SOCIXTY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AIME

6200 North Central Expressway

Dallas,

Texas

SPE

=R

1531

I5206
THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

Gravity

Effects

in Miscible

Displacement

By
M. C. Miller, Jr. Member AIME, Atlantic Richfield Co., DQlas, Tex.
0 Copyright
Ameriesn

Institute of Mining,

1966
Metallurgical and Petroleum

Engineers,

Inc.

This paper ?~asprepared for the hlst Annual Fall Meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
of AIME, to be held in Dallas, Tex., Oct. 2-5, 1966. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract
of not more than 300 words. illustrations m~
copied. The abs;;act should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the ~aper is m?esented. Publication elsewhere after
publication in the JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECfiO~OGY or-the SOCIETY OF F!ETROLEUMENGINEERS JOURNAL is
usually granted upon request to the Editor of the appropriate journal provided agreement to give
proper credit is made.
Discussion of this paper is invited. Three copies of any discussion should be sent to the
Society of Petroleum Engineers office. Such discussion may be presented at the above meeting and,
with the paper, may be considered for publication in one of the two SPE magazines.
ABSTRA13T
Segregation of hydrocarbons and water can
severely reduce the ultimate vertical sweepout
efficiency of mlsclble displacement processes
when a mobile water phase is present in all or
part of the reservoir. Computer studies have
shown that the decreased miscible sweep resulting from segregated flow can result in uneconomic operations in some fields in wh~ch economic
operations were predicted for non-segregated
flow .
Gravity override is enhanced as a result
or segregation, and once the reservoir fluids
segregate, the high rel&tive permeability of th(
lighter fluids at the top of the reservoir
increases the gravity override with the result
that oil irrthe lower portion of the reservoi$
is not displaced miscibly.
The shape andrnovement of the oil bank
formed.during secondary and tertiary projects
can be paramount to a successful field operation. Results from our computer model study
show that an oil bank formed ahead of an overriding miscible fluid is forced down below the
solvent tongue and moved relatively slowly
towara the protiucingwell. The oil bank i.s
slowly recovered immiscible at an extremely low
rate by the water injected along with the gas.
Thus at the economic limit of the fielcloperation, a substantial.amount of the oil displacea
References and illustrations at end of paper.

by the miscible fluid early in the reservoir

life is left unswept at abandonment.
Most of the above information has been
obtained from a two-phase flow, two-dimensions:
mathematical model, which includes the effect
of the segregation of all hydrocarbon fluids
in the presence of a denser, mobile, i~iscib~(
water phase present in watered-out systems on
the sweepout behavior of the oil-bank front
and miscible front. This behavior was previously unattainable from our physical [laboratory] flow models in which miscible fluids were
used.
INTRODUCTION
The miscible slug process and the high
pressure gas process are currently employea
in our endeavor to maximize the oL1 recovery
from reservoirs. Since residual 011 saturations of 20 to 50 per cent after gas or wate:
floods are common, the additional oil recovery
can be considerable. In the high pressure gas
processl multiple contact between the injeited
gas and the reservoir oil strips the light end~
from the oil uatil a transition fluld is forme{
which is misciblewith the reservoir oil.
Al$hough pressures in excess of 10,000 psi are
usually requ~red for methane to be completely
miscible with crude oil, + miscible flood is
achieved by the above mechahism fn the 3)000to 5,000-psi range. In the miscible slug

GRAVITY EFFECTS IN M~
process, a propane or rich-gas slw which iS
miscible with the reservoir oil is driven by a
gas which is misctble with the slug but not
miscible with the oil. lower pressures [1,200
psi to 3,000WI are usedand a sufficiently
large slug must be employed In order to prevent
premature loss of miscibility by diffusion and
dispersion of the slug material.g Injection of
water along with the gas has been beneficial,
and oil recoveries in the 50 to 70 per cent
range can be obtained.3 Iackof complete
contact between the reservoir oT1 and miscible
fluid at the economic limit of a field operation prevents oil recoveries of 100 per cent.
Interpretation and prediction of Lhe
reservoir performance for miscible processes
are difficult as a result of the effects of
viscous fingering1~2~11~12~16 [dynamic instability of high mobllf.tyfluids displacing
lower mobility fluids], loss of miscibility
from diffusion and dispersion of the slug
materia19?16 heterogeneities and
gravity.1)2)13>16 me effects of these factors
and their interaction plays a major role in the
areal and vertical sweepout performance and
thus, ultimately, the economic 0<1 recovery.

