IPTC-17756-MS

Modelling Gas Injection for Enhanced Oil Recovery in Deepwater Fields

John Lagasca, Robin Ozah, and Deniz Dindoruk, Shell International E&P Inc.

Copyright 2014, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10 12 December 2014.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference 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 where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 1-972-952-9435

Abstract
Enhanced oil recovery using miscible and partially miscible gas injection processes have been utilized
extensively and have been successfully applied in a significant number of mainly onshore reservoirs.
Miscible and partially miscible gas injection is the most mature technology of all the EOR processes. The
fact that the incremental recoveries may be significant makes it very attractive to assess and potentially
deploy gas injection technology and overcome the challenges in offshore deep water settings.
In this paper, we present a technique which uses established methods that simulate gas flood
performance. The methods used in the study allow the use of a pseudo-miscible-black oil method in full
field reservoir simulation models for initial scoping purposes. This avoids computationally expensive
flash calculations resulting in a fast method to develop production profiles which allow the testing of the
economic robustness of the projects.
While simulations using the Todd and Longstaff (T-L) pseudo-black oil method are strictly for first
contact miscible (FCM) processes, in essence, most of the published field applications for this pseudomiscible technique have been for multi-contact miscible (MCM) processes. The T-L pseudo miscible
method utilizes a mixing parameter, o that ranges from zero to one, simulating completely immiscible
and first contact miscible floods respectively. A literature review indicated that models matched using
field production rates yield mixing parameters within a range of 0.6-0.8, while models matched against
only a corresponding compositional model yield mixing parameters closer to 1.0, a condition which
assumes no fingering in a sub-grid block level (Bronchalo, et al, 2004).
In order to evaluate the potential of a miscible gas flood, it was required to generate reliable production
forecasts. This study was embarked upon in order to establish that simulation generated forecasts could
be validated. This study utilized homogenous 2D models (box models), heterogeneous sector models with
fine gridding and coarsely gridded full scale models to evaluate the impact of the mixing parameter at
different scales. A fully compositional simulation was used to benchmark the results all of the pseudomiscible modelling exercise. For the simple box models, it was found that thermodynamic effects were
dominant in the determination of the mixing parameter. Below the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP),
a lower mixing parameter value was required to achieve a match with a corresponding compositional
model. As a result of testing the various pressure conditions which may exist in the reservoir a
pressure-dependent mixing parameter has been able to be defined.

IPTC-17756-MS

For the purposes of this study a specific geologic facie was simulated using small grid cells was in both
a fully compositional and a pseudo-black oil simulator. The mixing parameter as a function of pressure
that resulted from the 2D models was reduced by the theoretical limit derived from Fayers (1992) was
sufficient to produce a match in the fine scale model. This method also resulted in a sufficient match in
the coarse scale simulated grid that models the entire reservoir.

Introduction
Dynamic model simulations of gas injection processes, ranging from first-contact (FCM), multiplecontact (MCM) and, partially miscible or immiscible floods, have been modeled historically by representing the PVT behaviour through the use of compositional, pseudo-miscible and modified black oil
methods. Production forecasting methods using compositional and pseudo-black oil simulators are
compared in this study in order to understand difference in the output between them. We use Compositional and Todd-Longstaff methods in our work. Todd-Longstaff proposed an empirical method to model
miscible flow by modifying the black oil properties. The method employs a mixing parameter, , to
represent the degree of mixing of oil and solvent in a grid. Dispersion effects for coarse gridded models
are captured by . As T-L based production forecasts require less simulation run times this comparison
was necessary to validate the selected modelling technique. Production forecasts are required in an
integrated reservoir, production and facility design and optimization and, will affect key results ranging
from reserves to decisions regarding facility design and compressor sizing, well placement and pattern
selections to name a few. Industry has generally concluded that if fine scale heterogeneity is the
controlling mechanism for recovery, black oil simulators are more appropriate while if phase behavior is
more significant, then compositional methods are likely to be more accurate. The mixing parameter can
be used either as a history matching parameter or as a parameter that can be used to investigate the degree
of uncertainty in the production forecasts. In their original paper, Todd and Longstaff (1972) obtained a
history match using an omega value of 2/3. Generally, industry prefers to use a value between 0.5-0.8
(Brinkman et al, 1998, Hallam et al, 1995, Nishikiori et al, 2008, Whitten, 1989, Youngren and Charlson,
1980, Maclean, 1989 and Al Shammari et al, 2012) if there are no other available data.

