SPE 72106
Evaluation of CO2 Gas Injection For Major Oil Production Fields in Malaysia –
Experimental Approach Case Study: Dulang Field
Zahidah Md. Zain, Nor Idah Kechut, Ganesan Nadeson, PETRONAS Research & Scientific Services Sdn. Bhd., Noraini
Ahmad, Oil Business, PETRONAS, Dr. DM Anwar Raja, Technology Management Unit, PETRONAS Carigali Sdn. Bhd.
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery
Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 8–9 October 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In meeting the challenge to improve oil recovery through
implementation of IOR techniques, Dulang field was selected
to study the possibility of CO2 injection as a potential recovery
method. Dulang was chosen as the candidate because of the
complete suite of information on this field and the availability
of CO2 source within Dulang and nearby fields. The work
focused on characterizing the oil and oil - CO2 interactions
that was performed through phase behavior studies,
vaporization test and displacement tests.
Studies conducted indicates that at the reservoir
temperature of 215OF, CO2 injection would not be able to
achieve miscibility with the crude oil at the current reservoir
pressure, or even if the pressure is increased to the initial
reservoir pressure. Equation-of-State (EOS) model also shows
that the Multiple Contact Miscibility Pressure (MCMP) for
CO2 and produced hydrocarbon gas is 3230 psig and 3340
psig respectively. This pressure is significantly higher than the
initial reservoir pressure of 1800 psig.
Vaporization of Dulang crude by pure CO2 and the CO2-
rich produced gas was studied. The laboratory study suggests
significant vaporization of 15% of the stock tank oil with pure
CO2. However, based on Equation of State, the vaporization
ranges from 2 - 5 % with produced gas at operating reservoir
pressure of 1400 - 1800 psig.
In view of the above, the potential recovery process is an
immiscible process using produced gas containing high CO2
for cost optimization. In addition, the water alternating gas
(WAG) process may improve mobility control and sweep
efficiency. Detail studies involving WAG Composite Core, G
& G Modeling and Numerical Simulation are currently on-
going for identified location of a pilot project.
Introduction
Among the Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques
applicable to Malaysian reservoirs, CO2 injection has been
identified as the most amenable process. Preliminary
laboratory studies were conducted on the applicability of CO2
displacement process.
It is estimated that potentially, about 1 billion barrel
additional crude oil could be recovered from Malaysian
producing oil fields through application of IOR/EOR (Fig. 1).
Such a gain will result in reserves growth, and extend the
producing life of these reservoirs. This potential for oil
recovery presents a major economic opportunity.
Dulang Field was selected for detailed study to assess the
potential of CO2 gas injection for oil producing fields in
Malaysia. The field is located 130 km from offshore
Terengganu, eastern Peninsular Malaysia in water depth of
76m in South China Sea 1,2 (Fig. 2).
CO2 immiscible displacement is a well established
technique for increasing oil recovery. This has been applied to
reservoirs throughout the world. In Malaysia, for the Dulang
reservoir, a more determined effort to implement a separator
gas which contains almost 50% of CO2 reinjection scheme in
an immiscible mode on a pilot scale is currently being
considered.
Carbon Dioxide Flooding
Carbon dioxide flooding may be implemented in miscible,
near miscible or immiscible modes in either a post-water
flooded (tertiary) or as secondary displacement scheme.
The recovery of oil by carbon dioxide flooding is highly
dependent on the phase behaviour between carbon dioxide,
water and reservoir oil. The CO2-oil phase behaviour strongly
affects fluid flow by altering mobility ratios, interfacial
tensions, relative permeabilities and rates of mass transfer.
Detailed phase behaviour studies can better define the
significant incremental benefits of CO2 displacement even at
immiscible conditions and when significant solution gas is
present. Viscosity reduction by CO2 helps to improve the
mobility ratio and hence volumetric conformance, while CO2
swelling reduces the effective residual oil saturation.
2 ZAHIDAH MD. ZAIN, NOR IDAH KECHUT, GANESAN NADESON, NORAINI AHMAD, DR. DM ANWAR RAJA SPE 72106