methodox
Unfortunately, no laboratory
mathematical procedure is available which can
be used to analyzeall the forces and effects
in a complex reservoir system. In spite of
their limitations, physical [laboratory]and
mathematical [computer] models have given
significant insight int6 oil recovery mechanism
which allow us to predict reservoir behavior.
Habermann12 found that if a gas-driven miscible
slug is less than 10 per cent of the oil in
place, the slug will deteriorate and the displacement will revert to an ordinary immiscible
gas drive. Craig et al.1 found gravity can
severely reduce the vertical sweepout performance in frontal drives in displacement studies
which were predominantly controlled by gravity
[single override finger]. On the other hand,
Blackwell et al.16 tests were finger controlled
[many random fingers] and observed recoveries
were considerably higher. Crane et al.15
investigated displacements In the transitional
range between finger-and gravity-controlled
displacements, and postulated that a functional
relationship must exist between the ratio of
viscous to gravity forces, ratio of reservoir
length to helght~ and mobility ratio. We agre<
with Crane et al.15 fora homogeneous reservoi~
but the square root of the ratio of vertical tc
horizontal permeability times the length to
kv

height ratio,

J
~H

, as publtshed by

Craig et al.l, must be included for anisotropi(

media. Furthermore, the ratio of viscous to
capillary forces, also published by Craig
et al.~, should be impo.rtad in low permeabilil

E31LEDISPLACEMENT

SpE-~5%1
-, /-

reservoirs, but unfortunately, these data are

not available.
The use of mathematical [computer] models
allowed the effect of the ratio of vertical to
horizontal permeability, .kVfkh,to be studied
over a range from 0.003 to 1.0. In laboratory
[physical] models, the ratiO ofkv/kh is
essentially 1.O. We found this ratio to be
very important smd in several cases, the
difference between a kv/kh ratio of 0.1 and
0.01 represents the difference between an
uneconomical or economical field test.
Two mechanisms are important in the
formation of an overriding gravity finger.
First, the density difference between two
miscible fluids can cause an injected, lighter
fluid to override an in-place fluid; and
second, vertical counterblow segregation
resulting from a density difference between
two immiscible fluids can result in the
migration of the lighter hydrocarbon fluid to
the top of a reservoir. Both these mechanisms
are present when a miscible slug Is in~ected
into a waterflooded reservoir containing
residual oil.
We were especially concerned with miscibl
slug displacements in which a mobile water
phase was present in all or part of the reservoir. A mobile water phase is present through
out the reservoir if the reservoir was water
flooded prior to the miscible slug operation.
If the reservoir has not been water flooded, a
mobile water phase is created behind the
solvent bank when slugs of gas and water are
LnJected.
MODEL SCALING
Scaling has8been discussed bylRapoport,4
Geertsma et al., and Craig et al. and
dimensional analysis and inspections.ianalysis
used to determine the proper scaling groups.
InspectTonal analysis .involvescombining
all of the equations describing the process
into a single equation and combining the
coefficients of the resulting equation to form
dimensionless groups. Craig et all
determined four scaling groups when a single
differential equation was written combining a
mass balance [continuity equation] and Darcys
law for horizontal and vertical flow in a
uniform, anisotropic formation. A uniform,
anisotropic medium is defined in this case as
uniform horizontal permeability [kb] and a
uniform vertical permeability [kv] which is
not equalhto the horizontal permeability
[kv #kb]. Diffusion, although recognized as
playing an important role under some condition
was not inciuded. The resUlting dimensionless
scaling groups werel:

L.i .

il-Jq>J.

1.

L
geometry, ~

u .

[Cartesian Coordinates], incompressible flow

of water, oil, solvent, and gas where the oil,
sclvent, and gas are completely miscible
components in the hydrocarbon phase. These
equations are:

kv
kh
F

2.

kr~
mobility ratio, IvI = _
Bd

k ro
/

40

/lo

~
viscous to capillary pressure
gradients,
+V /Lo
we

v .@w

= - +

= gravitational constant
k; = specific permeability in horizontal
direction
kv = specific permeability in vertical
direction
= relative permeability to oil
k
k; = relative permeability to the displacing fluid
M= mobflity ratio
q = fluid.injection rate
q
v= total linear pore velocity, v =
~
A cross-sectional area
L= length of system
= thickness of system
$ = density difference between the injected and displaced fluids
c= interracial tension between the injetted and displaced fluids
e= contact eagle
Go = oil viscosity
Pd = displacing fluid viscosity
0= porosity
In the mathematical model, it is not
necessary to use scaling groups to predict the
behavior for a given field test. However, the
use of dimensionless scaling groups Is useful
In correlating the results of several field
tests. The resulting correlation can be used
to estimate the flow behavior for an unknown
field and is therefore useful in screening
potential miscible flood prospects.
The effects of geometry and the ratio of
VISCOUS to gravitypressure gradients were found
to be paramount in the flow behavior as will be
shown later.