Literature Review
Todd and Longstaff (1972) aimed to represent unstable frontal advance through the application of a
mixing parameter, , which accounts for the inherent viscous instability, geological heterogeneity and
other dispersive forces that are lost through the use of reservoir simulation scale grids. The mixing
parameter also adjusts the density and the viscosity of the solvent and resident oil mixture. Neglecting
these dispersive forces will lead to the dampening of flow instabilities and lead to an optimistic forecast.
The T-L models assume a system that will achieve FCM, through scaling of the reservoir rock and fluid
via the mixing parameter but this method does not account for any thermodynamic effects explicitly.
While Todd and Longstaff (1972) have stated that these assumptions may preclude the use of the
miscible simulator for forecasting displacement where multiple contacts are required before miscibility is
obtained, many authors have reported excellent matches even in MCM applications. In contrast, authors
(Bronchalo et al, 2004, Hui et al, 2006, and Stalkup, 1983) have expressed reservations on the use of
compositional simulators due to their tendency to overestimate production as it neglects viscous fingering
unless extremely fine grids are used in Figure 1.
The mixing parameter can be a physical manifestation of a variety of phenomena, which may include
but is not limited to, viscous fingering, gravity override and/or tonguing, numerical dispersion, immiscibility of solvent with resident oil or of chase gas to oil. A mixing parameter value of 0 will result
in a case of complete immiscibility and the solutions would be similar to an immiscible gas flood while
a mixing parameter of 1 will result in complete mixing. While there is no universally agreed upon
method for the prediction of the mixing parameter, a comparison of the Koval method (analogous to the

IPTC-17756-MS

Figure 1Illustration of Viscous Instability for Different Models (Bronchalo et al, 2004).

Figure 2Comparison of the History Matched and Predicted Mixing Parameters

Buckley-Leverett method but adjusted for an unstable miscible flood) yields a theoretically bounding
maximum value that depends only on the mobility ratio between the solvent and the oil (Fayers, 1992,
Blunt et al, 1994, and Blunt and Christie, 1993) (Eq. 1). Some authors (Fayers, 1992, Warner, 1977 and
Bronchalo et al, 2004) have proposed several adjustments based on the overall heterogeneity of the
reservoir (Eq. 2 and 3) or based on the fluid properties. As the reservoir of interest is considered to be
highly heterogeneous in nature these were not used in this study as they do not give realistic values for
highly heterogeneous porous media.
(1)

(2)
(3)
Several studies involving the T-L scheme have been done previously and are summarized in Table
1(appendix).
Figure 2 is a cross plot of the mixing parameter used by various papers in Table 1 (History Match,
x-axis) versus the mixing parameter that would have been predicted by Equation 1 based on the provided

IPTC-17756-MS

Table 2Sub-Sector and Full Field Summary

Property
Reservoir Pressure
Reservoir Temperature
Average Permeability
Average Porosity
Oil Viscosity at Reservoir T and P
Oil Gravity
Gas Oil Ratio
Bubble Point Pressure

Sub-Sector

Field-A Full Field

19,500 psia
244 F
20 mD
20%
4.5 cP
30.4
181.2 scf/bbl
1054.57 psia

19,358 psi
245-258 F
20 mD
18-20%
3-5 cP
24.3 27.8 API
170 scf/bbl
950-1014 psia

fluid data. Stalkup (1983) suggests that a value of 0.5-0.7 should be used as a first estimate. As Figure 2
indicates, there is a narrow band between the history matched values of 0.6-0.8 that may lead credence
to this suggested range. Coarsely gridded compositional models will generally reduce viscous instability
and attempting to match a compositional model with its corresponding T-L model will lead to a mixing
parameter closer to one under stable FCM conditions (Bronchalo et al, 2004).