Immiscible CO2 gas displacement also benefits from high Constant Composition Expansion (CCE) tests were
level of mass transfer. conducted after adding each mole percent of CO2. The data
obtained from the tests provided:
Fluid Sampling • Relationship between saturation pressure and volume
For this study, surface oil and gas samples were taken from a of gas injected
Dulang B well candidate based on the following criteria: • Swelling factor with the amount of CO2 injected
• low producing GOR close to initial solution GOR
• producing naturally The relationship of saturation pressure vs. volume is given
• low water cut in Fig. 3. At every CO2 concentration, the CO2-crude oil
mixture exhibited bubble points. As illustrated in Fig. 3,
• producing from major reservoir/block
saturation pressure increases with increasing CO2
concentration in the mixture. At the initial reservoir pressure
Phase Behaviour of Oil/CO2 Mixture
of 1800 psig, the maximum solubility of CO2 in the
Two sets of PVT experiments were carried out on Dulang B
mixture.reservoir fluid is estimated to be 111 scf/bbl. This
samples namely the routine PVT analysis on the original crude
estimate is based on 12.36 mole% of CO2 that can be
oil and specialised PVT measurements involving addition of
dissolved at this pressure.
carbon dioxide gas.
At 80 mole% of CO2, it was observed that the colour of the
The main objective of the phase behaviour study is to
sample in the single phase region changed inconsistently from
investigate the fluid-fluid interaction between oil and CO2
dark to reddish brown as the pressure was gradually reduced.
(swelling, viscosity, saturation pressure). In addition, this
Blackish particles appeared and randomly dispersed
information was used for tuning the phase behaviour model.
throughout the sample. It is strongly believed that these
particles are asphaltenes that were knocked out from solution.
Recombined fluid composition and analysis
Below the saturation pressure, the liquid phase colour did not
The reservoir fluid was obtained by recombining separator gas
change noticeably. The pressure-volume curve for 80 mole %
and oil at a GOR of 280 scf/bbl. At the reservoir temperature,
CO2 is also relatively smoother. These cause uncertainty in
this fluid exhibits bubble point pressure of 1525 psig. The
determining the saturation pressure.
density of the sample at this pressure is 0.735 g/cc. The
The pressure-composition diagram for dilution of the crude
composition of the reservoir fluid is given in Table 1.
oil with CO2 is shown in Fig. 4. The pseudo-critical pressure
at which the system changes from bubble point system to dew
Table 1: Reservoir Fluid Composition
point system, was obtained from swelling simulation using a
COMPONENT S E P. G A S S E P. O IL WELLSTREAM
(M O L%) (M O L%) (M O L%)
proprietary software. The two phase region is represented by a
series of liquid volume lines, ranges from 20 % to 100%
CO2 4 9 .9 3 0 0.196 2 0 .7 4 3 liquid volumes.
N2 0.130 0.094 0.109 At initial reservoir pressure (1800 psig), shown by solid
C1 3 4 .8 0 0 1.168 15.062 line, the reservoir fluid is in single phase up to about 12
C2 5.880 0 .9 8 4 3 .007
mole% of the injected gas. As more gas is injected, the two
C3 4 .710 1 .3 0 1 2 .7 1 0
phase region persists. On the other hand, at the current
iC4 1 .7 2 0 0 .5 4 8 1.032
nC 4 1 .4 1 0 0 .4 6 3 0 .8 5 4
reservoir pressure of 1400 psig, shown by dotted line, the
iC5 0 .7 1 0 0 .2 0 8 0 .4 1 5 reservoir fluid is already in the two phase region. Adding more
nC 5 0 .5 0 0 0.130 0 .2 8 3 CO2 into the reservoir fluid will only reduce the fraction of
C6 0 .2 1 0 4.823 2 .9 1 7 liquid phase volume.
C7 0.000 4.827 2.833 An investigation of this isobaric path is necessary in
C8 0.000 2.189 1 .2 8 5
modelling gas/oil displacement process. Since there is a
C9 0.000 4 .209 2 .4 7 0
transfer of oil from the liquid phase into the vapour, traditional
C10 0.000 4 .016 2.357
C11+ 0.000 7 4 .8 4 4 4 3 .9 2 3
solubility representations of CO2-oil phase behaviour cannot
TOTAL 100.000 100.000 100.000 be used to predict fluid properties during the displacement
process. An Equation-of-state (EOS) together with a complex
Special Phase Behaviour Studies reservoir model must be used to match the phase behaviour as
Approximately 10 cc of the recombined fluid was transferred represented by the pressure-composition diagram. Such a
into the preheated PVT cell. A bubble point check was carried model is then used to predict fluid properties in the mixing
out to determine the representativeness of the sample. Carbon zones between the injected and in-place fluids and efficiency
dioxide of known amount and density was added to the of the displacement.
reservoir fluid in a series of steps from 20 to 80 mole percent One of the properties of CO2 that makes it a useful EOR
of the fluid sample. At each addition, homogeneity of the agent is the increase in volume of a crude oil when saturated
mixture was achieved by magnetically stirring it until the PVT with CO2. In order to determine this effect, the swelling factor,
cell pressure was stabilised at the set value. Sf, was calculated. This factor shows how much the original
 EVALUATION OF CO2 GAS INJECTION FOR MAJOR OIL PRODUCTION FIELDS
SPE 72106 IN MALAYSIA—EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH CASE STUDY: DULANG FIELD 3