a%
n-i-

q=

ash=

= -+

[3] ~rcys

8SW
,
at

. [11

[2]

law for the water phase

k krW

o c [31
V*W,
. .
P~
[h] Darcys law for the hydrocarbon phase

k r(hc)

q==.

%hc

7*

~hc

[4]

[5] the water phase potential

ZW=pW+pWgh}~~~

[51

[6] the hydrocarbon phase potential

~hc=%c+

~hcgh,

. . . . . . . [6]

[7] the volumetric balance for the three

components in the hydrocarbon phase

=So+ss+sg=(co

hc=l-%v

+c~+cg)shc,
[8]

. .....

.[7]

the density of the hydrocarbon phase

~ h~ = CO(IO+

CsPs+

CgPg,

. .

.,[81

[9] the effective viscosity of thehydrocarbon phase expressed by [KoballO]

114

l/4
(~)
~hc

=Co

(b
1%

+c~(

1/4

)
IJs

MODEL WITH CROSSFLm

The two-dimensional mathematical model

employed in this study is a computer progrm
which solves simultaneously the equations
describing two-phase, two-dimensional

[2] a volumetric balance [continuity

equation] for the hydrocarbon phase

--+
w=-

where:

TWO-DIMENSIONALMAT
HEMATICAL

[11avolumetric balance[continuity
equation] for the water phase

Po

3. viscous to gravity pressure gradients,

@v

L,LLJJLJULI

+-c

g@40[

GRAVITY
EFFECTS IN MISCIBLE
DISPIACEMEXI!T
.-- .- -,-..

---

-. . .

[10] and the capillary pressure equation

[function of water saturation only]

pc(sw)=Phc

-Pa,.....

,...[10

where

c= concentration of component in hydrocarbon phase

= gravitational constant
:= height
k= absolute permeability
?&r= relative permeability to designated
phase
P = pressure
s= saturation
t= time
v . velocity
P = density
viscosity
F
@ = porosity
@= potential
V= del operator

Subscripts
c = capillary
g = gas
hc = hydrocarbon phase
o . oil
rw = relative to water
ro = relative to oil
s = solvent
w = water
A finite-difference, alternatingdlrection, leap-frog procedure, similar to the
procedure outlined by Couglas, Peaceman and
Rachford5 and discussed in detail in the
doctoral dissertations of Nielsen6 and Goddin,7
was employed to solve the above equatio~s.
This method was modified to include the flow
behavior of three contiguous miscible flulds
[oil, solvent snd gas] In the hydrocarbon phase
The effects of diffusion and dispersion between
the fluids in the hydrocarbon phase were
Ignored, leading to a sharp interface between
the solvent and oil and the gas and solvent.
the denstty
Eqs. 8 and 9 were used to calculate
and viscosity, respectively, of the hydrocarbon
phase.
Although the mathematical model is restricted to,two-climensfonalflow systems,
the effects of gravlty~ capillary pressure,
stratification, flow rate, slug size, reservoir
length and thickness, reduced vertical permeability, and reservoir fluid pr~pertles can be
investigated.
The special
case of no vertical crossflow
[zero vertical permeability] was treated sepaa
rately ana analyzed for an itiealizedsituation
in which there are no relative permeability or
capilla~ pressure effects. These calculations

showfng the effect of gravity overriae in the

absence of vertical counterblow segregation
are discussed In the Appendix and are included
for those who are concezned with funciamental
fluid-flow behavior. Under these idealized
conditions, the predicteilflow behavior can be
correlated by the product of the geometry
ratio,