Methodology and Application to Field A

The T-L or pseudo-black oil model is usually much faster computationally compared to a fully compositional simulator. However, there is significant uncertainty on the value of the mixing parameter that
should be used, especially if it involves an MCM displacement or if the reservoir pressure falls below the
MMP. This study aims to develop a simple method to determine the appropriate mixing parameter for a
given pressure using 2-D models and the correlation of Fayers (1992).
In order to arrive at the appropriate omega value and corresponding dependence with pressure the
following procedure was used. First, a simple 2-D homogeneous model at different pressures was
simulated using the T-L method with the aim of matching an equivalent compositional simulation. The
mixing parameter and the residual oil saturation to miscible flooding (Sorm) were adjusted in order to
match the resultant oil production forecasts between the two models. At pressures at or above the MMP,
a mixing parameter approaching 1.0 was required to achieve a match between the two models. This was
considered too optimistic. However, if the Koval equation (Fayers, 1992) can be considered the upper
technical limit for the T-L parameter, then it was hypothesized that all of the mixing parameters should
be scaled by the Koval factor. This would ensure that that the upper technical limit is honored at above
the MMP. This was tested in both a fine scale three-dimensional sector model and a coarse grid model
for a reservoir.
Table 2 summarizes the sub-sector and the full field properties for Field A. For this study, nitrogen
was assumed to be the miscible injectant. The PVT characterization was achieved by regression of a
lumped 7-component model with a standard primary depletion experimental set including constant
composition expansion, differential liberation experiments and separator tests. Using the method of
extrapolation recommended by Orr (2007), it was estimated that the MMP is about 20,000 psia. Since the
injection pressure is limited by available compression discharge pressures which allow for 15,000 psia
injection at the sandface, the process is not miscible. It is thought that this Nitrogen MMP of 20,000 psi
may be overstating the actual value; no experiments were available to tune the data and validate this
estimate. However, regardless of the actual value of the MMP, the subsequent workflow and the insights
remain valid in this study.

Homogeneous 2D and 3D Box Modeling

There are three dominant parameters impacting forecast production performance and oil recovery in the
modelling exercise. These are namely pressure (thermodynamic effects), density number and grid size

IPTC-17756-MS

Figure 3Oil Rate and Gas Rate Comparison between Compositional and Black-Oil Models

effects. These parameters impact miscibility, gravity override and dispersion which all affect oil recovery.
The miscibility effect was investigated by the use of isotropic 2D models and handled through the
appropriate choice of omega. The gravity number and the grid size effects (vertical layers) were
investigated through the use of isotropic 3D models.
Investigation of the Pressure and Miscibility Dependent Nature of the Mixing Parameter Using a
2-D Box Model
The 2D fine gridded isotropic model used an average porosity and permeability within a 100 x 100 x 1
grid blocks each of 1 m3 bulk volume and was initialized using the 7-pseudo component lumped PVT.
Both the production and the injection wells were controlled through a constant bottomhole fluid rate, the
aim being to equalise injection and withdrawal thus maintaining a relatively constant pressure until 1.0
HCPV was injected. The mixing parameter and Sorm were varied until the cumulative oil production of
the T-L model matched the compositional model.
Generally speaking, the T-L model forecast earlier gas breakthrough when compared to the compositional model as illustrated in Figure 3. It can be seen that there is an earlier increase in gas production
with a corresponding decline in oil production. Furthermore, the T-L model produces more oil late in life
as compared to the compositional model. The early breakthrough occurs due to the inability of the T-L
model to produce a sharp composition shock front illustrated in Figure 4.
The increased recovery in the T-L model post-breakthrough can be explained in the following manner.
A fundamental concept in the T-L formulation is that the gas injectant maintains a state of first contact
miscibility with the resident oil As such there is no consideration for any PVT changes that may have
occurred previously with the nitrogen vapourising the lighter components from the oil as occurs in the
EOS model. Near the injector, the compositional model left behind high viscosity oil, while the remaining
oil in the T-L formulation retains its original viscosity. As a result, later in life in the EOS model the oil
is not so favourable to being vapourised resulting in lower oil recovery during this period as compared to
the T-L formulation.
Further analysis of the thermodynamic properties of the system illustrates the shortcomings of the T-L
model from a fundamental perspective. Figures 5 and 6 compare the density and the viscosity of a
combined oil and solvent system above and below the FCM pressure. Figure 5 illustrates this behaviour
for a methane-oil system whilst Figure 6 compares this for a nitrogen-oil system. The principal difference
between the two systems is that the methane-oil system is FCM whilst the nitrogen-oil system is not. It
can be seen that the T-L method closely reproduces the FCM system, for the below FCM condition it does
not fully reproduce the divergence of the two-phase properties.
Notwithstanding the mis-match in thermodynamic properties a match on the cumulative oil as per the
compositional model was made by varying the and the Sorm values (Figure 7). While the thermodynamic properties cannot be rigorously matched, the mixing parameter can be decreased to promote earlier