oil will swell in the presence of CO2. Change in the original Table 2: Composition of the Liberated Gases and
oil volume will also result in change of the oil density. Stock Tank Oil from Equilibrium Study at 1525 psig,
O
215 F for 80% CO2
Sf = Volume of the oil phase of the mixture at the given pressure
Volume at saturation pressure of original crude COMPONENT LIBERATED GASES STOCK TANK
(MOLE %) OIL@ 0 PSIG, 60 OF
The swelling is important for two reasons: AT 1525 PSIG, 215 OF
• The residual oil left in the reservoir after flooding is CO2 87.240 0.000
inversely proportional to the swelling factor, i.e. the N2 1.340 0.000
greater the swelling, the less stock tank oil is left C1 8.470 0.000
behind in the reservoir
C2 1.220 0.000
• Swollen oil droplets will force water out of the pore
C3 0.830 0.000
spaces, creating a drainage process for water-wet
system. Drainage oil relative permeability curves are i-C4 0.290 0.000
higher than their imbibition counterparts, creating a n-C4 0.270 0.000
more favourable oil flow environment at any given i-C5 0.170 0.000
saturation pressure. n-C5 0.110 0.004
C6 0.060 1.864
C7 0.000 7.713
The results of oil swelling factor vs. pressure are presented
in Fig. 5. For example, at 60 mole% of CO2 injected, the C8 0.000 5.997
swelling factor increases with pressure until it reaches a C9 0.000 3.675
maximum of 1.5 at 3210 psig, the saturation pressure for the C10 0.000 4.679
mixture. At this point, the reservoir fluid has become saturated C11+ 0.000 76.068
with CO2 and no further dissolution of CO2 is taking place. As TOTAL 100.000 100.000
pressure is further increased, the oil swelling factor is slightly
SG 1.431 0.836
reduced according to change of oil compressibility with
pressure. MW 41.440 189.850
At the initial reservoir pressure of 1800 psig, for injecting
60 mole% CO2, the swelling factor is only 1.09 meaning that
the reservoir fluid volume increases by 9% (more than its Vapourisation studies
original volume). Injecting the same amount of CO2 at the One of the most important characteristics favouring CO2 is its
current reservoir pressure (1400 psig) will correspondingly ability to vaporise or extract hydrocarbons from crude oil or
result in only 5% swelling. reservoir oil, thus improving sweep efficiency as well as oil
recovery. In addition, the high solubility of CO2 in crude oil
Summary of Results makes it an attractive immiscible flooding prospect. Menzie
CO2 was added sequentially to the virgin fluid at 20, 40, 60 and Nielson3 determined that crude oil could be produced
and 80 mole percent. At each addition, CCE test was successfully by a process of vaporisation using CO2. They
conducted. Increasing the CO2 content in the mixture, found that over half of the original stock tank oil could be
increases the saturation pressure. vapourised during multiple contacts with CO2.
The swelling factor also increases with CO2 content and Holm and Josendal4 reported that CO2 vapourised or
pressure. However, density of the liquid phase at saturation extracted hydrocarbons from the reservoir oil until a sufficient
decreases with increasing CO2 concentration in the mixture. quantity of these hydrocarbons exists at the displacement front
This is attributed to the increase of total volume of the liquid to cause the oil to be miscibly displaced. When miscibility
phase. Although not measured experimentally, dilution of oil does not exist, the vaporisation or extraction mechanism again
by CO2 could have reduced the viscosity of the liquid phase occurs to reestablish miscibility.
