shows a sharp change in slope. Unfortunately, there is neither a standard design, nor a
standard operating procedure, nor a standard set of criteria for determining the MMPs with a
Slim-tube. The MMP is traditionally defined as the lowest pressure at which essentially all
oil available for recovery can be displaced by 1.2 PV solvent injected.
Extremely low flow rates, long lengths and smaller diameter tubing are preferred to avoid the
unfavorable effects of fingering, transition zone length, and transverse compositional
variations. Hence, it is very time consuming and may take several weeks to complete the
measurements. Additionally, Slim-tubes tests are expensive, and several points are
required to establish the MMP (a minimum of five points is recommended). Furthermore,
Slim-tube may give a lower MMP than it actually is because the way the porous medium is
packed. Slim-tube packing results in larger pore throat sizes, and as consequence, higher
recovery is obtained at a lower interfacial tension (IFT).
A Micro Slim-Tube (MST) is recently developed experimental approach involves the MMP
determination by displacement test using a prototype Gas Extraction and Miscibility
Analyzer (GEMA). The invention incorporates a capillary-sized unpacked column or a micro
Slim-tube (MST) as opposed to the conventional packed Slim-tube. The MMP analysis time
reduces up to one tenth of the conventional Slim-tube or sand-pack flood.


Rising Bubble Apparatus (RBA)
In the rising bubble experiments, the MMP is inferred from the pressure dependent behavior
of rising bubbles. The MMP is determined from the observations of changes in shape and
appearance of bubbles of the injected gas as they rise through a thin column of crude oil. The
pressure at which a rising gas bubble vanishes in a column of oil is termed as the MMP.
This method, which was originally developed by Christianson and Haines in 1984 at
Marathon Oil, is considerably faster (1-2 days) and cheaper and requires smaller quantities of
fluids, compared to Slim-tube. However, the limitations of this technique are that there is
some subjectivity associated with the MMP interpretation and that very little quantitative
information (changes in composition, interfacial tension, and displacement efficiency) is
provided. Therefore, there still exists a need to develop a laboratory measurement technique
that can determine the MMP more accurately, quickly while being quantitative in nature.
A latest Single Bubble Injection Technique has been suggested to extend the applicability of
RBA for determining MMP for solvent gases exhibiting enriched gas drive behavior. The
technique (developed at the Saskatchewan Research Council in 1993) uses single bubble
injection and estimates MMP by taking the average of the bubble disappearance pressures at
bottom and at the top of the rising bubble column (termed average pressure approach).
Thus, the RBA can be used for measuring MMP for any solvent gas irrespective of the
mechanism of miscibility involved.