+
-%
v?aoviscous-to-gravitygradient ratio,
. The resulting
J~g
AP
product is a viscobs-to-gravity-pressure-drop
@v~L
ratio,

and has been used as a

khgA,OH
correlating group in several papers.1~2>15
However, It will be shown in the next section
that It is necessary to scale two groups such
as the geometry ratio and viscous-to-gravitygradient ratio separately when vertical
counterblow segregation occurs leaaing to a
high relative permeability of the hydrocarbon
phase at the top of the reservoir.
PREDICTED PERFORMANCE OF MISCIBLE SLUG
PROCESS IN HORIZONTAL RESERVOIRS
The flow behavior of the miscible slug
process in five horizontal reservoirs was

predicted using the two-dimensional, mathematical model aescribea above. Since the
physical properties of the reservoir are not
precisely known, [e.g., the ratio of vertical
to horizontal permeability may be as high as
1.0 or as low as 0.003] several different case:
were,run for each reservoir. The velocity
[throughput rate] was varied for proposed fi.elf
tests to determine the injection rates require<
to prevent gravity override and segregation.
The reservoir flutd properties are summarized
in Table 1 and the twenty cases investigated
listed in Table 2.
A predicted performance is classifieiias
gravity controlled if a single finger [gravity
tongue] is predicted as shown in Fig. lA. How.
ever, if the fingers initiated in the higher
permeability layers [alternate layer-permeabilities were increased 6 per cent to Initiat<
fingers] continued to grow as shown in Fig. X3:
the displacement is designated as ffnger controlled. If the fingers grow, but the fingers
at the top of the reservoir grow considerably
faster than the fingers at the bottom when a
lighter fluid is injected, the displacement is
designated as finger-gravity controlled.
,
The predictea performance of the 20 cases
investigated are presented in Fig. 2. These
results were correlated with the geometry ,ratic

F
%L

k~

, and the viscous-to-gravity-

M.

.-.

-,/-

f!.
.

MTT,T,F!R

.--

5
.

rate is too low.

ratio,

ini~ial

dhere @p i~ the density difference between the

nobile in place fluid and the hydrocarbon slug
naterial. [In virgin reservoirs, the in-place
fluid is the oil and Ln waterflooded reservoirs,
the in-place fluid is the water.] Note that the
viscous-to-gravity-gradientratio has been modified to express the mobility of the fluids in
the reservoir at the start of solvent injection.
Ihe mobility ratio between the solvent and oil
ranged from 5.k to 33.2 in the five fields
investigated. Although we eqect the transition
between gravity-controlled and finger-controlled
ilisplacementsto be dependent on the mobility
ratio, this variable was not investigated
separately. Although capillary forces affected
the degree the water in a waterflooded reservoir
was desaturated during injection of miscible
fluids in the cases invest.fgated,the capillary
forces were not important in determining if a
displacement is finger controlled or gravity
controlled. Ultimate vertical sweepouts in the
traditional range were 45 per cent to 55 per
cent [see Fig. 2]. ~ the finger-controlled
reglont ultimate sweepout efficiencies were 55
per cent to 75 per cent; and in the gravitycontrolled region, ultimate vertical sweepouts
were 30 per cent to 50 per cent.
General Observations of Flow Hehavior
Predicted results show that in general the
performance of a miscible slug project is
improved by the injection of water along with
the lean gas behind the solvent slug. However,
it is desirable to know if the lean gas will
segregate and ride across the top of the reservoir or flow non-segregated through the reservoir. This should be established prior to the
initiation of the field project, if possible,
since the gas/water injection ratio for equal
frontal velocities for the gas and water depends
on whether the gas and water segregate with the
gas flowing across the top of the formation or
the water ad gas flow as a mixture.
Ifgravity overriding and segregation are
severe, the oil is pushed aside) dow into the
center of the reservoir, by the solvent overriding finger and the oil is stored in the
formation instead of being pushed ahead of the
solvent baak as shown in Fig. 3. The leading
edge of the oil baak represents a 5 per cent
increase in the oil saturation. The oil is
produced S1OVLY as shown in Fig. 4 except for a
small oil slug just prior to the breakthrough of
the solvent bank. After solvent-bank breakthrough, the fractional oil flow from the production well rapidly drops to less than 10 per
cent. Thus, a major portion of the miscibly
swept oil may not be recoverable because the oil