much more than any increases due to extraction. The objective of this study was to determine if Dulang B
The stock tank oil and the liberated gas composition (Table crude oil could be significantly extracted by a process of crude
2) resulting from the liquid phase at 1525 psig, as shown in oil vaporisation using carbon dioxide. Laboratory experiments
Table 2, indicates that less intermediate components in the were conducted to evaluate the amount of oil that could be
liquid phase. This shows the effect of extraction by CO2 on produced by CO2 injection. At the same time, the laboratory
the original fluid (Table 1). This is further verified by some vaporisation test provides information for calibrating the
amount of hydrocarbons in the vapour phase. equation of state used for economic and technical feasibility
study. A numerical model for vapourisation may be composed
from the results obtained from the laboratory studies.
4 ZAHIDAH MD. ZAIN, NOR IDAH KECHUT, GANESAN NADESON, NORAINI AHMAD, DR. DM ANWAR RAJA
From cost optimisation consideration, solution gas which
contains 40 - 60 mole% CO2 would ultimately be used in the
pilot and in subsequent field projects. In our approach, CO2
was used in the laboratory, firstly, because it is a much simpler
component to model by Equation of State and secondly,
because it is safer to handle CO2 than the flammable and toxic
hydrocarbon gas in the laboratory.
Approach
A vaporisation experiment was designed to provide
information on the phase exchange that takes place between
the oil and the injected solvent. At the well bore, the injected
CO2 comes into contact with the reservoir fluid, an inter-phase
exchange of mass takes place. Initially, CO2 is absorbed by the
oil, releasing dissolved gas so a vapour phase (which is rich in
methane and less viscous than the reservoir fluid) is formed.
This lean gas moves forward more rapidly than the CO2
swollen reservoir fluid just contacted. This CO2 saturated
reservoir fluid is then contacted with fresh CO2 and a phase
exchange again happens with C2-C5 being stripped. Injection
of fresh CO2 solvent into the reservoir continues and
progressively heavier components are stripped until no further
vaporisation from the resulting viscous reservoir fluid takes
place. A schematic diagram of how the process is simulated in
the lab is shown in Fig. 6.
In this study, Dulang B reservoir fluid obtained by
recombining separator oil and separator gas resulting in a
bubble point pressure of 1525 psig, was used. A vapour liquid
equilibrium and interfacial tension (VLE-IT) equipment
together with densitometer and gasometer were used in the
experiment. 5,6
Experimental Procedure and Results
Vaporisation experiments were conducted at a pressure of
1800 psig (initial reservoir pressure of Dulang B) and
temperature of 215 oF. Under these conditions, the density of
CO2 was found to be 0.2935 g/cc. This value is within the
range of 0.25 to 0.35 g/cc reported by Holm & Josendal7 at
which extraction of liquid hydrocarbons into a CO2-rich
vapour phase occurs. The initial volume of the reservoir fluid
used was 130 cc which corresponds to 105.19 cc stock tank oil
originally in place (STOOIP).
During the experiment, for the first contact, 155.65 cc of
CO2 at test conditions was charged into the system. Having
achieved equilibrium by mixing the reservoir fluid and CO2,
the density of the vapour phase was measured and some of the
equilibrated vapour was then flashed out through the