IPTC-17756-MS

Figure 4 Oil Saturation as a Function of Distance from the Producer Injector to the Producer

Figure 5Comparison of Density and Viscosity Values for a FCM System (Methane and Field-A Oil)

breakthrough and the Sorm can be increased to enable the model to leave behind a greater proportion of
oil thus mimicking the compositional production profile. In the plots that follow, matches were achieved
between the compositional (heavy blue line) and the T-L match (thin red line) using an assisted history
matching program. All the other light blue lines are other possible outcomes for different combination of
parameters.
From these history matches, it was then possible to construct a plot of o and Sorm versus pressure.
From Figure 8, the mixing parameter became equal to 1.0 if the pressure was above the MMP. This
is reasonable since the level of dispersion modeled at the same grid block resolution should be the same
between the compositional and the black oil models if their thermodynamic displacement behaviors are
consistent which was demonstrated in Figure 5. Above this MMP, the Sorm was required to be decreased
in order to match the EOS model predicted cumulative oil. As the pressure was decreased, the mixing
parameter was also decreased to model the earlier gas breakthrough times, reflecting the viscous tongues
present in a partially miscible flood.

IPTC-17756-MS

Figure 6 Comparison of Density and Viscosity Values for a Partially Miscible System (Nitrogen and Field-A Oil)

Investigation of the Effect of the Gravity Number on the Mixing Parameter

Many miscible injection schemes are gravity unstable, meaning they are susceptible to gravity override
due to the gravity forces dominating the viscous forces. This could result either through a low gas injection
rate, large well spacing or high vertical permeability. As a test, 3D models were run with varying increases
in vertical permeability that would change the gravity number by at least two orders of magnitude. The
compositional model was run and as such provided a base production profile that the pseudo black-oil
models were matched against. In this case, there is no functional dependence between the gravity number
and the mixing parameters as seen in Figure 9. It is possible that these are model dependent due to the
existence of many shale layers in the simulation.
It was significantly more difficult to get an acceptable match between the compositional and the T-L
model at high gravity numbers since the gravity effects exacerbate gas segregation as illustrated in Figure
10. This suggests that the T-L model may not be a good model for systems where gravity override is a
major problem. While (Figure 9 suggests that it may be possible to achieve matches on the cumulative oil
using similar omega values, Figure 10 cautions that the in-situ saturation profile may not be accurately
modeled when gravity forces dominate the simulation. This is exacerbated by the thermodynamic
limitations illustrated by Figure 6). The compositional model produced a heavy oil phase that segregated
downward while the T-L model tends to produce more mobile oil that can more easily migrate to the
producer. The result is a more uniform gas conformance in the T-L model compared to the compositional
model in Figure 10. A similar trend in the omega values as a function of the density number was found
in Warner (1997).

Validation of the Method Using Sector Models

Figure 11 illustrates the proposed mixing parameter as a function of pressure for the reservoir properties
associated with Reservoir A. This was created by multiplying the matched 2D mixing parameter at various
pressures (Figure 8, blue line) and the theoretical maximum mixing parameter of 0.67 as predicted by Eq.
1. The theoretical maximum assumes a first contact miscible process and does not account for fingering
due to the immiscibility that occurs when the pressure is decreased. This is likely the main contributing
reason to the lower value that the EOS T-L matching process has yielded. This composite line is referred
to as the combined or composite mixing parameter.
Figure 12 summarizes the resultant cumulative oil comparisons between the compositional and the T-L
forecast for the values chosen to be used in the T-L modelling. The case of 0.0 is displayed to illustrate
an immiscible displacement between the oil and the solvent where the incremental oil production is due

IPTC-17756-MS

Figure 7History Match of 2D Models at Different Pressures

solely on pressure support. Similarly the technical limit is shown for a fully miscible case. It can be seen
that there was only a 3.3% difference in the final cumulative oil produced between the composite case and
the compositional model case.
The oil rate comparison plot is shown in Figure 13 while the gas rate comparison plot is shown in
Figure 14. Several observations can be made from these plots. Qualitatively, the profiles were matched
adequately. Consistent with the 2D runs, the gas rate increased more rapidly for the T-L case compared
to the compositional model. After the initial gas breakthrough, the T-L slightly over performs over the
compositional since there was very limited stripping that occurs in the latter.

