ear the oil bubblepoint pressure, nonrecovered oil represents the smallest volum

e of stock-tank oil, oil relative permeability is high, and oil viscosity is low
.
Efficiency of oil recovery by immiscible gas displacement
It is customary in most displacement processes to relate recovery efficiency to
displacement efficiency and volumetric sweep efficiency. The product of these fa
ctors provides an estimate of recoverable oil expressed as a percentage of OOIP.
Analytical procedures are available for evaluating each efficiency factor. The
two components describing the overall recovery efficiency are defined as follows
:
Displacement efficiency is the percentage of oil in place within a totally s
wept reservoir rock volume that is recovered as a result of viscous displacement
and gravity drainage processes.
Volumetric sweep efficiency is the percentage of the total rock or PV that i
s swept by gas. This factor is sometimes divided into horizontal and vertical co
mponents, with the product of the two components representing the volumetric swe
ep.
Recovery efficiencies increase with continued gas injection, but the rate of rec
overy diminishes after gas breakthrough occurs as the GOR increases. The overall
result is that the ultimate oil recovery efficiency is a function of economic c
onsiderations, such as the cost of gas compression and the volume and availabili
ty of lean residue gas or potentially more expensive alternatives like N2 from a
nitrogen rejection plant.
Summary
Key points concerning immiscible gas/oil displacement are:
Immiscible gas/oil viscous displacement is an inefficient oil displacement p
rocess because gas is a highly mobile fluid.
Gas-oil capillary pressure data indicate that in many situations the residua
l oil saturation to gas displacement is significantly lower than the residual oi
l saturation to water displacement.
The immiscible gas/oil process becomes efficient and desirable when gravity
works to keep the very-low-density gas on top of the higher-density oil and/or t
here is significant mass transfer of components from the oil to the gas.
The most successful immiscible gas/oil injection projects are the vertical g
ravity drainage projects in which gas is injected into the crestal primary or se
condary gas cap, with the oil wells producing from as far downdip as possible to
maximize this distance from the gas cap both vertically and laterally. To maxim
ize the efficiency of this approach, the overall oil production rate has to be r
estricted to the critical displacement rate.
One gas/oil compositional mass-transfer effect is oil swelling. If an oil fi
eld contains a very undersaturated oil, then oil swelling by contact with the in
jected gas can be a very significant effect. However, if a reservoir has an orig
inal gas cap, the oil swelling effect is minimal because the oil is already full
y saturated or nearly saturated with gas.
The other gas/oil compositional mass-transfer effect is stripping or vaporiz
ation of intermediate hydrocarbon components from the oil by the lean injected g
as. The importance of this effect increases as the producing gas-oil ratio (GOR)
rises. Toward the end of the life of an immiscible gas injection project, the s
tripping effect can contribute many of the liquid hydrocarbons produced in the s
urface facilities and associated gas plants. This effect occurs with all types o
f oils but is more significant for lighter, or higher American Petroleum Institu
te (API) gravity, oils.
A few immiscible gas injection field projects have been undertaken that are
not vertical gas/oil gravity drainage projects but in which compositional effect
s have led to project success. An excellent example of this approach is the Swan

son River field in Alaska.

Gas coning into producing wellbores perforated intervals occurs with thin oil
columns or as the gas/oil interface moves downward. Horizontal wells are a meth
od of further reducing the height of the remaining oil column by lowering pressu
re drawdown and thus minimizing the effects of gas coning.
Numerical reservoir simulators are the best tool to evaluate all the technic
al aspects of an immiscible gas injection project, either historical performance
and/or projections of future performance. Simple mathematical techniques have b
een developed to analyze some types of immiscible gas/oil displacements.
References
? Muskat, M. 1949. Physical Principles of Oil Production, 470-502. New York
City: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.
? Cotter, W.H. 1962. Twenty-Three Years of Gas Injection into A Highly Under
saturated Crude Reservoir. J Pet Technol 14 (4): 361-365. SPE-82-PA. http://dx.d
oi.org/10.2118/82-PA
? Shehabi, J.A.N. 1979. Effective Displacement of Oil by Gas Injection in a
Preferentially Oil-Wet, Low-Dip Reservoir. J Pet Technol 31 (12): 1605-1613. SPE
-7652-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/7652-PA
? 4.0 4.1 Kuehm, H.G. 1977. Hawkins Inert Gas Plant: Design and Early Operat
ion. Presented at the SPE Annual Fall Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denve
r, Colorado, 9-12 October 1977. SPE-6793-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/6793-MS
? Miscible Processes, Vol. 8, 197. 1965. Richardson, Texas: Reprint Series,
SPE.
? Saidi, A.M. 1996. Twenty Years of Gas Injection History into Well-Fracture
d Haft Kel Field (Iran). Presented at the International Petroleum Conference and
Exhibition of Mexico, Villahermosa, Mexico, 5 7 March. SPE 35309. http://dx.doi.o
rg/10.2118/35309-MS
? Carlson, L.O. 1988. Performance of Hawkins Field Unit Under Gas Drive-Pres
sure Maintenance Operations and Development of an Enhanced Oil Recovery Project.
Presented at the SPE Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 16 21 Apri
l. SPE-17324-MS. http://dx.doi.