gasometer. The total amount of liquid remaining in the system
was recorded. For the subsequent contact, varying amounts in
the range of 65 to 80 cc of CO2 were charged into the system,
mixed with the liquid phase until equilibrium was achieved
and again the vapour density was measured and some of the
vapour phase removed. The amount of liquid phase remaining
in the system was noted. The experiment was performed for
up to 23 contacts, at which the accumulated amount of CO2
injected was 1545 cc.
SPE 72106
Fig. 7 shows the amount of liquid that remained in the
system after being contacted with various amount of CO2. The
result shows that CO2 first swelled the reservoir fluid as it
dissolved into the oil. A maximum swelling factor [(volume of
reservoir fluid + dissolved CO2)/volume of reservoir fluid] of
1.10 occurred after 200 to 300 cc of CO2 being mixed with the
reservoir fluid. The oil then shrunk as CO2 extracted
hydrocarbon components (the hydrocarbon transferred into the
vapour phase).
Based on material balance, a total of 15.92 cc liquid
condensate was produced out of 105.19 cc STO originally in
the system (15.14% of the STOOIP), after 1545 cc (0.231
standard m3) of CO2 was injected. This indicates that one
stock tank barrel of condensate was generated for every
81,400 scf of CO2 injected.
Densities of the vapour and liquid phases at each contact
of the experiments were measured. The vapour phase densities
were measured using the densitometer, whereas the liquid
phase densities were calculated based on material balance. It
was observed that upon increasing the amount of CO2 injected
into the system, the liquid densities slightly increased
indicating that the residual liquid was getting denser.
Compositions of the gas produced and liquid condensate
dropping out from the vapour phase were also analysed. Fig. 8
shows that CO2 first extracted methane from the reservoir
fluid. Further contact with CO2 resulted in the extraction of C2
to C4 components and later the heavier hydrocarbons. As more
CO2 was contacted with the residual oil, the vapour phase
becomes richer and richer in C5, C6 and C7+. After the tenth
contact, the gas becomes rather leaner and leaner since
components heavier than C5 had already dropped out from the
vapour phase as liquid condensate. The compositions of the
liquid condensate is shown in Fig. 9. The figure reveals that at
1800 psig and 215 oF, CO2 is capable of extracting C7+
components from the residual oil in increasing amounts as the
volume of CO2 injected increased. Residual oil at the last
contact contained less C5 to C10.
These phase compositions, fluid properties and the
calculated oil recoveries are valuable in field-scale simulations
for assessing the technical and economics feasibility of CO2
flooding process.
Vapourisation Model Prediction
The objectives of constructing a numerical vaporisation
model5 are to interpret and check the consistency of the
experimental results, and to use the developed and tuned
model for prediction of experimental data when they are not
available. Details of the approach for modeling is discussed in
Ref. 8,9,10.
The model was used to simulate vapourisation at the initial
reservoir pressure of 1800 psig and current reservoir pressure
of 1400 psig for both using pure CO2 and Dulang B produced
gas. The results are tabulated in Table 3.
 EVALUATION OF CO2 GAS INJECTION FOR MAJOR OIL PRODUCTION FIELDS
SPE 72106 IN MALAYSIA—EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH CASE STUDY: DULANG FIELD 5