IPTC-17756-MS

Figure 8 Adjustable Parameters as a Function of Pressure

Figure 9 Mixing Parameter as a Function of the Density Number

Figure 10 Oil Saturation Profiles for the 3D Models

Full Field Modeling

The goal of this study was to demonstrate that a method to quickly find appropriate values for the mixing
parameter and Sorm for use in the pseudo-miscible T-L model was possible and reliable. The sector
modeling above validated this method and therefore was then applied to field scale model. The pressure

10

IPTC-17756-MS

Figure 11Mixing Parameter Comparisons

Figure 12Cumulative Oil Comparisons between T&L Models and the Compositional Model

dependent mixing parameter with the appropriate values of omega and Sorm above was then applied to
the full field model.
A potential field development and corresponding well layout is illustrated in Figure 15. Illustrated
below is a possible field development employing injectors and producers as denoted by I and P wells
respectively.
Figure 16 compares the cumulative oil profiles as forecast from a compositional and T-L formulation.
The compositional and the composite T-L model were within 1.1% of each other in terms of cumulative
oil recovery forecast. Similar oil rate profiles can be found, as illustrated in Figure 17. The average
reservoir pressure of the T-L model was within 500 psia of the compositional model, as illustrated in
Figure 18. Note that once again at late life, the compositional model has a lower production rate compared
to the T-L model due to the lack of late life stripping (Figures 17 and 18).
The impact of each of the elements of the composite mixing parameter can be identified. For example,
any increase in oil recovery over that of pure depletion realized when the mixing parameter was reduced
to zero thus mimicking an immiscible flood would be attributable mostly to pressure support while the
remaining incremental oil was attributed to a combination of interfacial tension reduction, viscosity
reduction and near-miscible displacement.

IPTC-17756-MS

11

Figure 13Oil Rate Comparisons Between the T&L and Compositional Models

Figure 14 Produced Gas/Solvent Rate Comparisons Between the T&L and Compositional Models

Figure 15Grid Top and Well Locations (ft.)

12

IPTC-17756-MS

Figure 16 Comparison of Cumulative Oil Profiles Full Field Optimization

Figure 17Comparison of Oil Rate Profiles Full Field Optimization

Figure 18 Comparison of Ave. Reservoir Pressures (reservoir unit-1)

Full Field Optimization

Conclusion
The combination of methods used in this study allows the use of a pseudo-miscible-black oil method in
full field models for initial ultimate oil recovery scoping purposes. Use of such avoids computationally
expensive flash calculations associated with EOS models resulting in a fast method to develop production
profiles which permits the testing of the economic robustness of potential development projects. It was
found that the mixing parameters for different reservoir pressure conditions for the properties of Reservoir
A through matching the compositional and pseudo black oil models in a 2D model can be directly used
in a full field model provided that it is decreased by the Koval technical limit.