Reducing the GWR after %he gas has swept

the top of a reservoir in a gravity-controlled
displacement will not increase the oil recovery
in many cases since the water will force the
oil bank back into the upper portion of the
reservoir and resaturate the miscibly swept
region behind the solvent beds.
The ultimate miscible sweepout at the
economic limit is of paramount concern in the
design of a field test. The breakthrough
recovery of oil for both multiple fingercontrolled displacements sad gravity [single
finger] displacements is low. However, the oil
recovery after breakthrough is considerably
higher in the cases which are multiple-finger
controlled. Once a high mobility zone is estat
lished at the top of the formation, the
inJected gas channels through this zone with
the result that substantial.oil is by-passed
after solvent and lean gas breakthrough.
The ratio of vertical to horizontal permeabikl.ty,kv/kh, was varied in a series of
displacements for Field A sad the value of
kv/kh set at 0.1,0.03,0.015,0.oland 0.003
for Cases 1, 2, 6, 7 ma 8, respectively. The
flow rate and reservoir and fluid properties
were the seinein this series of tests. The
predicted distribution of the solvent and oil
bed at the enclof the injection of the solvenj
bank is shown in Fig. 5 and the ultimate verti.
cal sweepouts for Cases 1, 7 and 8 [k /kh =
0.1, 0.01 and 0.003] were 50, 70 and 8Oper
cent i5 per cent, respectively. The ratio of
vertical -tohorizont&l permeability is impQrtant because the difference between a 50 per
cent and 70 per cent ultimate vertical sweepoul
could be the difference between an economic or
uneconomic field project.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of dis,
placements which are gravity controlled is the
effect of the reservoir thickness on the
recovery performance. If a gravity finger is
formed by density difference between two
miscible flui@ at the interface when a lighte:
fluid is injected, an increase in reservoir
thickness will lead to more overriding since
there is a greater gravity pOtenti81 gr~ient
at the top of the reservoir than at the bottom
of the reservoir. However, if the gravity
finger is caused by courrberflowsegregation
[V@fiiCSL gravity counterblow of the water and
hydrocarbon phases behfnd the front], then a
decrease in reservoir thickness will lead to a
poorer performance since the Yluids have a
shorter di-stanceto travel to segregate. The
situation is further complicated in very ttd.n
sands where capillary forceg can Pr,eventsegre
ga%ion or at least retard the rate of segregation. [Transverse dispersion can also retard
finger
growth.] Thus, the effect of thickness

GRAVTTY EFFECTS IN MISCIBLE DLSPS.AC!EMENT

EWE-1531

Stutlyof Gravity Segregation in Frontal

Drives, Trans., ADIE [1957] 210, 275.
Fozzi, A. L. and Blackwell, R=.:
Desi!znof laboratory Models for Study of
Miscible Displacemen~, Sot. Pet. llng~
Jour. [March, 19631~, 28.
ml,
B. Il.and Dyes, A. B.: huxroving
EsCibie Displacement ~y Gas-Water ~njection, Trans., AN
[1958] 213, 281.
for Use In
Rapoport, L. A.: Scaling =5
*sign and Operation of Water-Oil Flow
Models, Trans., AIME [1955] ~,
143.
Emglas, J., Jr., Peaceman, D. W. and
Rachford, H. H., Jr.: AMethod for Calculating !fi~lti-DimeWionalImmiscible
Displacement, Trans., AIME [1959] 216,

on gravity override and segregation is not

clear-cut although we found that in the five
reservoirs investigated, the displacements were
controlled by vertical courrterflowSegregation,
and a reduction in reservoir thickness had an
adverse effect on the reservoir performance.
CONCLUSIONS

1. Knowledge of the ratio of vert3.calto

horizontal, kv/kh, is important for proposed
miscible slug field tests - the difference
between akv/kh = 0.1 or kv/kh = 0.01 canbe the
difference between a 50 per cent ultimate vertical sweepout and a 70 per cent ultimate vertical
sweepout.