O
Table 3: Summary of Vapourization Test @ 215 F miscible from immiscible displacements and to show the
effect of pressure on displacement efficiency. Nevertheless,
P ressure
(P sig)
Injected
solvent
Initial Vol. @
S td. C o n d .
Final Vol. @
S td. C o n d .
%
Vapourisation
the experiment indicates potential operating pressures which is
(c c ) (c c ) one of the most critical elements in reservoir management.
E xperiment 1800 C O2 105.19 89.26 15.14

Simulation 1800 C O2 104.34 90.85 12.93 Experimental Procedure

The MMP for Dulang B and CO2 was determined using Gas
Extraction Miscibility Analyser (GEMA).9,11 The Pore
Simulation 1400 C O2 99.49 90.05 9.49

Simulation 1800 Produced 104.34 98.99
gas
Simulation 1400 Produced 99.49 9 7 .4 5
gas
The solution gas of Dulang B contains quite significant
amounts of CO2 i.e. in the range of 40 - 60 mole%. Therefore,
it is of interest to investigate the oil vapourisation by this gas
since injecting the produced gas instead of pure CO2 could be
more cost effective.
Summary of Results
Vaporisation of Dulang B-21S reservoir fluid by CO2 and its
production was successfully accomplished in the laboratory
experiments at a temperature of 101.7 oC and pressure of 1800
psig. The laboratory tests show that significant vaporisation
had occurred whereby 15.3 % of the initial stock tank oil in
place of 105.19 cc was extracted after 0.231 standard cubic
meter of CO2 was injected. Even so, it is anticipated that for
the field-scale project, lesser recovery would be obtained as a
result of vapourisation since only a portion of the total pore
volume will be contacted by gas. However, field-scale
reservoir or compositional simulations are required to further
assess the technical impact of the vapourisation process.
The results also reveal that CO2 was able to extract several
components heavier than C7. Since the project could take
several years, there is a possibility of recovering more of such
extracted oil due to diffusion of the C7+ hydrocarbons to the
flowing gas stream.
Simulation predicts that much less vapourisation would be
obtained when injecting CO2 at the current reservoir pressure
of 1400 psig. Injecting produced gas instead of pure CO2
would result in less vapourisation. However, during blow-
down at the end of the project, significant oil contributions due
to vaporization may be obtained.
Displacement test
The main objective of the tests was to determine the minimum
miscibility pressure (MMP) of Dulang B recombined fluid-
CO2 system at the reservoir temperature of 215 oF. It was
reported that the initial reservoir pressure was approximately
1800 psig. The experimental MMP would therefore be an
important indicator whether or not the CO2 gas injection into
the field would create miscible, near miscible or immiscible
displacement process.
Although the displacement tests data obtained were not
indicative of the ultimate recovery to be achieved from a core
flood or on a reservoir scale, they were used to distinguish
5.13 Volume (PV) of the system was taken as the volume of
2.05
reservoir fluid that occupied the micro-slim tube at the
operating temperature and pressure. Due to a small
compressibility change of the reservoir fluid (in the order of
10-5 psig-1) within the pressure range involved (1700 to 3800
psig), the difference in the PV is also very small. The average
PV of 16.11 ml was therefore used in calculating the
displacement recovery.
The micro-slim tube was calibrated against displacement
tests on decane-CO2 at 38 oC as conducted by Johnson &
Pollin.12
Displacement test @ 215 oF
A series of displacement tests on Dulang B reservoir fluid
with CO2 were conducted at 215 oF and various pressures
from 1700 psig to 3800 psig. CO2 was injected at constant
rate of 0.25 ml/min to displace and/or extract the oil in the
column at the pressure of interest. The times at which the
ultra-violet detector (UVD) response changed abruptly,
indicating breakthrough, were noted. The volume of CO2
injected and the volume of sample displaced in the receiving
pump at the onset of breakthrough were also recorded. The
recovery was then calculated as the percentage of the oil
produced at CO2 breakthrough. It has been reported
elsewhere13 that the ultimate recovery as well as breakthrough
recovery result in the same interpretation for miscibility
pressure.
% recovery = Volume of oil produced x 100 %
Pore Volume
The experimental CO2 MMP was taken as the pressure at
which the two best straight lines representing the miscible and
immiscible breakthrough intersect. These are shown as dotted
lines in Figure 10. The MMP of the system was determined to
be 2875 psig.
Phase behaviour computer software called LABSIM,
