Immiscible Oil Displacement

05/12/13
Oil Recovery
There has been two processes developed for CO
2
-
EOR:
Miscible Displacement
Immiscible Displacement

Immiscible displacement of oil by CO
2
is done by
mostly gravity stable gas injection (GSGI) method
and immiscible water alternating gas (IWAG).
What is GSGI?
Gravity stable gas injection (GSGI) is a method of
introducing CO
2
in the reservoir by injecting it in the crest,
forcing the oil to move downwards and to the direction of
the rim, where the producing wells are located.
In GSGI method, the CO
2
is not
necessarily immiscible to oil.

CO
2
is used for maintaining
reservoir pressure and for
stabilizing displacements via
gravity drainage to increase
sweep.
Why Do Immiscible CO
2
-EOR?
Injection of CO
2
in a reservoir can still increase oil recovery
even when MMP is not reached.

It should be done in cases where the reservoir pressure is too
low to reach the MMP.

Immiscible oil displacement works by increasing the
reservoir pressure to force the oil towards the well and by
some oil swelling and viscosity reducing effects.

Miscible Displacement is not a Holy Grail!
Mechanism of Immiscible CO
2
EOR
According to research done to immiscible CO
2
EOR,
it is reported that the following mechanisms occur
during the process:
Oil viscosity reduction
Oil expansion (swelling)
Interfacial reduction
Blow down recovery
Increase the mobility of oil;
depends on P, T and oil
composition
A mechanism when the pressure
decrease, CO2 will come out of
the solution while sweeping the oil
of the wellbore
The Techniques: CO
2
Flooding
CO2 injected in GSGI mode (typically) at slow rates at the
crest of the reservoir aiming at filling the pore volume of the
reservoir rock.
The injected gas creates an artificial gas cap, pushing oil
simultaneously downwards and towards the rim of the
producing wells.
Presence of water
reduce the
effectiveness of
the process
CO2 + Water + Asphaltene
precipitation!
The Techniques: Immiscible WAG
The portion of injected CO
2
dissolved (partially) in the oil
reduces the oil viscosity and in addition, swells the oil.

The process is then followed by waterflooding of the
reduced viscosity oil.

Injecting the immiscible gas alternately with water
reported to result a better sweep by the injected gas and
therefore improved recovery over injection of the gas as
a slug.
This method is less favored on reservoir with high heavy
oil content
Immiscible CO
2
EOR Cases
Bati Raman Oil Field (Turkey, 2005-present)
The oilfield contains heavy oil with very low gravity (9
o
to 15
o

API). CO
2
comes from a nearby natural reservoir.
Traditional oil recovery techniques yielded only 1.5% of the
OOIP while through EOR about 6.5% of OOIP is estimated to be
recovered.
Injection of CO
2
has caused oil swelling, despite the lack of
miscibility, reducing the viscosity of oil by a factor of 10.
Approximately 1700 tons of CO
2
are injected daily, 16 to 60% is
recycled.
Immiscible CO
2
EOR Cases
Weeks Island (USA, 2005)
Failed due to the presence of high pressure aquifer that did not
permit the displacement of oil upon injection.
Pilot project managed to yield 60% of oil left after water flooding.

Hungary (1980-1990s)
EOR was achieved by creating an artificial gas cap of CO
2
.
Overall CO
2
utilization was 380 m
3
per barrel of oil extracted.
Lessons Learnt
Experience has shown that the conditions that favor
immiscible displacement include
High vertical permeability in the reservoir rock.
A substantial amount of oil to form a thick oil column.
A steeply dipping relief and good lateral and vertical
communication through the reservoir.
Absence of fractures that reduce sweep efficiency.

It has been estimated that:
The utilization of CO
2
is within the range 280-400 m
3
of CO
2
per
barrel of incremental oil (560-790 kg/bbl).
The process may yield approximately up to 20% of OOIP.
Miscible vs Immiscible CO
2
EOR
Compared to miscible CO2 EOR, immiscible CO2 EOR is
less researched.
Evolution of the number of CO2-EOR projects and their cumulative
production in the USA
Miscible vs Immiscible CO
2
EOR
With assumptions of miscible projects are brought by
WAG and immiscible projects by GSGI, the following
comparison can be concluded:
The Up-Down(s) of Immiscible CO
2
EOR
The Downs:
- Huge amounts of CO
2
are required
- Additional oil production is very slow
- Limiting opportunities for smaller scale
implementation

The Up:
+ High potency of carbon sequestration.

EOR vs Carbon Sequestration
V
o
l
u
m
e

o
f

C
O
2

Time
EOR
Brine sequestration
EOR
Significant volumes: only a fraction of all
point source CO
2
can be sold for EOR

Offset some of cost of capture and pipeline
development

Will help grow and develop needed
technologies

Will increase public acceptance
Modified from Hovorka, 2010