IPTC-17756-MS

13

References
H. Al Shammari, B.B. Singh and K. Mishra, Understanding the True Potential of a Major Reservoir
Sabriyah (Upper Burgan) of Kuwait Oil Company, presented at the EAGE Annual Conference
and Exhibition held in Copenhagen, Denmark, 4-7 June 2012.
H.L. Bilhartz, G.S. Charlson, F.I. Stalkup and C.C. Miller, A Method for Projecting Full-Scale
Performance of CO2 Flooding in the Willard Unit, presented at the Fifth Symposium on
Improved Methods for Oil Recovery of the Society of Petroleum Engineers in Tulsa, Oklahoma
on 16-19 April 1976.
F.P. Brinkman, T.V. Kane, R.R. McCullough and J.W. Miertschin, Use of Full-Field Simulation to
Design a Miscible CO2 Flood, presented at the 1998 SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma on 19-22 April 1998.
J. Bronchalo, R. Venkataraman and M. Blunt, A Multiscale Methodology for Simulating Miscible
Gas Injection Projects Applied to a North African Oil Field, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 26-29 September 2004.
S. Chugh, R. Baker, L. Cooper and S. Spence, Simulation of Horizontal Wells to Mitigate Miscible
Solvent Gravity Override in the Virginia Hills Margin, JCPT, February 2000, pp. 28 34.
F.J. Fayers, M. Haajizadeh, C.Y. Lin and J. Taggart, Use of the 4-Component Todd and Longstaff
Method as an Upscaling Technique in Simulating Gas Injection Projects, presented at the 2000
SPE/DOE Improved Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 3-5 April 2000.
F.J. Fayers, M.J. Blunt and M.A. Christie, Comparisons of Empirical Viscous-Fingering Models and
Their Calibration for Heterogeneous Problems, SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1992, pp.
195203.
M.J. Fox, V.N. Simlote and W.G. Beaty, Evaluation of CO2 Flood Performance, Springer A Sand,
NE Purdy Unit, Garvin County, OK, presented at the SPE/DOE Fourth Symposium on Enhanced
Oil Recovery held in Tulsa OK, 15-18 April 1984.
R.J. Hallam, T.D. Ma and E.W. Reinbold, Performance evaluation and optimization of the Kuparuk
hydrocarbon miscible water-alternating-gas flood, New Developments in Improved Oil Recovery,
1995, pp. 153164.
J.R. Hervey and A.C. Iakovakis, Performance Review of a Miscible CO2 Tertiary Project: Rangely
Weber Sand Unit, Colorado, SPE Reservoir Engineering, May 1991, pp. 163168.
M.H. Hui, J. Kamath and K. Dehghani, A Multi-Scale Approach to Modeling Miscible Gas Injection
Sweep Efficiency in a Giant Carbonate, Light-Oil Reservoir, presented at the 2006 Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 5-8 November 2006.
D.J. Jethwa, B.W. Rothkopf and C.I. Paulson, Successful Miscible Gas Injection in a Mature UK
North Sea Field, presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October 2000.
M.L. Katz and F.I. Stalkup, Oil Recovery by Miscible Displacement, WPC Conference Paper.
J.E. Killough and C.A. Kossack, Fifth Comparative Solution Project: Evaluation of Miscible Flood
Simulators, presented a the Ninth SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation held in San Antonio,
Texas, 1-4 February 1987.
K.H. Lee and M.M. El-Saleh, A Full-Field Numerical Modeling Study for the Ford Geraldine Unit
CO2 Flood, presented at the SPE/DOE Seventh Symposium on Enhanced Oil Recovery in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 22-25 April 1990.
D.A. MacLean, Design of a field-wide hydrocarbon miscible flood for the Kaybob Beaverhill Lake
A Pool, JCPT, May-June 1989, pp. 20 28.
J.S. Moore and G.C. Clark, History Match of the Maljamar CO2 Pilot Performance, presented at the
SPE/DOE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 17-20 April 1988.

14

IPTC-17756-MS

N. Nishikiori, K. Sugai, C. Normann, A. Onstein, O. Melberg and T. Eilertsen, An Integrated

Workflow for Gas Injection EOR and a Successful Application to a Heterogeneous Sandstone
Reservoir in the Southern North Sea, presented at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3-5 December 2008.
S. Shoaib and B.T. Hoffman, CO2 Flooding the Elm Coulee Field, presented at the 2009 SPE Rocky
Mountain Petroleum Technology Conference held in Denver, Colorado, 14-16 April 2009.
M.R. Todd and W.J. Longstaff, The Development, Testing and Application of a Numerical Simulator
for Predicting Miscible Flood Performance, JPT, (July 1972), pp. 874 882.
H.R. Warner, An Evaluation of Miscible CO2 Flooding in Waterflooded Sandstone Reservoirs, JPT,
October 1977, pp 1339 1347.
G.P Willhite, A.P. Byrnes, M.K. Dubois, R.E. Pancake, J.S. Tsau, J.R. Daniels and W.A. Flanders, A
Pilot Carbon Dioxide Test, Hall Gurney Field, Kansas, presented at the 18th SPE Improved Oil
Recovery Symposium held in Tulsa, Oklahoma, 14-18 April 2012.
M.D. Whitten, J.H. Anderson and G.E. Tinker, Miscible Flood from Inception: The Brassey Field
Development, British Columbia, Canada, presented at the 64th Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in San Antonio, TX, 8-11 October 1989.
G.K. Youngren and G.S. Charlson, History Match of the Little Creek CO2 Pilot Test, JPT,
November 1980, pp. 20422052.
R.S. Wu, J.P. Batycky and B.C. Harker, A New Approach to Modeling Miscible Gas Displacement
Tests, presented at the 64th Annual SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San
Antonio, TX, 8-11 October 1989.

IPTC-17756-MS

15

Appendix

Table 1Summary of the Literature Survey

16

IPTC-17756-MS

Table 1 (Continued)Summary of the Literature Survey