which consists of several programs utilising Peng-Robinson
Equation-of-state (EOS), was used to simulate the multiple
contact processes. The EOS was calibrated by matching the
PVT data of the reservoir fluid. The simulated MMP was
found to be 3230 psig.
Published correlations were also used to estimate the MMP
for the system. As shown in Table 4, the experimental MMP
value falls within the range of predicted MMP by EOS and
published correlations.
6 ZAHIDAH MD. ZAIN, NOR IDAH KECHUT, GANESAN NADESON, NORAINI AHMAD, DR. DM ANWAR RAJA
Table 4: Comparison of MMP of Dulang B – CO2
O
at 215 F
Experimental MMP 2875
Simulated MMP (LABSIM) 3230
Cronquist 2978
MMP by published
correlations, psig Johnson & Pollin 2509
Glaso 3413
The displacement of Dulang B reservoir fluid with CO2 in the
micro-slim tube resulted in the MMP of 2875 psig which were
much higher than the reported initial reservoir pressure of
approx. 1800 psig, thus ruling out the possibility of enhancing
oil recovery of the field by miscible or even near-miscible
CO2 gas displacement process.
Conclusions
• CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressure for Dulang oil is
estimated to be 2875 psig at 215 OF which is about
1000 psig higher than the initial reservoir pressure.
The process in the field will therefore be immiscible.
• 15% of the initial stock tank oil in place was
extracted by CO2 at the initial reservoir pressure of
1800 psig. This potentially indicates significant
vapourisation of Dulang oil by CO2 .
• At the test conditions, CO2 was capable of extracting
components heavier than C7.
• Simulation predicted less vapourisation occured by
reinjecting the produced gas in the reservoir.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the management of
PETRONAS, PCSB and PRSS for their support and
encouragement on this project and also for permission to
publish this work. The efforts of technicians (Mohd Zaimin
Kordi, Sunmugaraja, Abd Hadi Ismail and Tajuddin Abdullah)
who contributed their expertise in conducting various
laboratory analyses are also appreciated. Special thanks are
due to Dr. Ashok Singhal of PRI, Canada and Dr. Phillip
Sigmund of BRTR Petroleum Consultant, Canada for their
advice and guidance in data analysis and interpretation.
SPE 72106
References
1. Emmanuel O.E., Chandramohan S. and Mohd Khalid
Embong.: “A Synergistic Approach to the Development of
the Dulang Field, Offshore Peninsular Malaysia,” SPE
25335 (1993)
2. Ahmad Hussain, Emmanual O. E. and Wayne R. H.:
“Reservoir Management of the Dulang Oil Field, Offshore
Peninsular Malaysia: The Heuristic Approach,” SPE 25012
(1992)
3. Menzie, D. E., and Nielsen, R. F.: “A study of the
Vaporisation of Crude Oil by Carbon Dioxide
Repressuring,” J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1963).
4. Holm, L. W., and Josendal, V. A.: “Mechanisms of
Displacement by Carbon Dioxide,” J. Pet. Tech. (Dec.
1974).
5. Zahidah Md. Zain, Noraini Ahmad, Muhammad Ekrami
Daud & DM Anwar Raja, "Interfacial Tension
Measurement of Oil/Gas-Water Systems Using State-of-
the-art VLE-IT Equipment" OSEA #96074 (1996)
6. Zain Z..M., Ahmad N., Raja D.A., Daud M.E.,Sigmund
P.M., “Interfacial Tension Measurements of Oil/Gas/Water
Systems Using State of The art VLE-IT Equipment,”
presented at Ingepet 96 International Seminar on
Improvements in Practices of Oil and Gas Exploitation,
Lima, Peru (1996)
7. Holm, L.W. and Josendal, V.A.,”Effect of Oil Composition
on Miscible-Type Displacement by Carbon Dioxide,” SPEJ
(1982)
8. PRSS: “Evaluation of CO2 Gas Injection for Major Oil
Producing Fields - Case Study: Dulang Field”, Progress
Update Report 1, Report No: PRSS-R07-98-03, December
1998.
9. PRSS: “Evaluation of CO2 Gas Injection for Major Oil
Producing Fields - Case Study: Dulang Field”, Progress
Update Report 2, Report No: PRSS-R07-98-04, April 1999.
10. PRSS: “Evaluation of CO2 Gas Injection for Major Oil
Producing Fields - Case Study: Dulang Field”, Final Report
, Report No: PRSS-R07-99-02, February 2000.
11. Nor Idah Kechut, Zahidah Md. Zain, Noraini Ahmad, DM
Anwar Raja DM Ibrahim, “New Experimental Approaches
in Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP) Determination,”
SPE 57286 (1999)
12. Johnson J.P, Pollin J.S; Measurement & Correlation of
CO2 Minimum Miscibility Pressure, SPE/DOE 9790,
Second Joint Synposium on EOR, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
13. Yellig W.F., Metcalfe R.S.; Determination and Prediction
of CO2 MMP, Journal of Petroleum Technology, January
1980, p870-71.
 EVALUATION OF CO2 GAS INJECTION FOR MAJOR OIL PRODUCTION FIELDS
SPE 72106 IN MALAYSIA—EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH CASE STUDY: DULANG FIELD 7