2$7/

6. Nielsen, R. L.:

On the Flow of Two

Immiscible Incompressible Fluids in Porous
Media, Phi)Dissertation, U. of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Mich. [1962].
7* Goddin, C. S., Jr.: Two-Dimensional
Flow of Two Dnmlacible Incompressible
Fluids in a Stratified Porous Medium,
3. It is necessary to use two scaling
I
PhD Dissertation, U. of Michigan, Ann
%L
Arbor, Mlch. [1965].
groups such as the geometry ratio,
kh
~
8. Geertsma, J., Croes, G. A. smd Schwarz,
N. : Theory of Dimensionally Scaled
and viscous-to-gravity-gradientratio
I
Models OT Petroleum Reservoirs, Trans.,
AIME [1956] 207, 118.
Johnston, O. C.: A
9* Perkins. T. ~and
Review ;f DLffuston ana Dis~ersion in
Porous Media, Sot. Pet. Eng. Jour.
tiin;;correate
CMarch,
.-. 1963]3, 70.
the results of the 20cases Lnvest.igatedin.
Koval, E. J.: iAMethod for Predicting
10
which the consideration of gravity counterblow.
the Performance of Unstable Miscible Dissegregation was important. We expect tinatthe
placement in Heterogeneous Media, Sot.
requirement for scaling two groups can be
Pet. Eng. Jour. [June, 19631~, 145.
relaxed if a displacement is not near the
11. Perkins, T. K., Johnston, O. C. and
transitional region between finger and gravityHoffman, R. N.: Mechanics of Viscous
controlled displacements, but this range was not
Fingering in Miscible Systems, Sot. Pet.
determined.
Eng. Jour. [Dec., 1965]~, 301.
Habermann. B.: The Efficiency of Misci12.
4. The effect of reservoir thickness on
ble Displ&cement as a Function-of Mobilits
the reservoir performanceis not clear-cut since
Ratio, Trans., AIME [1960] 219, 264.
the factors which influence flow behavior have
13.
Templeton, E. E., Nielsen, R=.
and
the following
different effects:
Stelll.c*
o.: A Study of Gravity Countel
.
flow Segregation, SOC-.Pet. Eng.-Jour.
a. If the overriding gravity finger
[June, 1962]2,185.
growth is largely controlled by the density
14. Havanessian, S, A. and Fayers, ~. J.:
difference between two miscible fluids, an
LinearWater Flood with Gravity and
increase in reservoir thickness will.l=ad to
Capillary Effects, Sot. Pet. ~g. .Tour.
more overriding.
[March, 1961] 1, 32.
b. Itthe-overriding gravity finger
15, Crane,-F. E., ~endall, H. A. and Gardner,
growth is controlled by vertical tour.rterflow
G. H. F.: Some Experiments on the Flow
segregation, a decrease in thickness results
of Miscible Fluids of Uhequal Density
in a poorer performance since the fluids
Through Porous Media, Sot. Pet. Eng.
travel a shorter distance to segregate.
Jour.
[EC.,
19631& 277+
c. Capillary fOrceS can retard or pre16. =Well,
R. J., Rayne, J. R. and Terry$
vent.segregation in thin sands.
W. M.: Factors Influencing the Effici-

2. If aQ override
formed, the oil bank ts
centierof the reservoir
immiscible by the water
gas.

gravity tongue is
pushed down into the
and slowly displaced
injectecialong with the

J--

REFERENCES
I
1.

Craig, F. F.$ Jr.$ Sanderlin} J. L., Moore~

D. W. and Geffen$ T. M.: A Laboratory

ency of Miscible Displacement) Trans.$

AIME [19591216,1.

M. C. MILLER

E-1531
..
APPENDIX--GRAVITY OVERRIDEIN TWODIMENSIONAL SYSTEMS WITH NO CROSSFLOW

Gravity override In a two-dimensional

Cartesian coordinate system [x,YI with DO
crossflow was numerically calculated u~ing
Darcys law.
Gravity override can occur in a
two-dimensional system if the density of the
fluid in the injection well is less than the
density ofthe flutd in the production well
since the potential drop across the top of the
formation is greater than the potential drop
across the bottom. The assumptions made iu
these calculations are: [1] a sharp interface
exists between the displaced and displacing
fluids, [2] the viscosity [mobility] is constant in the displaced and displacing fluids
and the ratio of these nobilities is the mobility ratio, and [3]the capillary forces can be
neglected. The laydmm of the injected fluid
is initiated by a greater potential at the top.
If the injected fluid is more mobile than the
in-place fluid, the resistance to flow decreases
during a test so that once a finger is formed
by gravity at the top of the formation, mobility
effects will cause it to grow. Thus the more
adverse the mobility ratio [the Injected fluid
is less viscous than the in-place fluld] the
more severe the gravity override.
The results of the numerical calculations
which treated 20 non-conmmnicating layers are
shown in Figs. A-1 through A-4 for mobility
ratios of 0,1, 1, 10 and 100, respectively. The
position of the leadlng edge and tr~il-ug edge
prior to breakthrough can be read i . J-e
figures for viscous to gravity press~. drop
VJLO

L
and theabove-

ratio [dimensionless]
khgA~
cited mobll%ty ratios,
where:

g =
AP=
H=
v=
PO

gravitational constant
density difference
reservoir
thickness
fluid velocity
fluid viscosity of the in-place
fluid
L= reservotr length
kh = reservoir horizontal permeability.