REMAINING RESOURCE = SCOPE FOR EOR (11.6)

64%
36%
Produced: 4.1

Reserves: 2.5 10% Recovery will ADD

some 1 billion barrels of
RECOVERABLE (6.6) potential crude oil

Original Oil In Place = 18.2 Bstb

Fig. 1: Domestic Resources Available for IOR/EOR from Producing Oil Fields as at 1/1/1999 (Billion of Barrels)

JERNEH
DAMAR
LAWIT SEPAT
BINTANG
NORING
INAS
KUDA BEDONG
BUJANG
Kota TUJOH TANGGA
Bahru
KAPAL MERANTI DULANG BARATTANGGA
SEMANGKOK
TIMOR
RESAK SEMANGKOK
BERANANG
Kuala KETUMBAR
Terengganu
130 km

Kerteh
LEGEND

DEVT./PROD. AREA
OIL FIELDS
GAS FIELDS Kuantan

Fig. 2: Location of Dulang Field

4500

4250

4000

3500

3210
SATURATION PRESSURE, PSIG

3000

2570
2500

2015
2000

12.36%
1525
1500

1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

CO2 ADDED, MOLE %

Fig. 3: Saturation Pressure vs. Volume of CO2 at 215 OF

8 ZAHIDAH MD. ZAIN, NOR IDAH KECHUT, GANESAN NADESON, NORAINI AHMAD, DR. DM ANWAR RAJA SPE 72106

5500
5000
4500
4000

PRESSURE (PSIA)
3500 S IN G L E P H A S E R E G IO N

3000
T W O P H A S E R E G IO N
% liquid volume
2500
100%
2000 Initial pressure
80%
1500 Current pressure
60%
1000
40%
500
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
10 30 50 70 90
MOL % CO2

Fig. 4: Pressure vs. Volume of CO2 at 215OF

2.50
S w e llin g f a c t o r = V o l. o f liq u id @ P ,T
m ix
S w e l lSiantgu rfaat ci ot on rv=o luVmo el. @
o f Pliq
b , u id @ P , T m ixtu r e
v ir
S a t u r a t io n vo l u m e @ P b , virgin c r u d e

2.00

S F = 1 . 5 @ P s a t = 3 2 1 0 p s ig
SWELLING FACTOR

S F = 1 . 0 9 @ P in itia l
1.50

S F = 1 .05 @ P current

1.00

0.50
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

PRESSURE, PSIG

Fig. 5: Swelling factor vs. Pressure at 215OF

 EVALUATION OF CO2 GAS INJECTION FOR MAJOR OIL PRODUCTION FIELDS
SPE 72106 IN MALAYSIA—EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH CASE STUDY: DULANG FIELD 9

1 2 3 4
remove
vapour some
vapour
vapour repeat
vapour process
V1 liquid
add CO2 phase add CO2 as in 3
liquid liquid liquid

V1 V2 > V1 V3 < V2 V4 < V3

Fig. 6: Schematic Laboratory Test for Vapourisation

150
Swelling ~
Vol. of liquid in system (cc)

10% O O IP Reduction in oil

140 volume due to
vapourisation ~
15% S T O O IP
130 Initial vol. @ S td.
C o n d . = 105.19 cc
Final vol. @ S td.
Cond.= 89.26 cc
120

110
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Cumulative CO2 injected (cc)

CO2 @ 1800 psig (EXP) CO2 @ 1800 psig (SIM) CO2 @ 1400 psig (SIM)

Fig. 7: Volume of Liquid vs. Cumulative CO2 Injected at 215 OF

35

30
Contact 1
25 Contact 2
Contact 7
Mole %

20
Contact 8
Contact 9
15
Contact 10
10 Contact 17
Contact 23
5

0
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7+

Components
Fig. 8: Compositional data of Hydrocarbon Gas at Standard Conditions
10 ZAHIDAH MD. ZAIN, NOR IDAH KECHUT, GANESAN NADESON, NORAINI AHMAD, DR. DM ANWAR RAJA SPE 72106

50
C5
C6
40
C7
C8
C9
30

Mole %
C10
C11
C7+ = 49.35 mole % C7+ = 89.66 mole % C12
20
C13
C7+ = 87.66 mole % C13
C15
10
C16
C17

0
1 -10 11 - 19 20

Contact Number

Fig. 9: Compositional data of Liquid Codensate at Standard Conditions

100
immiscible region miscible region

90
% RECOVERY

80

70

M M P ~ 2 8 7 5 P S IG
60
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
1750 2250 2750 3250 3750
PRESSURE (PSIG)

Fig. 10: Minimum Miscibility Pressure (MMP) between Dulang B and CO2 at 215 OF