The location of the interface at any

height aud PV throughput prior to breakthrough
can be obtained from the following Lagrangian
interpolation formula:
x(~)

=(3 f(yo)

- (4f(yo) +
+
wh.e
re:

Sf(yl)

2f(Yl)

6(vP))(~)z
-6(Vp))(~)

f(Y~)

f[yol = position of trailing edge at

given PV throughput
f[Yll = position of leading edge at
given PV throughput
Vp PV throughput
xx
H
()

= position of interface at a
given value of dimensionless
hetght.

Since these displacements assumed a sharp

front between the displaced and displacing
fluid in each layer, the actual vertical sweepout performance would be much lower for mobility ratios of 10 and 100 [Figs. A-3 and A-k]
as a result of VISCOUS fingers within each
layer. These plots, Figs. A-1 through A-4,
are useful in ascertaining the effect of
gravity on the sweepout performance with no
crossflow. The calculations were substantiate
by tests in a capillary tube flow model.
[Twelve capillary tubes were vertically
mounted in parallel with a common injection
and production well.] These results show the
effect of gravity override since no vertical
countercurrent segregation could occur with
zero vertical permeability.

TABLE

TABLE I

CASE

RESS2RVOIRAND

FLUID

PROPERTIES

- CASE

STUDmS
Permeability
Ratio

Field

Reservoir
Length.
ft.
Reservoir

Thickness,

Reservoir

Porosity,

1034

ft.

Reservoir
Horizontal
Permeability
(Oil at
conoate water) md

15
%

22.0

Field

2660

Field
2660

32.2

84
22,8

7.8

102
22.4

STUDIES

Field
.

Field

E
Case

Field

kJkh

330

3020

0.1

25

57

Geometry

Ratio

YE+

Viscous

to Granty

40.7

5.3

0.03

22.4

9.7

0.03

22.4

48.4

56.7

10

0.03

22.4

97.0

20.7

10.3

0.02

18.3

59.5

Gradient

0.969

0.992

0.992

1.000

1.060

0.015

16.2

13.5

0.594

0.603

0.603

0.727

0.547

0.01

12.9

16.8

Solvent
Gravity,
gin/ccO.111

0.254

0.254

0.504

0.019

0.003

-1.1

30.7

LeanGas Gravity,

0.130

0.130

0.082

0.03

14.3

5.8

0.27

0.355

0.355

0.92

0.29

10

0.03

14.3

11.5

0.19

0.248

0.248

3.65

0.13

11

0.01

8.3

9.8

12

0.03

59.0

5.6

10.6

9.2

9,2

33.2

5.4
13

0.03

59.0

11.2

14

0.03

59.0

44.8

15

0.1

4.2

12.3

16

0.1

4.2

24.6

17

0.01

53.0

0.77

18

0.1

16.8

0.24

19

0.1

lb. s

2.42

20

0.01

5.3

0.77

Water

Gravity,
gmlcc

OilGravity,
gmfcc

Water

Viscosity,

Oil Viscosity,

gmlcc
cp

cp

Oil- Solvent Viscosity

Ratio pol ps

Q 100

Solvent-Lean
Gas
Viscosity Ratio p~lfig

1.2

1.4

1.4

Effective
Tension,

20

20

20

Interracial
dynes/ cm

7.8

20

--

--

20

Ratio

A,

CASE

2:

GF?AVITY

CONTROLLED
A

SOLVENT
d
+

z
0
i=
0
a

0.2

0.4

0.6

DIMENS1ONLESS

B. CASE

16:

FINGER

0.8

1.0

LENGTH, f

CONTROLLED
A

0,2

0.4

0.6

DIMENSIONLESS

0,8

1.0

LENGTH, f

Fig. 1 - Predicted
Hydrocarbon
Ilistribut,ion Showing
Gravity
and
Finger

loo~

Controlled

I 1 1111

A-FIELD

[11(1

II

07

O-FIELD

-FIELD

V-FIELD

B-FIELD

Displacements

I 1[111

12

#
, #$

*I
,~~:

At
Oe

10 .

0 g

GRAVITY

J?

C~NTROLLED++

E
M
z
o

kH,kv=HORIZONTAL

AND

kro,km

PERMEABILITIES

1.0

v=

TOTAL

+=

POROSITY,

Af2

w
to

~RELATIVE
FLUID

=DENSITY

[,,
I

VELOCITY,

MILLIDARCIES

ANO *ATER

Fmt/Ooy

SLUG,
OF

BETWEEN

MOBILE

OIL

ANO

WATER,

PLACE

FLUID

AND

1111111

1 I

111111

3644
m

{
2 - Predioted

Linear

Reservoir

Performance
Flow

System:

(Two

i
1111-11

Vertical
Dimensional

Computer

1000

~rO
_._+~},N,TML

Ap

.
Fig.

1 I I

100

10

TO GRAVITY GRADlENT RATIO,

Sweep-out

INJECTED

CENTIPOISE

IN

Gm /Qc

,,
111111 I I II11111
0,

OIL

DIFFERENCE

VISCOSITY

05!01

VISCOUS

PORE

TO

~.

FRACTION

MISCIBLE
#Lo,~wm

PERMEABILITY,

VERTICAL

co ROLLED

Is

Vv
[

I IllJj

;ER
15

&+*

:4

6/0A
lo4&7/

020

>

I I 1[11

Model)

(A) AT END OF RICH GAS INJECTION (0.09 PV)

DIMENSIONLESS

LENGTH, +

(B) qT END OF SECOND LEAN GAS- WATER CYCLE (0.16

DIMENSIONLESS

(C) AT

END

OF

FIFTH

LEAN

LENGTH , +

GAS -WATER

OIMENS1ONLESS

(D) AT

END OF EIGHTH

LENGTH,

CYCLE

(0.25

LEAN

PV)

GAS -WATER CYCLE (0.34 PV)

LEAN
c3AS

PV)

I
SOLVENT

ii
**

z
4

OIL

40

BANK

F
o
a
-a

o
c

0.2

0.4

0.:

DIMENSIONLESS

(E) AT

END OF ELEVENTH

LEAN

3 - Predicted

LO

LENGTH, f

GAS - WATER CYCLE (0.44

DIMENSIONLESS

Fig.

0.8

LENGTH, +

Hydrocarbon
Case 9

Distribution

Pv)

g
b

0.4 -

2
L
~

0.2 -

PREDICTED

1-

SOLVENT B.T.

OIL B,T.

00

0.4

0.6

- Oil

0.8

PORE
Fig.

EXTRAPOLATED
___
----3

---

1.0

1.2

1.4

1,6

VOLUME

Trom

(A)

Flow

Field

CASE

1.8

THRUPUT

Fractional

Stream

B,

in Producing
Case

1, $Hmo.l
-1

SOLVENT
4

-0

-o
0

0.2

0.4

DIMENSIONLESS

(B)

0.6

0.8

1,0

n
n

LENGTH,*

CASE 7, ~=0.01

DIMENSIONLESS LEN6TH,f

(C)

CASE 8,&&90.003
-1

-s
-g

Ii
z
q

-o

&

0.2

0.4

DIMENSIONLESS

Fig.
at

5 - Predicted

end

of

Solvent

0.6

o.s

I.o

LENQTH,+

Hydrocarbon
Slug

----

(O.1OPV)

Distribution
- Field

of

#p

PORE

0.2

c!?

VOLUME

0.4

~osition
Front

vs

of Leading
and Trailing
PV Thruput
in Linear
with
no Crossflow

??1:

THRUPUT

0.6

0.8

Edges
Reservoirs

x+

.
w
:

Lo

LLJ
g
:
~ 0.8

UJ

*S (*)(*)
0.8

1.0

i+ (*)(+)
*=I

a
w
-1

#.1

x~A

PORE VOLUME THRUPUT

0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

$=3
*.3

0.6

L
0

0.6 -

f-lo

o
~ 0.4

g =100

1-

o-l

o
a

0
a

(l)

0.2

z
g

0
0.2

PORE
A-1

- For

(Up

0.4
VOLUME

0.6

0.8
5

THRUPUT

Mobility
Ratio
to Breakthrough)

~ 0.2U-J

w
J
30
65
z
w
s
=
a

0.2
PORE

A-2

0.1

0.4
VOLUME

0.6

08
E

THRUPUT

Ratio
- For Mobility
(Up to Breakthrough)

= 1

1.

XA

X*P

PORE VOLUME THRUPUT

PORE
0.2

ElJii
0.8

VOLUME

THRUPUT

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

#,[
#=3

0.6 -

g=,o

04 - &loo

0.2

o
=

P~RE

A-3

VOLUME

THRUPUT

For Mobility Ratio

(Up to Breakthrough)

= 10

0,2
PORE

A-4

VOLUME

THRUPUT

- For Mobility Ratio

(UP to Breakthrough)

= 100